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

Scurvydog

Members
  • Content Count

    412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Scurvydog

  1. It is just siege rules for all. There will be nothing or OBR for regular matched play. Every time people ask about anyone but chaos getting rules, there is the usual marketing response with "everyone gets new siege allegiance rules!". That does not bode well, I doubt siege rules will be part of many people regular play.
  2. This is not true though as the rage is only in effect in the combat phase: "At the start of the combat phase, each friendly IVORY HOST unit that is within 6" of a friendly IVORY HOST model that currently has any wounds allocated to it becomes subject to rage until the end of that phase." Not saying they are good, but we at least need the facts in order to suggest fixes I agree the +1 hit is not all that useful, making that +1 to wound would be cool though. It could also be remove rend from petrifex cmd, but instead give ivory +1 rend and -1 save during rage to "even it out" while still giving you the option to negate the save penalty. I would just like it to not be influenced by having taken wounds, as you check in the start of the phase, so essentially a non wounded unit charging in alone will not be using the allegiance abilities at all right now. I also find it a shame nothing influences battleline options in the book, like other books such as KO or Ogors, where either a specific general or subfaction changes battleline options. Ivory host would if nothing else create some different lists if it could make stalkers, immortis and/or morghasts battleline.
  3. Yes the focus is indeed more on characters than factions, but these characters are almost the factions themselves and embody that. It is a hard balance, even warhammer fantasy was very similar, most major events for high elves had Teclis or Tyrion involved, Dark elfs always had Malektih and Morathi, the empire had a few characters such as Karl Franz, Boris Todbringer and Volkmar. We just traded 2-3 faces of a faction to 1 god/demigod being the face of a faction now. I can see that warhammer fantasy had some differences, as these characters were more grounded in the world, where many characters interact closely with the world, their troops and other characters, while AoS seems a bit more like the chess game of the gods and then everything else. I don't think that needs to be all bad, but maybe some focus should be put on the more grounded characters, because there are many of them still and new ones being created, just not much is being done with them, although death is a tiny bit of the exception as their new major characters have already done some major splashes, Olynder taking on the celestant prime and then freeing Katakros shows how she is not a pushover, and Katakros seems to be written into a quite competetent player in the realms. Actually this is why I quite enjoy the death factions, I think Nagash and his mortarchs is some of the more well written elements in AoS, with some interesting plot elements being both presented and hinted at. Like the Soulblight mortarchs having questionable motives, Nagash forcing Olynder into a mockery of a marriage with the Craven king as punishment for both and much more, so many fun and interesting things to explore. I do not think the other factions enjoy quite so much background yet and I think AoS will feel a lot more complete once they do. Even stormcast keeps getting new characters intorduced in novels, just to throw them to the side and major characters are not used all that much. That there is a trend to have only characters from 1 host in the books also limits what can be done here. The most direct comparison would be to space marines, where we have quite a few notable characters from various chapters who are far more fleshed out, while still having the primarchs which sort of work like the demigods of AoS does right now.
  4. Agreed, there is no way the story goes that the reapers just show up and are succesful all by themselves. Something else needs to happen, Nagash is neither impatient or stupid, he will not just send his elites to all crumble at the gates of an impenetrable fortress. They might play the "But nagash has a huge ego!" card, but that owuld be beyond bad writing. Something else must be going on, I suspect Nagash has somethinf else up his sleeve or he will just look stupid, even if some other unexpected events occurs, it would still make Nagash and Katakros look foolish. Even enjoying the reapers, I doubt anyone would think Archaon to not be the ultimate challenge and probably impossible without something extraordinary happening. Funny enough I only see people whining about the Bonereapers, not the other way around. But yes, a lot of story content does center around the gods/demigods, AoS so far is heavily inspired by real world mythology and how many stories centered around all the specific gods, that we still see a lot of norse and greek mythology being used actively today, is proof how timeless and efficient these types of tales are. I would recommend some black library reading, there are plenty of interesting stories about characters far lower on the foodchain. Soul Wars is a sort of middle ground I liked too, yes both Nagash and Sigmar do make appearances in the story and are important, but the main characters are much more grounded and explores far more relatable issues and challenges and some real human relations and heartbreaking moments. I do hope to see the story progress with this, as it really makes AoS far more interesting, although we will quickly start to experience the issue of no major characters being truly in danger, as long as the model is on the shelf at least, which is of course always the case when stories are made to sell products and not the other way around.
  5. I also think there is some greater plan at work, but if anyone could do some real damage sieging the eightpoints it would be the forces of Nagash, especially the bonereapers. Why? Because of how they function, they use bones as raw material to build and repair all aspects of their forces, any lost ground by chaos gives the reapers free reign to harvest both their own fallen and the bones of the enemy (which probably outnumbers them from all the mad cultist hordes) and they will simply rebuild and build even more forces. They never need rest, never need sleep and have mobile artellery and siege monsters, that is a pretty terryfing foe to have at your gates! While Katakros was just a simple spirit he fought the forces of Nagash to standstill, then he got elavated to Mortarch but lost in a 1v1 to Sigmar himself, but did hold for some time first. That was before recent times as he has received another power boost and a new more powerful forged body, now recall that he did hold for some time in a 1v1 against Sigmar before that upgrade. A shortstory in the tome also mentions how he effortlessly cuts down a lord of change, mostly as a nuisiance to him, so this guy is not a pushover at all. I know people say "old stuff good, new stuff bad!", but let's take a minute to appreciate everything is new here, new narratives, new characters, we are just getting started, please allow the writers some room to breathe and create things, not just reiterate the same old things. Ultimately it will probably not amount to all that much, maybe Katakros will get a foothold at best, maybe Gordrakk will show up and kick Archaon in the jibblies.
  6. I am 99% sure that is just artistic liberties. The models are rather plain, so they went with how the more modern look of the carnosaur riders appear and also how the blood bowl saurus appear. If we got new kits it would look like this. All those banners I just don't see as being anything they worry so much about. An entirely new suit of armor, a new dinosaur or anything else vastly different maybe, but I fear looking at the seraphon version of "banners" is clutching at straws sadly. It just stings they make a kit for blood bowl, but can't update their main line... Oh I don't really hope so, some good things come from "soup" but not cross tome soup please! This is already painfully sad for nighthaunt who are just terrible to bring with their own battletome but shine a bit more in LoN and the recent LoG. Soup is already completely wrecking the balance of competetive 40k and ruining the flavor of anything imperial, I do not want to see that in AoS. I really like thematic armies and would hate to see skinks as mandatory battleline for order, or every "destruction" army just spamming grots. The unique styles, themes and vision of very specific forces with rules which support their narrative and fighting style is something I really enjoy.
  7. My guess is Teclis in game will be more on Allarielle level and just below Nagash, Teclis is big time sure, but Nagash he is not. That is good news though as the point tag around the 500 level makes for more interesting armies than those 800+ models.
  8. Just reintroduce the imaginary horse and twirling mustache rules for rerolls and get it over with already
  9. This makes no sense. Then you just make the lesser choice even worse and by making the best choice, which in this case is so far ahead, the milestone, then you effectively kill anything else and a emblance of choice. This kind of thinking also causes other poor balancing, like Slaanesh keeper lists being too strong, as they generate a lot of summoning points as they are monster heroes and can take and dish out a lot of wounds. What does GW do? increase the cost of all summoning, fixing absolutely nothing but perhaps bring down the books win % a bit at events, but changing nothing about list building and internal balance in the tome. Balance where balance is needed! Balance points if a Warscroll is too strong, at least combined with the primary tome abilities. If you just increase points becuase a unit is good 1 place, you see stuff like Grimghasts who were increased because they work well in LoN but you punish the Nighthaunt armies which should be their main tome! This made even fewer people interested in playing "real" nighthaunt, a sad and lazy attempt at balancing. Despite the Slaanesh changes being the wrong ones (The only real problem was keepers, they still are) I am glad to see GW addressing allegiance rules. As an OBR player i really hope they change Petrfex to remove that nagging feeling of nerfing your army potential on purpose, and even then opponents might still roll their eyes the second they see your models before even knowing your chosen less optimal legion. Fix their rules and fix their reputation so I can start my games in a positive manner please!
  10. Adding point costs is smart on paper, but that essentially just creates 1 big battalion. The design philosophy so far in 2nd edition has seemed to be to rein in battalion power and move that to sub factions. This in turn has created problems, as one was already costed but sub factions is not and "too much" power has been put into sub factions in SOME cases. Reading through pages of artifacts and traits also seem sort of silly now, as we just after reading through all these options and fluffy descriptions are faced with some no brainer choices often, that just makes all the previous stuff pointless in many cases. This balance is way off between armies, while it might not mean that 1 army as a whole is stronger. Allegiance abilities are not just a 1 to 1 comparrison and sub factions also a 1 to 1 between books. I feel sub factions are not really needed with the correct design, The Gitz being the odd one out having 0 subfactions as we know them now, yet still managing to present a wide variety in units. This is often handled by X general making X battleline and the overall allegiance abilities having different effects on the units, letting you unlock the combos yourself and also actually use all those traits and artifacts in the book. Then we have the reverse situation in the nighthaunt book with also 0 sub factions in a 2.0 book. These guys got so terrible allegiance abilties people just use the models with the allegiance for a completely different book. Grief helped the models some, but the tome is the allegiance and that still sucks, while they kept battalions underwhelming too. So the Gitz and nighthaunt are examples of how well a tome can be put together and how bad it can be without sub factions. And I am not just talking about tournament bashing power here, none of these books steamroll anything in that regard, but one is clearly superior overall and also where many agree the balance should be at for the game overall. In general I do not like how sub factions are put together. Making them override all the options for command traits and artifacts is sort of used as the "cost" right now, which is why we talk about "tax" in this context instead of pure points. This is further influenced by things like Malign sorceries realm artifacts, which puts a lot of pressure on the performance of factions and the tax, in order to not just grab a decent command trait and throw an ethereal amulet on that monster hero in a meeting engagement game. Some subfactions are worth this tax. If points are introduced for this, then the tax should go as well and let people enjoy the other options more instead of that part of a book being almost pointless for several books now.
  11. half moon shapes and blinged out? This obviously belongs to a Gloomspite character who stole the hat of a pointy aelf.
  12. The Warcry warbands are a pretty good indicator that humans are not all that different across the realms. These chaos influenced cults should also be some of the more heavily influenced, so a "regular" uncorrupted freeguild human for example would most likely not be physically too different, other than being more pale in the realm of shadows or leaner/larger with bigger canine teeth from Ghur. I do hope for a reimagined "empire" at some point. It has some charm the freeguild can be anything in the fluff, but at some point real new miniatures would be nice, hopefully with some kits allowing great kitcashes and conversions.
  13. This I'm afraid. I fear this was a bad experience for the opponent as well, with what sounds like a lot of salt after having bought a cool model with decent rules and point balancing. He did not even bring any super powerful artifact or anything and many many many other things are just as good. OP might have a bad army put together, but it sounds more like inexperience and an expectation to push minituares forward and be effective with that. Mawkrushas are hugely expensive points wise, each wound done to it hurts a lot. It has a huge base and 1" reach, exploit that. With good movement, positioning and screening, you can deny it good targets and punish it, yea if sacrifing a 200 point unit for a charge, but you can then do a powerful counter charge and either kill or cripple it, then that is a good trade in your favor. Think like that and games will swing in your favor. Many units are almost who hits first kills, big models are a lot of eggs in one basket. If the Mawkrusha just goes in full speed, all you need is to not give et a really juicy target, then deal with it, as most of the rest of the army will probably be way behind with their 4" move.
  14. I agree on Gitz but will have to disagree on OBR and Warclans on some points. OBR has plenty of options and playstyles, they also have nothing that prevents the opponent for doing any tactics or strategies unlike many other tomes. So this perception must really come from too much echo chambering in communities. People say they are boring to play against, why? Only because of high saves? Many other books have standout units being a pain, in this case 1 legion and 1 unit (Mortek Guard) seems to grind the gears of people. But unlike Slaanesh they do not rob you of your turn to fight, in fact you can plan for all their moves as they have no shenanigans other than just being really good at the base rules. Yes 1 legion is poorly balanced as all heck, but that does not just make it the worst book of all time as this thread seems to indicate, just a lot of salt it seems from people refusing to learn to fight the new thing, and be in old man yells at cloud mode instead. I'd love for petrifex to be nerfed/removed though to get rid of this perception, as it really is a good book, with very cool fluff and also plenty of options, you can make a movement and cavalry foced list, you can bring some big monsters and named heroes, you can bring exploding battlelines, you can focus on artellery fire, tanky elites or fast elites, all are options! Then look at Warclans, for some reason mentioned a lot here as good, why? As an Ironjawz player I got 3 clans, instead of 6 options most others get. No terrain, no endless spells to stand out, not even a new hero from a box or something. There are only 3 non hero units, 2 of which basically does the same thing, the third also doing the same thing but a bit faster. Do you want a shooting IJ lisT? nope, want a heavy caster focus? nope bad idea. Want to use the new brute models? nope nothing supports them well, so even with only 3 units, internal balance is still poor, wow, and the narrative is not moving anywhere there really. Anyway overall I have few tomes I find without any issues, but I find some really great elements of some and would like to point out the best and worst specific parts (despite otherp roblems there might be): Best parts: Fyreslayer lodges, while they do have standouts, they are still all cool and thematic and creates diversity of playstyles in a limited unit roster, which as mentioned somethink like Ironjawz allegiance completely fails at. Examples like a Magmadroth focused lodge with mount traits for all or the one where your small heroes can fight at the same time as nearby heroes and get more artifacts, so you can really doube down on having a small thematic elite force. Gitz and Ogors are both great and is indeed as some mention where the game would be in a healthy spot, Ogors did a much better job at giving the option to focus on specific parts of gutbusters or beastriders but also organic ways to mix them, which Warclans failed at. Gitz does this without using a clan/tribe mecahnic at all, for good and bad, I do prefer the Ogor way here I think with a happy middle ground. Khorne, this book has it all with a lot of options and interesting units, building a list takes some planning and you need to use a lot of synergies, but if you do and execute well, then the army can steamroll in a thematic way without being bonkers (expect when you get hit with 24+ mortal wounds from Skarbrand in 1 swing maybe). Worst parts: Slaanesh just to beat a dead horse, even with the new FAQ it simply doubles down on the worst offenders and punishes the non meta lists, it brought down the external balance issue a little bit, while exaggerating the internal balance issue, which was a poor fix to an obviously broken primary mechanic of the tome. Except the new heroes which are great, the book lacks compelling and diverse battelines and elite units, with everything doing almost the same thing. Fyreslayers again, which shows how a tome can be both good and bad we can just take a look at the battalions on offer, with many battalions in 2nd edition becoming increasingly mediocre, we see a standout which is 100% a pick and anything without is intentionally nerfing your army potential, you will have to knowlingly give yourself a handicap to play anything more diverse, which brings me to. Bonereapers. As mentioned before there are good parts of this tome, calling it all bad is a mistake and saying no diversity is plain false with a big new range of units with most of them being completely viable on the table. However the subfactions are horribly balanced in such a degree it has created such a hate train you can hardly play the army in some communities without being treated like some kind of leper. Sylvaneth as an dishonorable mention here, even though I do not play them myself, I play against them a lot and the army is just strangely disjointed and more annoying than anything. The Sylvaneth player has to carry all these terrain pieces around, any narrative table setup mission turns into arguing about room for those stupid trees and the entire book seems like a scheme to sell cheap china plastic woods. The main face of the former book and in part the new ones are the tree revenants, but you have no option to make them the main fighting force in any functional capacity and the new revenant hero buffs kurnoth hunters and not revenants, wow, completely puzzled here.
  15. Thanks for the input, I have been using that color for my base edges for every single army I guess it is just a habit and not a conscious choice at this point, so opinions are nice to consider new angles. I will stick to my white/grey boys and experiment a bit more with the double highlights at least on the most eye catching parts, combined with a bit of focused extra shading next to the apothecary white and see how I like it
  16. that could also work, takes a bit more time, but at least it is a low model count army
  17. I recently started a Stormcast force focusing on the "old" models. My goal was a slightly darker knights excelsior look, using their scheme except the "white" being a darker. I am kind of torn about my results so far, as I have based my scheme around the grey seer base color. In some ways I like it, but I also find it to almost look "unfinished" although I am not a master painter and my approach is already taking a lot of more spare time (2 toddlers will do that!) , but I would like some opinions and maybe pointers as well, if anyone got ideas for a nicer finish or if I should just entirely redo the armor. My approach for the plain armor is currently grey seer base spray, reapply grey seer paint, apothecary white contrast, edge highlights. My celestant and concussor was done wiht Ulthuan grey highlights while I used white scar for the liberator to get a bit brighter highlights for more "pop". I feel like a middle ground might blend a tad better, so will try with corax white next time, but I just wanted some second opinions before I put time into even more models. Here are some examples:
  18. I do not see all that much reason to run Stalliarch Lords without deathriders though, traversing the table should be the least of the problems when using that legion, with deathriders being 12"+3+d6+1+2d6+1 charge threat range which means you can roll all snake eyes but still charge 20" and up to 31"! I feel the entire point of that list would be to keep out of range of everything critical, then swoop in with a long bomb charge on all the riders, maybe in 10 man units and also possibly a deathglaive of stalkers/morghast to keep up for a devastating early charge. The command ability to disengage also only works on mounted units, but I am thinking this could be of some worth especially for 10 man rider units, which could really make the opponent sweat, if they manage to break the lines and then keep going in following turns, hunting down vulnerable targets.
  19. It looks like a gutplate for a gargant considering the size of the skulls. It looks to piecemeal and shoddy even by Ogor standard (despite it all). It also does not really fit with Ironjawz either, so the gargant rumor and other large strange objects in the rumor engine lately seems to fit this.
  20. I enjoy his model so much. There is also a passage in the tome about him and his retinue facing a lord of change, which drives home the point how he really does not want to lower himself to menial tasks, but after his entire crew is decimated he calmly just slices of the head of the LoC and proceeds to a new vantage point to command his forces. So many models have scenery on their bases anyway, just imagine he is finding vantage points on the battlefield, commands/fights then proceeds to a new one.
  21. Has anyone tried the Stalliarch lords yet? For a 1200-1600 point campaign I am considering a Stalliarch lords list based on Cavalry, with the 1200 core start looking like this: Allegiance: Ossiarch Bonereapers - Legion: Stalliarch Lords Leaders Liege-Kavalos (200) Mortisan Boneshaper (130) Battleline 10 x Kavalos Deathriders (360) - Nadirite Blade and Shield 5 x Kavalos Deathriders (180) - Nadirite Blade and Shield 10 x Mortek Guard (130) - Nadirite Blade and Shield Units 3 x Necropolis Stalkers (200) Total: 1200 / 1250 Extra Command Points: 0 Allies: 0 / 200 Wounds: 79 Any feedback is welcome on the list, and especially with experiences with Stalliarch lords. My thinking with a unit of 10 Kavaloi is to maximize my RDP, for both +1 attack, retreat and charge etc, which will let most of the list rapidly redeploy and hit where it hurts most. Stalkers also synergise well, as their cmd ability allows both run and charge rerolls I think.
  22. Sounds like a solid enough model base, but the factions you mention do have quite some mortal wound output which hurts a lot, to counter that you could do something like the list below. If you are playing modified vanguard and not battlehost you can potentially replace the Kavalos with a unit of Stalkers. Use guards as screens and then counter attack. Discipline points will be low, might want to go with arcane command spell, which is not so hard to cast either if you got the shrieker up and getting more +1 rend commands, +3 move or reroll shield saves will be worth more than any of the other spells. LeadersLiege-Kavalos (200)Mortisan Boneshaper (130)Battleline20 x Mortek Guard (260)- Nadirite Blade and Shield20 x Mortek Guard (260)- Nadirite Blade and Shield5 x Kavalos Deathriders (180)- Nadirite Blade and ShieldBehemothsGothizzar Harvester (200)Gothizzar Harvester (200)Endless Spells / Terrain / CPsBone-tithe Shrieker (30)Total: 1460 / 2000
  23. It is the realm spell if you play in Shyish
  24. Morghasts have very little synergy with the main benefits of LoN, at the same time they also compete in a role which there is heavy competetion in Bonereapers, so they end up being the odd one out often. They don't need that much even, but +1 attack baseline would go a long way, or an increase to 12" move, right now hammer units hit harder, and fast units are faster, while they dont really shine anywhere or is at the very least a competetent replacement in the same role.
  25. So I posted this question in the Ogor forum, but I suspect this covers multiple armies and the wording on priests in general. It seems this varies between books currently, with some priests having their rules stated in allegiance abilities, while others are on the warscroll and some even overwrites each other in ways, such as DoK hags who can pray once per their warscroll, but the prayer rules in the tome allows them to pray twice, that is pretty clearly stated though. The Ogor example: A Huskard on Thundertusk is of course a priest, but we have some arguments how he works, as I believe he works like Khorne slaughterpriests for example regarding the prayers he can do per turn. E.g in the hero phase a boulderhead huskard on thundertusk can use pulverizing hailstorm as the everwinter prayer, then he can also do 1 of the prayers stated in his Blizzard Speaker ability. RAW I do not see anything to contradict this, as the allegiance abilities state they know 1 everwinter prayer and can cast 1 everwinter prayer per turn if they are a priest (also rule of 1). Blizzard speaker is an ability and not related to everwinter prayers at all, so as I see it this works entirely seperate from everwinter prayers, so he can also cast 1 of thoe as stated on the warscroll. Is there anything I missed here which would cause him to choose between using an everwinter prayer and using his Blizzard speaker ability?
×
×
  • Create New...