Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Swampmist

  1. We actually have seen the Moulder allegiance ability, or atleast one of them: At the start of the first battle round, before determining which player has the first turn, For each Master Moulder in your army, choose a Clans Moulder Fighting Beast (same beast can;t be chosen more than once). Those beasts gain d3 wounds (roll seperate for each one) and can reroll failed hit rolls of 1 with melee weapons.
  2. Its very off topic so I'm gonna not continue with the WMH discussion, but I will say that the more recent changes to the game and the scenario packet (Which I consider as much a part of the core game as the matched play rules in GHB are to AOS) have made scenario and terrain (2d as it may be) much more impactful. Back on topic to GHB... Really, I would just like to see more mini-battletomes in it to tide armies without coming releases over.
  3. So, WMH ABSOLUTELY has standardized objectives. There are 3 ways to win in WMH: score 5 more control points than the opponent, have more control points than the opponent on turn 7(when the game ends,) or kill the enemy general (called a Warcaster or Warlock).
  4. I would love to see this topic started otherwise. I play WMH as my primary game so would love to be able to discuss this.
  5. You would absolutely enjoy Warmachine and Hordes then.
  6. I believe the suggestion was to make them free but remove the artifact, command point and heavily reduce the number and effect of the special rules.
  7. I mean... itd totally invalidate grand alliances as a concept probably, but it'd be funny. Better imo would be more things like that one KO battallion that brings winged stormbois and makes them KO.
  8. Perfectly reasonable! If this is the case, I'd like to again stress expansion to narrative and open play, as they are likely what is bringing GW value. Has anyone here been to a major GT run by GW? All I've heard about is NOVA, which I know had GW press coverage but they weren't part of the actual event organization.
  9. Fair enough, but my argument would be that they cannot have their cake and eat it too. They are still a company; there's no reason they cannot work together on this, to ensure the tournaments that they and their attendees spend a lot of money on have a ruleset conducive to that environment.
  10. This is a great point, and why I really stress that open and narrative play stick around and expand. They are the kind of game GW is good at making. However, if GW wants to run a global tournament series (correct me if I’m wrong ofc, I thought the grand tournament series was a GW event but it could be seperate) then they need an alternate ruleset focused on tournament play and balance.
  11. Just gonna pop in here as an active Warmachine and hordes player and politely disagree with the discussion :P. Game is incredibly fun, with both scenario and assassination as viable win conditions, and basically every army is competitive. I'm currently getting into AoS as a side game, and its incredibly easy to see the massive divide between the haves and have-nots in comparison. As for GHB, matched play competitiveness ect... if matched play exists, it should focus on being the best comp. ruleset it can be. The excitingness of the double turn is fantastic for narrative and open play but really isn't conducive to a game that people are going to spend hundreds of dollars travelling to play in prize-money-having tournaments for. GW should absolutely keep open and narrative play around, and expand them so that they can become the defacto Beer-and-Pretzels at the game club experience. These rulesets are a big part of what allows GW to keep their games afloat vs Warmachine, Xwing, ect and should be cherished as such. But if they want to run a tournament series as big as the GT, they need to focus Matched Play (or a 4th, very specifically tourney-minded ruleset) in on balancing the game and armies to a standard that the current rules do not. Just my 2c though.
  12. As a primarily WM\H player who is looking to get into AOS as a side game, I'm probably not the target audience for this thread. However, I also think I have a fairly unique perspective as such, and I think it's worth voicing, so here we go: 1.) My first act would be to bin the concept of non-campaign rules being in a physical release. New Battletomes for things like lore and art for each release will stick around, but rules will be moving to a digital format that is easier and cheaper to update and FAQ. This format will have a free to access central location in the current rules app, which will update to include an errata page. Azyr will change business model to be a one-time payment per army, and will get additional features like open war cards. One of the major benefits to this system is that it gives a lot more time for internal playtesting; there isn't the ~month of lead up required for print. It also drums up hype early, and makes sure that people who want in will be prepared to go in. 2.) Make sure that every army that is planned to be kept up-to-date is given a battletome, or atleast a semblance of one, which will of course include creating more combined factions (i.e. a combined skaven battletome.) Along with this, update the Grand Alliances for open and narrative play. Matched play for these massive groupings will be given very extensive playtesting due to the number of possible combinations and synergies, and as such will likely come out later on in the 5 year period. 3.) As for playtesting, this is probably the most radical change: Implement a system of Open Beta Testing for new models and rules. For a period of 2-3 weeks each month the releases for ~3-4 months in the future, as well as any legacy changes and general rules errata that are coming out at the same time, these rules will be available in beta form to be playtested on and reported on by community members. This would require a forum for battle reports and discussion and a specially designed form for taking feedback. To facilitate this I would look to bring specific well-known faces in the community, both from within the company and without, in to run the process. This would also include attempting to hire top players, and having them work on internal playtesting. The goal of this is to have each release be impactful on the tournament meta while also being fun to play for the casual player, and getting input from the community before finalizing the rules is a great way to do this. Also, yes it is shamelessly ripping off Privateer Press and I'm not sorry for it. 4.) Create a new system further than matched play, which is a form of tournament packet. Doing this would include trimming the scenario count down to 6 or 8, adding new scoring options and scenario\objective types (e.x objectives only scored by Flying or Warmachines, objective "Zones" instead of just points of interest, ect). Also, take a hint from places like ITC and have secondary objectives be a major part of scoring and army building. This would hopefully diversify army building while reducing the amount of work TOs need to do and increasing the complexity for the players who want that kind of tournament crunch. This change would also allow matched play to more heavily edit core game rules, like removing the rolling for first turn every turn (which I would absolutely do for this tournament packet.) 5.) Have a large narrative event with accompanying 2-3 book set every year, focusing on different areas and battles in the mortal realms with lots of fun scenarios, battalions, ect. Each of these would have an accompanying narrative league and tournament series, which together would ultimately determine the final results of the event. The narrative league sections would include a painting competition as a large part of the points scored, and both halves would have bonus points awarded for good sportsmanship. Those would be my 5 major goals, and hopefully they sound interesting enough to get yall thinking.
  13. This is not necessarily true; there are atleast 2 scenarios where Nagash being a Wizard Hero means he out-scores almost every unit.
  14. Nope, as the FAQ has defined, when something adds or subtracts from the roll it happens before you check for abilities that trigger off of a certain die roll.
  15. Actually, the Plague Monks can get a banner for -1 rend on rolls of a 6, which can help a lot if you give them +1 to wound rolls from a plague priest on foot, reroll failed wounds from a Plague Furnace, and have ways of giving them extra attacks (such as a verminlord corruptor.)
  16. I got the app a bit after the book came out iirc, so not sure why that would be the case...
  17. then, why haven't they updated the app? because the warscroll apps still say Plaguebearer hero. EDIT:...Huh. Dang, guess I'm picking up the grand alliance book then!
  18. No, they don't actually. They get the buff from nurgle Plaguebearer heroes, AKA Heralds and Epidemius.
  19. If you don't mind some ratmen mortals, clan pestilens is always a good way to go.
  20. I would also like to know how people have taken the wording on the Contagion Banner: Once per game or do you simply have to remember it? I personally don't like it very much, especially compared to the bell, but it would be nice to know.
  21. Mostly I ask because some people might find issue since the new censer priests have the books and he doesn't. I'll ask before I play him, but using him as a censer priest\Skrolk (if I can't get a skrolk model) would be cool.
  22. Yup, that was my plan as well. Don't really want a screaming bell (mostly because i have no idea how to create the exodia build; if anybody knows I would love to hear your ideas!) Though, I did just get a bunch of models second-hand, one of which is a Warp-stone staff priest (which is awesome!) and the other is an old metal rat covered in skulls and wielding a swirly plague censer (I think?) Anyone know what he is\if i could run him as a censer priest, or is he just gonna be a cool looking censer bearer? EDIT: Picture of the model;
  23. Just noticed that, yeah. I was thinking of picking one up, but someone else got to it first sadly. Well, the clawpack ain't bad either, and doesn't require a Verminlord, so it's fine.
  24. The main thing that makes the Pestilens Verminlord not worthless imho is thr command trait. +1 attack with all weapons on a horde of 20+ Plague monks in the clawpack, along with one of the plague furnace buffs? Pure gravy. Espetially when taling staff+Dagger (+2 attacks per model instead of just one) with rerolls to spare. If you are running a pure pestilens army, I honestly think just throwing a sea of plaguerats at them is the way to go.
  25. No, I meant the Virulent Horde. Where do I find it? Skrolk is cool though, literally a better Plague Priest with censer, though probably more exspensive.
  • Create New...