Fred1245
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Fred1245
-
-
4 hours ago, Popisdead said:
comp is bad. always has been, always will be.
invariably it ends up hurting weaker armies in ways that are much more damaging than them just being under-powered. Those players are going in for a couple wins and mostly 5 fun games. Taking away the few things that will give them that chance is terrible. I know cause I played BoC and WE all 8th ed and every comp change made it harder for me to use tools to try for a 3-2 weekend.
People complain in tournaments. The more the WAAC player the more the complaining. Social media accelerates complaining even more. FB then amps this to 11.
The only thing that works is encouraging soft scores like painting (harshly punish grey plastic armies), and getting achievements. A tournament where a player with a very nicely painted army that wins 4-1 should always trump over a grey army that goes 5-0.
If the tournament let a grey army play 5 games and it wins all 5 it should ALWAYS win over 4-1 if you dare call your event 'competitive'.
The error here was in letting a grey army compete at all. That's what minimum paint standards are for. A barrier to entry that ensures at least some level of respect for the event.
Tournaments that have heavily weighted hobby scores are jokes. It's almost alway just an excuse for the TOs to give free wins to their friends via subjective paint judging (Cough*Michigan GT*Cough) or a (for sportsmanship scores) tool for WAAC players to punish opponents they lose against.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:
Literally every army can get a Monster someway somehow, how is that not using it correctly? Can you show me a army without one even given allies (like i said)?
To my knowledge every army has access to a Monster.
PS: I also explained, you don't always want a monster if its bad. But for those that think they must have them at least you can take them.What you're describing is called 'hamstringing'.
You either hamstring your army by not having a monsters or you hamstring your army by bringing a garbage monster.
Either way you end up worse off than armies that have good monsters.
-
2
-
-
I hate every realm rule GW have ever written and think the new missions are a significant step back in terms of design from the 2020 GHB missions. They tried to be 40k and failed rather utterly.
Personally, I would throw out the GHB 2021 entirely, minus point changes.
-
6 hours ago, Sapca said:
I believe DoK will be good enough in AoS3.
Maybe not for tabling opponent, but for objective play... I definitely see them doing even better than in AoS2.
1) Morathi / SQ are beasts that can be chucked into frontline and almost can't be dislodged from objectives. They could lock shooters to have no choice of targets negating them (remember, teleporting/retreat-charge...) for long enough. They are really unique in AoS.
2) SoS can pilein 6" which can go around dangerous Unleash Hell. SQ/Morathi doesn't care about Unleash either.
3) Medusas look underpriced and 2 should handle instances where opponent has 30-40 of something.
4) Teleport is a thing. We have Mirror Dance, Khailebron(2 generals!), ShadowStalkers
5) Khinerai are still nasty tech, drop and move on objective. With thinner armies... they should be more annoying even on smaller board.
6) Medusas have 2 unbinds. Morathi 2. We're looking at 5-7 unbinds. And you really can't hide from them (remember, teleports).
7) 3 Temples as far as I see it (apart from snakes) have potential, which is more than in past. HagNarr Avatar combo, Khailebron teleports, KeltNar retreat-charge/mwbounce/extra 95 point khinerai drop.
After almost any core build you imagine at 2k, you generally have ~150-250 points floating for something.
Drakespawn Knights (allies) are cheap, form long lines and can be interesting block option with their easy 2+ save. Could work wonders along with shooty snakes. (plan to test them, have 10 of them which is likely overkill as allies).
Shadow Warriors (allies) are still cheap and can reach those opponents shooters without being shot at first. 10 bodies strong and in many cases likely better than Khinerai now. Extremely hard to negate, especially worth considering with new points 120 vs 95 (I'm building 20 of them with DoK heads... cough).
Alopex from Idoneth preventing pilein could be good also (didn't really go deep into Idoneth
but this one stuck out) it moves 12 and has 18" range on net. That teleport hero + group of thralls? could also work (better) now, need to check that.
Will have to play and see
but I see us grabbing objectives from under noses / holding objectives with Morathi+SQ even vs directly stronger armies and generating victories that way.
1. Morathi is still by far the best unit in the army, but at Ap-1 she's not going to kill anything and with Kroak, Tzeentch, and Teclis alive and well her spellcasting is heavily going to be heavily neutered in most games.
She's still irreplaceable for what she does but only because she doesn't die and she gets hero actions+Roar.
2. SoS have a 6+ save and no battleshock protection for 115 points. Your opponent doesn't need to unleash hell them because A) they probably died turn 1 and B) they're only slightly better than most shooting units in melee anyway. If you manage to get a chaff unit of SoS close enough that they can just pile in to something that would want to unleash hell, that's a massive failure on your opponent's part. Also, preliminary games suggest that thanks to armor stacking, anything without decent rend or mortal wound output will be essentially toothless. Bad news considering no one was taking Aelves before the new edition.
3. Medusa's are still very middle of the pack Wizards and will likely not be around long in games against even a single competent shooting unit. They're a better choice than they've ever been but they're far from underpriced (unleash hell gimmick notwithstanding.)
4. Fair enough, we can steal objectives very easily, at the cost of being more fragile and less killy. This may well be a worthwhile trade in most games.
5. The problem with Khinerai is that with points going up they take up a much higher percentage of available list resources than they used to. In order to take Khinerai you'll absolutely be giving up something significant. Again, this might be worthwhile in order to play objectives even better, but you'll feel it more than you ever have.
6. Wasteful overkill against non-magical armies, completely paltry against magical armies. Unbuffed unbinds aren't going to stop anything that relies on their spells and having 7 denies against armies that DON'T rely on their spells means you'll have 5 more than you can use in most games. Nice against endless spells but that's where most of the value is.
7. Avatars of Khaine wouldn't exactly be a premiere unit if they just...worked and retreat and charge is dubious in an army with units as fragile as DoK. Especially considering just retreating is what we'll be doing most often with the army pivoting to an almost exclusive objective control bent. Khellebron is likely our only real competitive choice.
This is an interesting way of pointing out that every viable DoK build is completely locked in to the same minimum 1400pts(1655 if you want a Cauldron) and that once we've got the mandatory units, other factions unbuffed units lacking allegiance abilities are likely better than what we have available. Especially galling considering our anemic allies chart.
We can still win games off of perfect objective control but it's a crying shame that we've been reduced to the point where Morathi and Blood Stalkers kill off 500ish points of high priority threats while the rest of the army kites around playing keep away instead of actually killing anything.
-
5 hours ago, Ratboy genius said:
like the lumineth wave that came with a new battletome?
a single character is not really what comes to mind when I think of an update.Or the awesome daughters of khaine release of...3 endless spells? After 2 years.
-
8 hours ago, Sapca said:
I'd keep clear of that. It's so above everything else it's sure to get nerfed hard in my opinion.
Unless you don't care having 15 bowsnakes after nerf and money is not an issue for you. Then just go for it. More it gets abused, faster it will get fixed...
Even those builds aren't exactly lighting the competitive scene on fire after the new battletome. They're just OUR best option. Even leaning into them completely we still don't have anywhere near the raw ability of Lumineth, Seraphon, KO, or even Tzeentch thanks to pinks being insane again.
If they want to nerf that combo down to where witch aelves and Sisters of Slaughter are now...well I guess they'd just be figuring they sold as much DoK as they're going to.
-
22 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:
There is a lot more to the Blood Angels paint scheme, than red armour... Like you don't strength the argument by reducing it to an absurd simplification.
There really isn't though. Most players don't know or care what the actual iconography of ANY faction that isn't their own is. If they're relatively tuned into the Lore they MIGHT know SOME of the basic color schemes.
So in the vast majority of cases Red=Blood Angels is the only meaningful connection of paint scheme to lore a player is going to make.
Which in my opion makes the whole 'paint job determine rules' thing even dumber. The average player's grasp on the minutiae of the narrative is fairly tenuous, saying 'Hey, these guys have Advance and Charge instead of +1 to wound in combat' is much less likely to create confusion than running your red blood ravens as Blood Ravens and not saying anything about it. So running two canonically Red armies and not spelling out which set of rules you're using (even if the iconography is picture perfect) will be more confusing to the majority of people than just saying 'yeah, these red guys do what the green guys normally do.'
Lore is useful up until it creates inconvenience on the tabletop. At that point it should be discarded.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Sleboda said:
I was both thrilled and annoyed with that FAQ comment.
Thrilled because it was nice to see the "official" stance that this is a 3D model game where the toys on the table connect directly to the rules their visual appearances represent, and that matters. Proxies - boo!
Annoyed because they once again made it a permission thing. If you rightly claim that you want the look of the models to matter and ask your opponents to play by that recommended guidance, you have to take the risk of the opponents besmirching you to others.
Come on GW, take a firm stance, or at the very least give those players who agree with your official stance some stronger supporting language to use in defending their position as the correct one.
On the whole, though, I loved that entry.
Proxies, including using color schemes clearly tied to one set of rules as something other than those rules, are one of the Great Hobby Evils.
Personally I think one of the absolute most garbage things you can do is try to pigeonhole people into stupid ****** like 'your army must be hammers of sigmar because it's blue and gold!!!!'
The only possible motivation behind behind it is a Karen-esque powerplay to enforce your will on others to the detriment of definitely tournament play but also the hobby as a whole. Only the most self entitled, self involved, borderline sociopathic people on the planet could possibly care about something so stupid.
ESPECIALLY when you consider that in AoS, less than 10% of the playerbase even knows ANY subfaction color that isn't part of the box art. At least in 40k most people know the big name marine schemes, nobody who doesn't play stormcast knows anything but Hammer's of Sigmar.
Trying to tie rules to paint schemes is stupid and has always been stupid which is why every time it comes up it is soundly rejected. Even GW's events don't usually actually ENFORCE it, even if the rule is on the books.
You can also tell that they're full of ****** too because when you point out that under the same logic both ANY conversion and ANY non-standard posing should be banned, you get 'well wait a minute now!!!' Oh really? My army being blue totally breaks the game for you but you completely changing your model's silhouette is fine because...why exactly? That's a far more significant and hard to account for change than color scheme.
You want every army the correct scheme? Fine, put up or shut up. Build every model in your army to look EXACTLY like the box for your entire army. Make a mistake? Toss the model. Any attempt at repair won't exactly match how it's 'supposed' to look so throw it out.
-
10
-
4
-
-
On 7/1/2021 at 10:24 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
You would hope that armies that are not offensive enough to break through high saves should at least be defensive enough to bring high save units themselves and excel in the objective game that way.
Still, I also hope AoS does not become a game where things don't die from normal combat, but mostly just from mortals.
Melee DoK crying in a corner, lol.
-
On 7/1/2021 at 9:11 PM, LuminethMage said:
Like I said, it was one game, and the LRL I had (100% Vanari and Scinari) tend to rely on MW anyway. Plus I ran into a lot of 3+ save units on the other side. It's probably not every game. On the plus side, units might not always just get deleted outright. I do think MW will be important, but generally speaking I found the game very balanced, and it's also good to have some tanky units in the game. I had serious problems taking down his Radukar for example - which is good.
It might be an issue for lists like mine - because outside of MW, LRL often just do 0/-1 rend, 1 damage attacks. That's how they are build. I can see it being a bit like this against enemies like Stormcast, but then I think that's their thing, low models, hard to take down. (You can build different list, like with our mountain spirits, and those might get more popular over AoS 3).
It was pretty good to see that we had still both around half of our armies left start of BR 5, although we were constantly fighting, I prefer that to what happened often before - at start of T2 nothing much left if one side got the double, or fastest end of 3, basically everything was over.
I could see low MW output armies struggle against some opponents though. Concern about that isn't totally unverified in my view, but right now I'd look more on all the exciting new things we get, and see how it goes.
Sucks for armies that rely on large numbers of low rend attacks for damage and don't do much in the way of mortal wounds.
Things like Witch Aelves are basically worthless against 2+ or 3+ saves, especially when AT BEST they'll be 5+ themselves. So THEY still get deleted outright but they can't delete things themselves anymore.
-
39 minutes ago, Chikout said:
Yeah the Tauralon was a big disappointment. Such beautiful wings but such an ugly face.
Hate that model, glad it's not good.
-
They didn't include Morathi's rend fix so she's Rend -1 again.
-
1 hour ago, SentinelGuy said:
Yep. I feel like 40k has been going downhill since mid 5th edition and hasn't really recovered. I had high hopes for the Sisters of Battle release but then GW decided to slap heavy bolters into the hulls of existing tanks, reduced the base size of penitent engines and made the new flail superior to the old buzzsaws, just to make more £. Then they dropped a second Sisters codex not long after the first one. I got 2 games in with the old codex before this new one arrived.
it's a sad state of affairs when every rumour of a release by GW is quickly followed by a stomach churning fear that they'll kill off half your army just because they can.
To be fair, only like 12 people had a Sisters army at that time and of them maybe 3 ever bothered going through the heartache of assembling those ridiculous (and terrible on the tabletop at the time) metal penitent engines and the only things that really suffered in the new book were the new models and the exorcist/immolator. Even then, the immolator was bad before.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Warfiend said:
People are exaggerating greatly and making up a lot of nonsense. Maybe try playing the game instead of talking about it as if the sky is falling. This thread has devolved into a sad mess.
People said that at the start of AoS 2.0 when Kroak was doing 100 mortals per turn and Grots did 64 damage per swing, too.
How did that end again? Was it that everything turned out to be fine and there were no significant issues?
Oh wait, no. They FAQed it all away because it was stupid.
-
3
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Frowny said:
1) Taking cheap chaff to stop shooting units strength is a cost imposed on taking melee units and melee centered armies, which now might need an accompanying chaff unit. This is exactly the cost we are all worried about, now just codified by you into a direct point cost. It feels strange to say that to even the odds against 300 points of shooters, your 300 points of melee needs to take a further 80 points of chaff to take the unleash hell. It should be lopsidedly in favor of the melee unit or at least an even fight (300 pts vs 300 pts).
2) Taking shooting units to counter shooting units is a problematic solution, but it sounds like you agree that shooting is quite strong.
3) See #1. This is the same point. Dividing up your 300 point melee unit into 3x100 point units still means you lose 100 points on the charge, where before you lost zero, with minimal changes to the shooting unit I would consider this a buff to shooting.
4) Spending more points on better and more wizards to counter shooting units is exactly the same as #1. You are proposing a tax on armies that rely on melee.
5) This at least needs more explanation. Also losing a hundred points of a horde on the charge still seems to advantage the shooting unit, where before the horde would have lost nothing on the charge and would have much better odds of wiping the shooters out efficiently.
That being said, overall I think the new rules are cool and do indeed give a lot more interaction in opposing turns, and I'm not entirely opposed to unleash hell. I think unleash hell will be interesting, although think the opportunity cost may be a little low. You will use it nearly 100% of the time with the relevant units, since CP's are relatively plentiful and fight twice abilities (or shoot twice abilities) are amazing. I think it will not be an interesting decision, since when appropriate, it is so obviously the best choice that it isn't a decision.
I'm also super excited about redeploy since it also helps in melee vs melee matchups as you can keep a unit safe from a charge to guarantee a strike youreslf. Also gives reason to have flank attacks/ pincers, since then units can't as easily redeploy away.
I think the biggest fix will just be selective nerfing of a few shooting units points. balance is definitely doable to balance in the current ruleset. Mostly it is just things with very high output with either a good to hit or MW on 6's. Selective nerfs to Irondrakes, lumineth archers and DOK Stalkers would probably be fine as a place to start. I think my challenge is more that they got off with on-rate increases, rather than even bigger increases than other units given how much extra utility they got. The new missions also help them a lot.
The problem is that those nerfs don't consider the armies as a whole.
Irondrakes are the only Cities of Sigmar unit I've heard mention of being powerful for months and DoK are 100% reliant on their stalkers and Morathi to compete since the new book. Also, Bloodstalkers already got a far above rate increase(the only major shooting unit that did) at 18%.
An army like lumineth has enough variety of viable units that eating a significant nerf to their best ones is pretty survivable, armies like DoK and CoS don't necessarily have the same luxury.
-
2
-
-
@Andalf You put forward the idea of every army being much more cookie-cutter as a positive thing. Generally it is not considered as such.
-
16 hours ago, Andalf said:
It sounds a lot like Yuki just doesn’t like playing AoS? Because the steps he plainly spit probabilities for are the only things you really do... whether it’s casting a spell, or charging, or rolling for sides/first turn...
It sounds to me like you've kind of missed the point.
In order to avoid a unit of 30 sentinels nuking you on the charge you have to have take multiple risks, invest multiple units, enough points to take the geminids, a spell cast, and possibly several other abilities.
In order to nuke a charging unit with 30 Sentinels you need: 1 CP.
The problem is that there is a disproportionate effort vs reward difference in the shooting players favor.
-
10
-
-
11 minutes ago, Kodos der Henker said:
One thing here is, for most people playing AoS this is the first ever real Edtion change they go thru
and with GW changing for the sake of change they are not used to those kind of things that a new Edition is a new game were the hype comes from the fresh air a new game brings in a more boring settingDifference to 40k is, AoS 2 was the better game, so people were not fed up with the current installment of powercreep and broken rules like in 40k were people already started asking for a new Edition a year before it came because the game did not worked well any more
(40k going thru the cycle of new core rules that change the game, new Codex change the way the game is played, new "balance" just comes from the fact that with different core rules other units are broken and it takes time until people get them into the game, at the point were most factions have their new book and most people have new painted armies the game itself is in the game itself is bloated and broken and people start asking for a reset)For AoS there is no big need to change everything and the most controversial feature of the game is going to stay anyway.
So no hype for new rules because there was no need for them
We have not seen the cycle of the game being turned "unplayable" during an Edition and players looking forward to a new gameAnother point is that there are again Stormcast in the Core Box
does not look unusual but there are no real poster boys in AoS and unlike Space Marines were you have at least 10 factions that can use the models, there only 2 using them in AoS and not all players are looking forward to buy again an army of Stormcast after they have already 2 at home
While the Launch Box is aimed at Veterans, the content is made with the 40k community in mind were Marines were always part of the 2 player box (in Fantasy it was always different factions and only Goblins have been featured twice)A lot of this is subjective. I personally thought late second edition was pretty unplayable with how pigeonholed every army was into their shooting options.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Enoby said:
It does seem to me, and maybe this just my limited experience from my social media circles and this forum, that there seems to be more negativity and less hype around AoS3 (and AoS om general).
I couldn't pinpoint on where it started, though definitely before the new edition, but it feels like people are less excited about the new AoS edition compared to AoS 2. If I were to chalk it up to something, it's not that the models are disappointing but rather the rules. I'm not sure how it is for 40k so this could be totally off the mark, but it seems there's a lot of fretting about some AoS 3 rules and there was previously a lot of disappointment/confusion about some of the more recent books. 40k, on the other hand, has overpowered stuff coming out but most people seem to like their new books and rules (correct me if I'm wrong here though), whereas many people seem disappointed at apparent 'underpowered'/boring stuff coming out in recent AoS publications.
Again, this could very well just be a personal experience that isn't reflective of the community as a whole (and I hope it is just me), but there does seem to be less excitement about the current rules, even the good ones. That's added on to the complaining about Slaanesh's battletome and the lesser complaints about Soulblight, and the dislike of some of Lumineth's wind rules (I personally don't mind them but people did not seem happy about the wind spirit), it just seems like the hype wasn't quite there as there was a lot of gripes in the community about the game that AoS 3 hasn't (and probably couldn't) address.
It also may be that in AoS 2 everyone's army got something new and exciting (either the promise of a new battletome, summoning points, endless spells, scenery) whereas AoS 3 has come with a more mixed reaction (as we know, everyone (bar one) gets these new command abilities, but they're pretty cut and dry and difficult to get excited about on paper, even if they play really well). Personally, playing the AoS 3 rules they seem considerably better than AoS 2, but I'm less hyped because of the Slaanesh situation (they are better than initially thought, but it's difficult to get the hype back up once lost) and I have a feeling others may be in a similar situation (e.g. Fyreslayer players may benefit from new prayers, but that's overshadowed by battalion loss, and so the hype is less).
Hopefully this is just me, or maybe just this forum, but it does seem like there are more negative opinions around AoS 3 rules (not just the core book but the most recent battletomes and warscrolls - Kruelboyz maybe being the most recent example) than there were AoS 2, and I'm not sure if that would have had an affect on Dominion's sales.
One of the big differences for me has been Army Book Design.
I play DoK and Sisters of Battle in 40k. Both have gotten books very recently, both were absurdly strong before the new books, both were significantly reigned in by the new books.
The difference between them is still very starkly in Sister's favor though.
The absolute top end of what Sisters were capable of were nerfed(potentially overnerfed) but were given consolation buffs that left even the hardest hit units still meaningfully powerful(Retributors gaining ignores cover and having run and shoot with no penalty in Argent Shroud clawed back ground from the other nerfs). Several other mechanics and improvements were also added that never quite reached the ceiling they had previously, but offered interesting new ways to play the army that were still very effective. If it hadn't been for a few facepalm units/rules(-1 to wound against S3 attacks? Cool...no one cares) and the two books before it being absolutely busted, it would have been an absolutely solid book.
DoK was just a flat nerf. Everything plays exactly the same as it did post BR:Morathi, the numbers just got smaller. What gains were made(point drops on bloodwracks, mindrazor buff, Avatar buff, endless spells) didn't really mean anything compared to what was lost and certainly didn't help open up more competitive playstyles beyond 'Morathi+BloodStalkers'.
TLDR: 40k Codex design has been so much better than Sigmar's lately that even their missteps are way better.
-
1
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:
eBay the obvious answer but again, since SCE are NOT Space Marines the secondary market going to be weak as most SCE players who want her would have already gotten her.
So when I was considering two I was looking into kitbashing an Azyros or Venator…
I want two so that I can paint one and someone who doesn't suck at painting can paint the other one.
Display version vs Play version.
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Chikout said:
I'll just copy this over from the other thread
think there are several factors.
1- AoS has had a banging six months. I don't know about anyone else but I've already spent more this year than I usually do in whole year. People might not have any money left.
2- they made a lot. Rumours are that they made as many copies as Indomitus, which is kind of crazy as AoS is growing in popularity but is still much less popular than 40k
3- The Kruleboyz marketing. It's a subfaction which is not going to get its own battletome. Nobody knows how large the faction is going to be or even what a typical 2000 point army will look like.
4- The Kruleboyz models. This is a bit of a Marmite faction which is great for the health of the game but not great for a starter. The Hobgrotz in particular have been a bit divisive and they make up a third of the models in the game.
5- the Stormcast models. They have been well received but they aren't AoS's number one faction which again is good for the health of the game but not good if you want to seek a starter box.
6- people aren't ready for a new edition. We all spent a year not playing games. It might have been wise to wait a year.
7- controversial rules changes. Coherency and unleash hell have caused a stir and not in a good way.
8- Now that the launch day scramble has passed, there is really no rush. They made 33,000 coins. As long as those are still there I don't feel the box well sell out. I might have caved and bought it without that safety net. Ironically the bonus incentive might have made the game sell slower.
Edited 4 minutes ago by Chikout
That first point is interesting to me because it's from such a wildly different perspective than my own.
From my POV the last year of AoS has been one of the worst, even without Covid.
The DoT-KO-Lumineth-Seraphon codex block was the worst powercreep AoS has ever seen.
I haven't purchased anything AoS related in more than a year except Morgwaeth, which I immediately regretted when they butchered her points. I haven't even bothered to fully pirate the DoK battletome rather than just memorizing the rules from places you can get them for free.
I used to buy SCE and DoK models like they were part of my electrical bill but I hated the last DoK book and all of the boxset SCE except Yndrasta are terrible. They look exactly the same as every other stormcast foot soldier and it's SO BORING. My thought right now is that I'd rather buy Two Yndrastas off of ebay than spend the same money for 1 Yndrasta and the other stuff in the box.
-
2 hours ago, Christopher Rowe said:
[Note: I originally put this in the rules questions forum but decided it fits better here.]
Sorry in advance for the length and, probably, “basic-ness” of all this. Context, I only played 2.0 for a little while after the initial release (pre Malign Sorcery).
Okay, here we go.
What’s up with Endless Spells? There don’t seem to be any associated with my Seraphon faction on the Pitched Battles Profiles that have been floating around. Surely that doesn’t mean we don’t have access to them? There’s a sidebar in the rules about Battlepacks including notes about whether they can be used or not, but since some factions DO have Endless Spells listed in their points profiles, I’m confused.
Another thing about Endless Spells. I tracked down an unopened copy of the original Malign Sorcery boxed set so I’ll have all that first batch. Are there any others I need to get hold of? I gather that those faction-specific ones are, well, faction-specific. I have one of those tornado deals but I’ve read that’s not going to be part of the game anymore.
Priests! I love my Skink priest models, but chanting prayers is completely new to me, and none of my current warscrolls (from the most recent Seraphon Battletome and the Age of Sigmar app) have anything about them. Is there a book I missed somewhere, like the Malign Sorcery update, which includes information about them? Is that information, perhaps, in the four Broken Realms hardcovers that have been released?
Speaking of those four books, is there any important rules content them at all? I do plan to get them for lore and art at the least, but I have some models and battle mats taking up my hobby budget over the next month or two.
Invocations. These seem to be the the Priestly version of Endless Spells, at least if I’m reading the con/subtext right in the rules, even to the point of there being models for them. I can’t find any model for them on the webstore or lists of the Invocations themselves and who can take them and how.
And okay, this is a big one. I’m struggling to understand all the rules associated with 27.0 Allegiance Abilities and 27. 3 Enhancements.
27.2 Battle Traits and 27.2.1 Subfactions. Okay, I think I got this. These are just the Battle Traits on p. 55 of our battletome under Ways of the Seraphon, and then, depending on the subsection, Coalesced or Starborne.
27.3 Enhancements. Each set of allegiance abilities (which I’m used to being Battle Traits, Command Traits, Artefacts of Power, and Spell Lores) are given to specific units. I got that. However! There are also now Prayer Scriptures, Mount Traits, Triumphs, and Unique Enhancements. Those are new to me (except may triumphs, but I’ll get to that).
27.3.5 Prayer Scriptures. See above, where do I find these?
27.3.6 Triumphs. I think I remember these from fighting Pitched Battles. If I start with fewer points than my opponent there’s a list of stuff I can do, usually once per battle if memory serves.
23.3.7 Unique Enhancements. As with Prayer Scriptures, I’m mystified.
Now! Helpfully, there are Universal versions of Enhancements that clue me in a bit (though there are no Universal Endless Spells or Invocations that I’ve seen). But it seems like there should be some Seraphon specific (and indeed, all-factions specific) Prayer Scriptures, Mount Traits, and Unique Enhancements.
Oh, and speaking of Mount Traits, those actually don’t receive any sub-rule, explanation, or universal set. So what’s up with those? Will it mean that our Carnosaurs will have to pick between Blood Frenzy and Pinned Down, do you think?
Okay, looking back at all of this, it makes me feel like there’s a book I haven’t read, and I”m hoping y’all will be able to point me to it. It may, in fact, be the new Core Rulebook and I’m not alone in my mystification, but it seems unlikely that, for example, that book will include Prayer Scriptures for every faction and Mount Traits for every mount in the game. Answering this question probably answers all of them!
Sorry this was the length of the Bible.
Skink priest's 'on a 3+ do x' ability is technically a prayer, it just isn't called that so they didn't have to give you a prayer lore. With the core rules FAQ it'll likely be made officially a prayer and the skink priest will gain acces to generic prayers.
You feel like you're missing stuff because the prayer rules are based on DoK, BoK, Fyreslayers, etc that already had prayers that worked in roughly the same way, but seraphon didn't really.
Any endless spell that is not bound to a faction can be taken by any faction unless stated otherwise.
Invocations on the other hand are all faction bound and as of yet, Seraphin have none. The factions that have them are well aware that they do.
If certain enhancement types don't make sense to you after reading your Battletome, you probably don't have access to them. There are no generic mount traits, only artefacts, prayers, spells, scriptures, and Tiumphs. Triumphs are an old balancing tool for armies that have lower points than their opponents that have been baked into enhancement.
There are generic prayer scriptures(3) in the core rules, the rest will be in your battletome or on the priests warscroll. The skink priests ability will likely be FAQed into a scripture.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, InSaint said:
You don't need to use a Prayer slot to summon the Heart of Fury.
It is explicitly written in our battletome FAQ designer's note that the Invocation of Khaine is not a Prayer. They might override it in AOS 3 battletome FAQ though.
It's in the core rules that priests get 1 prayer and 1 invocation now.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
GW has never yet been able to resist power creep across the course of an edition - in fits and starts of course, it doesn't mean every single release is better than what came before, but the overall trend has always been pretty clear, at least in the last decade or so after the release schedules became predictable. Anything is possible, but I definitely wouldn't bank on them finally breaking the habit now.
There are all sorts of complex reasons that power creep happens - basically every natural pressure on game design leads that way. To resist it, you need a very disciplined and organized design plan for your game. And even the most enthusiastic GW supporters would have trouble claiming that GW's design has ever been either disciplined or organized. GW products have many strengths, but those are not among them.
It's not that I don't think the powercurve will be inconsistent, I do, wildly so. I just think based on the most recent three books and a lot of the frankly baffling point changes that GW intends for the edition to creep downwards rather than upwards.
It's hard to make a book equal to what came before it, it's not at all hard to make it worse.
I know conventional logic suggests that GW will want every book to be better than the last to sell models (or because they just can't contain themselves) but they had chances for that with Slaanesh, Soulblight, and the Broken Realms books and all they managed to do was sell a lot of Allopexes and make a bunch of DoK players glad they already had Morathi and unbuilt snakes.
-
1
-
but this one stuck out) it moves 12 and has 18" range on net. That teleport hero + group of thralls? could also work (better) now, need to check that.
but I see us grabbing objectives from under noses / holding objectives with Morathi+SQ even vs directly stronger armies and generating victories that way.
AoS 3 - Daughters of Khaine Discussion
in Daughters of Khaine
Posted
Priests have less value because they have half the prayers they used to and invocations can be unbound.
Again, it's not a great sign that the DoK discussion is mostly revolving around how much better idoneth and CoS units are then ours.