123lac
-
Posts
332 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by 123lac
-
-
20 hours ago, Aeryenn said:
Really poor move with redesigning SCE in my opinion. Those sculpts clearly replace Liberators and Paladins. This lady angel also seems to replace celestant prime. Well, maybe they will keep both products but the new one seem so similar there's no really a room for both. We are talking here about sculpts that are 5 years old. Not an old, 15 year old army that seems outdated.
I really hope they're hiding a lot more for fixing double turn than the one that goes second gets an extra command point. If I am to play a double turn with Kharadron Overlords and shoot my opponent to oblivion or pass and go second for an extra command point guess which I'm going to choose...
Agreed. 5 year old stormcast sculpts did not need a redesign, especially when so many factions still have ancient sculpts.
AoS is setting a precedent for continuous SCE updates while other factions languish with neglect.
-
3
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, Indecisive said:
I'm not so fond of how they are kinda redoing Warrior Chamber rather than something new. Liberators and Paladins are getting replaced it feels, niche-wise. There is also a rumour engine that could be a Judicator replacement.
Really would've preferred Seraphon or Skaven getting an overhaul rather than Stormcast models from 6 years. Well, effectively an overhaul.A big refresh for Seraphon would have been ideal to tie in with the Kragnos book.
The new Kroak model looks amazing, but the saurus warriors and knights look like something from the flinstones.
-
2
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Vaporlocke said:
There are a lot of factions that need updating more than SCE, but I guess the real lesson is always play the posterboys if you want nice things from GW.
Agreed.
-
1
-
-
Just now, CommissarRotke said:
you do know this is the first new stuff SCE got in 3 years right? idk about you but i saw a whole bunch of nice things revealed in these past 3 years that had zero to do with SCE
SCE do not need updated models when they have the largest range and one of the newest ranges in general.
3 years is not a long period of time for an army to go without new models.
Also, they got a new hero only a few weeks ago so IDK what you mean by 3 years.
SCE are very much the AoS version of marines. Every starter box includes them, they get the most new models, the most frequent model refreshes and overall the most battle tomes of any army.
-
8
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, RamsesIII said:
Not to talk about this all the time, but I just don't see the benefit of making BoC Destruction beyond "I want this army to be something else".
You take away chaos, you take away their entire lore, fully rework their culture, ignore their philosophy, undo their premise, everything but the aesthetic (and not all of it is saved). I'm cool with some beastmen becoming part of Destruction, maybe even developing into their own army, but taking BoC out of chaos? Just make a new army, feral kurnothi, whatever species, Kragnos comes from, something different, whatever. Don't take away the army with the spot that no other chaos army can fill.
Thank you. Well said. I strongly disagree with making BoC destruction. Would take away a huge part of what makes them unique.
-
12
-
-
8 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:
counterpoint: Beasts of Chaos should've been Destruction from the start, most of them don't worship one singular chaos god (if they even worship the big 4) and so many aspects line up with GA Destruction rather than Chaos.
Yeah but fundamentally beasts of chaos are the wild version of chaos. The pure version in a sense.
Beasts of chaos just need some proper love from gw.
-
12
-
-
I heard a rumour that the AoS 3.0 rumour is BS...
-
1
-
4
-
-
Gravelords release with plastic blood knights and hopefully updated skeleton and zombie kits. What else needs updating from that range? The wight king on foot?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Render said:
Here are a few other ideas for conversion options:
- Ogroid thaumaturge
- Ogroid myrmidon
- Bullgors
- Daemon prince
- Stormfiends
- Helbrute (if you're ok with it looking more tech-y) - I'm not familiar with this model's size, but I think it's similar
Here are a few pics of some converted khorgi's that I am mostly finished with. First is obviously the base model, second is a Bullgor that was chopped apart and reposed, third is based off of Ogroid thaumaturge (with Daemon prince arms - the thaumaturge arms are way smaller than the actual khorgorath's). The latter two definitely took a while, but that was mostly self-inflicted!
Bloody brilliant!
-
3 hours ago, Popisdead said:
<puts on old salty grumblers hat> imagine CoS getting some models back like that eagle chariot thingy and rules added to Tempest Eye
Ya but if they get new models for CoS then at least you'll know that the faction has a genuine future.
As it stands it's just a bunch of old models thrown into a soup book.
Lore-wise I love CoS but model-wise it's just old and busted sculpts at this point.
-
2 hours ago, Marius au said:
I was surprised there were 5 armies covered in the book.
Really excited to see where this goes, hopefully some more new models other than those mentioned/speculated (not expecting but hopeful).
Imagine cities of sigmar getting new models...!
-
4 hours ago, novakai said:
just use psychic awakening as a bench mark of how much model to expect which was like a minimum of 1 to 2 per book
A couple of new heroes per book, yeah.
-
You gotta do conversions I guess and it looks like a pretty great kit for doing conversions.
Tbh I think the only thing that's unsustainable about the kit is the price.
-
13 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
To summarize: GW, please stop f-ing up army books by making them trash-tier or god tier. Playtest more, listen to the testers and make every army simple middle-tier. Thx.
Also, stop f-ing up the prices, really, just stop.
We should write an open letter as the TGA Community, this might have an effect eventually
Pretty much.
In terms of balance, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to be capable of having a meta where the lowest armies sit at 45% win rate and the top tier armies sit at 55% win rate.
I mean compare any of the top tier factions to Beasts of Chaos. It's just too unfair to those who are invested in the bottom tier factions.
-
17 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:
I think this warcom article is GW embracing the meta seasons approach. Neither player nor interviewer ever discuss the fact that there is such a meta as a bad thing or that GW will try to address it. They limit themselves to discussing what are current strong options. You want a current strong option? Here we give you the menu and how to build them. But then, don’t get too attached, because things will change again.
It's sad if you're right, given how much play testing appears to have gone into 40k 9th edition.
Give the illusion of trying to balance your game, only to deliberately engineer imbalance to sell the latest hotness.
Kind of nefarious.
-
2 hours ago, hobgoblinclub said:
There's some pretty thin defenses of GW here.
Yes, it's a small sample size. But it's the same picture with a larger sample size and has been for years. In December 2019, for example, when we had a full month of tournaments before coronavirus began to creep in, there was around a 30% difference in win rate between the top and bottom armies, even discounting those that barely played (Tzeentch 72.7% wins; Khorne 42.4%, and those aren't isolated cases).
Also, the 'video games isn't a fair comparison' argument is straw-clutching. It's not being made because of the intricacies of game design. It's being made because it's a rank order of competitors. It could just as well be a comparison of snail racing, or thumb wrestling, or the annual Sit Down on a Chair Quickest championships. 'Um...actually...AoS doesn't even involve...' is missing the point completely.
Ultimately, we have a massively skewed meta and, up to now, it's been a deliberate function of GW's game design. It's no accident that Tzeentch smashed 2017, Daughters and Legions smashed 2018, etc. The Design Studio aren't doing this by accident. Ben Johnson is one of the best players out there. He can see what a book is going to do on release. It's no coincidence that the army/armies with a mysterious advantage in the current meta is always the newest one(s). It's a deliberate move to sell new stuff. And I think it's probably fair enough.
The world of online FAQs allows them to do it.
In years gone by, if you put out filth, it was filth for years, until that book got replaced. Now, they can FAQ it. When they announced the FAQ process, we rejoiced. It would allow them to reign in outliers and keep the game in some sort of balance. Fantastic! Sadly that has not been the case. Firstly, GW have been far too heavy handed with their FAQing. Rather than tweaks, we get almost complete rewrites of books, invalidating our lovely hardbacks. Secondly, it allows for ridiculous sales-inducing rules at launch, because they know they can nerf them a few months later.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's just GW using a new tool (the internet) to boost sales. They can control the meta in real time. Again, it's totally fair enough. It just means, for me, it's the illusion of a competitive game. Much as I love AoS, and I love AoS tournamenting, there's a massive degree of expensive meta chasing if you want to compete. That said, if you don't want to go to a tournament to win or you're a club / home gamer, it's a great game and there's a load of armies around that 'fat middle'.
Last thing, I said earlier that this had been the case 'up to now'. Maybe an article like this, highlighting win ratios, is a sign of a change in the air. Maybe we'll going to get more transparency in future. Maybe GW are actually going to shoot for a balanced meta in future (and if they do, I'll be racing back tournament play). Or maybe they're just desperately trying to keep the competitive players interested while the tourney scene is on hold for Covid. We shall see...
You legend. Summed up everything I wanted to say on the topic and more.
Thank you.
-
1
-
-
If AoS were a video game, no one would play it given the current imbalance. Can you imagine dota/league/sc2 having the following 'meta':
This is just embarrassing on behalf of GW's rules writers.
-
14
-
1
-
1
-
-
I just roll my eyes every time I read someone say something along the lines of "but golf is so much more expensive!".
Yes, collecting antique Ferraris is also an expensive hobby, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether Warhammer is overpriced.
-
2
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Aelfric said:
I am a self-employed gardener with a net yearly income of £15,000 a year. I did not say I place little value on money, I said my value of money is different. For example, I tend not to spend £5 on a cup of coffee when out as I do not see that as good value, but if I have had to drive a long way and it is the middle of the night, then the coffee becomes worth the value of the £5. If there is any surplus money, once basic necessities and family are cared for, then any surplus is there to enrich one's life. If I feel my life will be enriched by having a Megagargant and I have the money available, then the price is worth the value. If the money isn't available, then the option to buy isn't there anyway. I'm not buying it as an investment, I'm buying because I want one to build and paint and play with on the table and get enjoyment from. There are plenty of things I would like that are too expensive, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the time required to make the money to afford them.
@123lacThe higher GW's prices go, the fewer models I will be able to purchase until there comes a point when I can no longer buy any of them. When I decide to start a new army, I am already aware that this will probably require several hundred pounds to purchase and will therefore take a year or two to complete. I can't really say what my priced out point for a Megagargant would be, though I'm sure there is one and it's probably not far away. It's probably fairer to say that I would find it unaffordable anyway before that point was reached.
Well my friend, I would like to see GW charge less for the gargants so that you can buy one and enjoy it without having to save up for too long or go without too many of those coffees
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, LuminethMage said:
And all personal entertainment goods aren't on any priority list of important things anyway. Whatever the costs. You do not need a Gargant. So to say that either you have to have "infinite money" or be a sucker if you personally think it's worth buying it, is way too simplistic. You have no idea what people here do besides the hobby - you can easily say "I know the value of money because I don't waste it on a Gargant" while dinning out every night for $300, or just get your over-priced coffee every day at a chain or whatever. Who knows.
People have been knowing that the Gargants are coming out since half a year. If a Gargant is something you really want, you can save on other non-essential costs in most cases to get one. And if not, then likely you didn't really want to get one, or you can go with one of the alternatives posted in this thread.
Your question about being priced out doesn't make much sense - because it's arbitrary even within the same hobby. I wouldn't have bought a Gargant for $1, because I'm not interested in them. So I'm on the responsible side in your book. But then, I almost 100% would have bought Teclis even if the model was priced higher than a Gargant. So I'm a GW fanboy (or have unlimited resources) right? But, I haven't bought any AoS products before the Lumineth - so probably you have "wasted" much more money in the last several years on the hobby than myself. And it's not like during that period no-one thought the models are too expensive either.
It sucks that prices are getting higher, and that some people can't buy a toy they want. And, not buying something you think is not worth it for you is a good way of showing that to GW. But telling people they are dumb or suckers because they don't agree with what you personally think is a fair price for a toy is nonsensical.
No, there must be a point where something is either fair value or overpriced. It might not be a specific point down to the exact dollar, but it's there nonetheless, because fundamentally 99.9% of us do not have infinite money.
Your argument that you wouldn't pick up a gargant for $1 is irrelevant. Obviously I am considering fair value from the perspective of a hobbyist who wants one.
What would your price ceiling have been for Teclis?
-
1 minute ago, Envyus said:
I feel like Mega Gargant Prices are still absurd.
One of them is about the same size as the glottkin, but for some reason they are double the price. There is also no need for them to be more expensive than Archaon or Teclis the old most expensive models.
So many people in the discord I was a part of were really excited for the Mega Gargants, but backed out once they saw the price. I think had they been cheaper, maybe around the price of a Greater Daemon, Way more people would buy them. But people are getting scared away by the prices.
Yeah, I could get a Bloodthirster for $170 or a Mega ripoff for $320. The disparity is absurd.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Aelfric said:
You classify it as being in a) because you have made the decision that the price for a Megagargant is not fair and therefore anybody who disagrees with your decision does not know the value of money. But money is simply a means of purchasing things and therefore the value of money per se is subjective. Your value of money is yours, nobody elses. If I have a different outlook on the monetary value of a Megagargant, it simply means that I see the value of money differently from you - it does not mean I do not understand the value of money.
You say you could spend $320 on a Megagargant or make that $320 go much further. I say I want a Megagargant can I afford to buy one. It's a matter of perspective.
Yes money is a means of purchasing things, but some things are more important than other things and one has to prioritise spending when one does not have infinite money.
I'd like to hear what your priced out point would be, by the way. How expensive would the mega gargant have to be before you firmly said no to buying it?
-
7 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
Shows you how much they care about the consumers- it‘s not like GW just had the best year ever despite COVID 🤷🏼♂️
Global pandemic = absolute gold rush for GW.
-
4
-
-
6 hours ago, Aelfric said:
Or c) Have finite surplus money and place their own value upon it.
Sorry, but this falls into a) as it involves wasting a finite resource.
Curious to know what the 'priced out' point is for some of the more die hard fanboys. Is it $1000 for one kit? $2000? $5000? There has to be a point, unless you're a billionaire.
AoS 2 - Blades of Khorne Discussion
in Chaos
Posted
Been out of the loop for quite some time, but can blades of khorne make use of the slaves to darkness units without any penalties or having to ally them in?
The new warriors and chosen look amazing.