Frowny
-
Posts
603 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Frowny
-
-
2 hours ago, Overread said:
Sometimes if you change too many things you might appeal to a wider selection of potential groups; but at the same time you can lose the power of the lore to captivate your audience. Because if anything is possible then armies start to lose individuality. It's somewhat akin to if you just say "Well use any models you want, you don't have to use armies of a set type at all". Yes some love it; yes it lets you have freedom; but at the same time it actually results in less individuality; less identity etc... for those forces.
I've heard variations on this argument before. Some variation on not wanting to alienate current customers, or a company making less money by appealing more weakly to a larger audience or by.
I don't think it holds much water. Firstly, I am not such a fragile flower that I'd suddenly hate the game if there were a female orruk or indeed female space Marines. Indeed, in contrast, I think many male players would enjoy that as added variety to their models.
There is also the bigger question of what would make for a better hobby overall? I'd love more hobby friends and opponents in general and would be equally happy with some lady hobby friends and opponents.
As mentioned, the lore is merely a tool to make for a good game and situation. If there were a compelling reason to have specifically gendered army's, I'm open to it, but there is so much possibility in the mortal realms sticking to gendered army linrs (which they've already done a ton of) actually feels like a waste of potential.
Seems like more female minis and maybe also more female players is win-win-win.
-
5
-
-
Nighthaunt are a preplexing one.... There is nothing inherently gendered about chainrasps, reapers, revenants etc. Quite asexual. But then by creating banshees and Harridans as female they almost seem to imply that all those other ones are male. So it goes from a totally or nearly gender neutral faction to a gendered one that is biased toward male.
-
1
-
-
On 8/27/2020 at 11:24 AM, Karthasis said:
Am I the only one thinking that we need a TLA or the acorn in our list? Too often I find myself being unable to cast a 2nd forest turn one or my spell being dispelled. I'm going on my first tournament and I'm bringing what I think is a competitive way of playing Sylvaneth
I always find exactly that problem. Indeed it's one of the reasons I dislike sylvaneth.
Every list I build needs 3 things- reliable wood (acorn or TLA) reliable charge (hive or warsinger), reliable casting (to summon hive, dryads or more woods)
It is very hard for me to get all 3 of those things in to the point where i feel like I have to work so hard to just actually play the sylvaneth game, and a lot of it comes down to needing to reliably get a 2nd wood down and reliable casting for a 3rd.
Ultimately, I usually go with the TLA... He's terrible at most things, but at least does that well. I can't take acorn because I also always feel like I need some item as a casting boost to be able to reliably summon either dryad, summon spite swarm hive or summon a 3rd woods, so. Ant afford the acorn. Maybe I should experiment with 2 battalions.
-
1
-
-
I've never bought the 'historic armies are mostly male argument'. There are factions of ghosts, dinosaurs, skeletons (which I suppose could be male or female skeletons), just to name a few. Clearly history has little bearing if any, as this is so clearly a fantasy setting, from the very onset. I'm happy it stays that way and am 100% behind a totally mixed gender army, where applicable (the skeleton or dinosaur example being a pretty solid gender neutral example).
In terms of new releases for heroes since malignant portends
Fungoid Cave Shaman: Male
Darkoath Warqueen: Female
Ordinator: Male
Knight of Shrouds: Male? Could be non-gendered
Warlock Bombadier: I am unsure of rats genders. Maybe a Skaven player can help me. I always assumed male but that is actually likely my own bias.
Arch-Revenant: Female
Loonboss on Cave Squig: Male
Syll-esske: Both
Epitome: Female
Keeper of Secrets: Non-binary
Infernal Enrapturess: Female
Chaos Lord on Karadrak: Neutral, armor plates are non-gendered
Endrigger on dirigible Suit-Male
Ogor Tyrant: Male
I'm sure I'm missing some. Since malignant portends thats ~6/14 male releases and 4/14 female with a further 4/14 neutral, non-binary or both on the same mini. Not as male heavy as I'd expected when I started counting.
Edit: I forgot a ton of nighthaunt, actually. And the sacrosanct chamber. I guess the creation of lady orlynder and Kurdross implies that many of the nighthaunt heroes are male? What is others interpretation of that.
-
3
-
-
16 hours ago, Enoby said:
What a lovely thoughtful post.
I 100% agree that there should be way more female minis, characters and names characters. 100% female models weekly for 2 years as you suggest probably isn't realistic (and mightironically lead to the opposite problem eventually when they eventually retire old mostly male minis) bit a female/male ratio of 60/40 or something over many years would get us there too. Even a 50/50 for ages would do the same, albeit slowly (which is the strategy for most professions with a prior male bias). Sadly I don't think there even to half female for new releases.
Expanding marketing to women seems like a good business move. Currently they are really only targeting 50%of the populatíon even in countries where they already have infastructure.
-
1
-
-
I like the subforums but I think they are a bit hidden and it leads to less use. Can you put links to them at the top of the general order forum, maybe in smaller text. Or possibly on the main forum page where it currently says " Talk about Grand Alliance: Order. Army lists, battle reports, tactics and everything Order related. "
-
Two possible lists:
1x Celestial hurricanumw/battlemage
1x Freeguild general on griffon, general, gawk-eyed
10x arkonauts
1x ironclad
10x pistoliers
10x pistoliers
5xpistoliers
3x gyrocopters
Aetherguard windrunners
Or
1x Celestial hurricanumw/battlemage
1x Freeguild general on griffon, general, gawk-eyed
15x pistoliers
10x pistoliers
10x pistoliers
5x pistoliers
10x outriders
5x outriders
3x gyrocopters
Aetherguard windrunners
Thoughts? Also, what is the right outrider/pistolier ratio? 3 small squads of copters or the single big one? Certainly in the 2nd list lower drops is nice, 1st list does better if forced to take t1 anyway since you can run up the ironclad and make a nice 2+save wall with it.
-
1 hour ago, SunStorm said:
As much as I'd like the warbands to lead onto larger forces, I understand that doesn't always happen. For example, i'd love a full force of wolf riding goblins, with chariots and other beasts for a nomadic mounted force in the style of Rippa's Snarlfangs.
They would also thematically fit quite well into ogors if they ever wanted to go that way. I think the warbands also makes sense to think about possible expansions to existing armies. I wish they had them as units or non-named characters though, rather than always named. I think it would help a lot being able to introduce new individual models to lines that need them (like ogors lacking a cavalry/skirmisher unit and needing a plastic frost sabre unit)
-
1
-
-
I would still definitely buy the first army book for my army, in physical print. Show of support and to flip through it and all that. However with digital rules, I would likely even give the company MORE money for a subscription to their rules app or whatever they decide (I already buy azyr even though it is seldom updated). But the current strategy of abusive number of books is annoying, difficult to keep up with, and leads to frustrating 'gotcha' moments with things spread all over the place.
I don't think people want to move all digital- we all appreciate the value of physical books for exactly the reasons listed above (easier the first time, great for new players, fun art, good lore). Just something a little more realistic for everything else.
I love Warhammer for its physical aspect, but it could learn a thing from video games (which are really the modern translation of a war game at this point), that could improve the physical experience.
-
1
-
-
You could always just ally in an incantor or exorcist something. Cast with bottle, manipulate with ally. Obviously more expensive point-wise though
-
Seems fine. Nobody will ever give you ******, even at a gw store. Nicely done.
-
Most cities armies can fit in only 2 stormcast units, (requiring 6 cities units total) so whatever you chooseyou have to make it count.
The most common I've seen are lord arcanums or incantors in hallowheart to benefit from the amazing command ability (1-2 models), celestant prime In hammerhall ( deepstrike and fight twice), dracoth cavalry in living cities ( to easily double move into range with the command ability, also do well with the free healing).
There are a few nice command traits and artifacts to add a stardrakes for a 2+ save, which is nice. I saw one with a command trait to make him a wizard so he could benefit from his own +1 cast, casting the amazing anvil guard no save bubble spell while he got stuck in.
Occasionally people here seem to also use a Ätherwings as cheap objective grabbers or liberators as cheap and sturdyish battleline, although I think cities does battleline better.
The +1 to hit is the celestial hurricanum, which will also help any stormcast you get, as they gain the cities keyword. It is excellent and used in a ton of lists.
-
So endlessly disappointing that the chaos warriors and their awesome sculpts are so much worse than the ancient terrible looking Marauders.
-
3
-
-
Pondering cities of sigmar with a few thoughts and a few questions
Thoughts-
I just realized that the fire pheonix both hits worse and has 2 less attacks than the frost one? What gives! -1 to wound aura is so good that it basically compensates for the regen+mortal wounds thing on its own.
I also like the look of wild-riders as some above have seen, but at the same time, needing a nomad prince seems problematic, since he adds so little besides battleline unlocks.
Questions:
1) Also, has anyone tried a freeguild general with the +attacks command traits? He has excellent quality attacks, to which +3 attacks would be brutal. Benefits a lot from +1/+1 too
2) Only phoenix heroes can use the command ability, correct, so basically every list needs at least one anointed on phoenix?
3) Have people tried greatswords with this in units of 10? They seem promising.
-
This list seems like it could use some work.
First, 3 endless spells with 2 wizards with no plus to cast is too many. Far to often you will fail to cast one or more and then just sit there with 200 pts useless after failing the first cast. The bridge especially requires a very specific plan to use, which I'm not sure you have.
2nd, what are planning to buff with the general? The handguns are already 2+/3+ if stationary, the great swords already hit on 2s when near him and the guard are pretty bad in combat even with his buff. The general seems best with outriders or crossbows where they really want both the +1 to hit and the+1 wound and have the range to not move. Otherwise I think you may need to move forward for objectives or you will lose there.
This feels more like a tempests eye list (to get up the field and be sturdier turn 1) or hammerhead (for more command points). You only have 2 units that shoot to take advantage of the living cities command ability, and nothing worth healing. Of you do want to stay living cities, consider a general on griffon. The +1save, +1 to wound, extra rend, free healing and fight first (trait and artifact) together all really make him excellent in living cities. Alternatively, if you like the wizards and endless spells, get a hurricanum and consider hallowheart. Your list would fit really well there and hurricanums are awesome in most cities lists.
-
I agree with the above. If you are taking the battalion you need to Invest more points to get value from it. I'd drop some of the other cav to get more pistoliers.
-
I kinda like the battleline if approach.
As an example, while KO Can make almost anything battleline, it's not all at the same time. Based on your general and sky-port you only get some smaller subset of them. That makes for interesting tradeoffs. Want battleline thunderers? Gotta pick the right Barak. It makes for interesting list building tradeoffs. Ogors have much the same, but I think creates reasonable design challenges about what general you pick.
I think it is mostly just a balance problem. Some armies have weak battleline, others very strong. But I think it can be fixed by balancing the points and warscrolls rather than throwing out the system.
-
3
-
-
1 steam piston armor seems much better on your tank commander than on the cogsmith. Id switch their items.
2 generally ppl seem to think gyro copters are better than bombers. It's hard to use the bombs more than once per game anyway since they are a bit fragile, and often die after the first use since they have to be close. Also, the steam guns can be situationally incredible. Both could be painted as Hueys and it isn't too hard to magnetize them- just the tail assembly, so you could try both.
3. I'm not sure the 2nd cogsmith is necessary. I'd drop him.
4. A single wizard will really struggle to get off any spells in the current meta. He might be worth dropping. Or trade for a sorceress and turn 10 outriders into darkshards or bleak swords to give her the +2 of you early want a wizard.
5. With the points from the cogsmith and gyro change, see if you can afford a lord ordinator. You have a ton of artillery to use his +1 hit aura on.
6. Steam tanks are cool as heck but not that strong. Can you satisfy your dream and goal with only 3 (the commander +2)? If so maybe drop some for some more infantry or riders.
7. . I think the pistoliers might help you more than outriders as a counter charge unit. They are also better without buffs. Outriders don't seem great unless you hard commit to + to hit with both the general and a hurricanum.You have pretty good ranged DMG anyway even without the outriders.
I wanted to make a steam tank list so badly when the book dropped. I wish they had a better warscoll.
-
Plan is to give them pistols or handguns and count them as pistoliers or outriders.
Looking for some advice on what color to do the straps/reins, and what to put on the shields as well as what to do for bases. I like the bright pastel colors but it makes it hard for me to match anything with them, stylistically. Help?
Currently thinking for a more realistic grassy field type base to contrast with the more stylized.minis?
I also did a more more traditionally colored ones.... They seem less fun though.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 8/19/2020 at 2:43 AM, Beastmaster said:
You’re absolutely right. Ogors, for example, always had a strong mercenary theme. They even have a unit (Maneaters) that stresses this point. They should be able to ally with many forces outside Destruction. Others don’t really fit into the GA system, too.
I mean, the whole game is based on „everyone fights everyone all the time“. The fixed Grand Alliances stand in the way of how the game is working, and of what storylines are possible.
I mostly agree
There was a cool short story a while back with ogors teaming up with some stormcast to eat some orks. Thematic and fun. Lots of alliances are plausible, and sometimes I think the grand alliances get in the way of that.
I also agree that beastmen and orruks are narratively super similar-rampaging hordes. We only think of them differently for the history they have.
Honestly surprised they didn't squat beasts of chaos last year but who can predict gw?
I like your idea for grots.
-
49 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:
I really don't want to see a 3.0, but i'll make a wishlist anyways.
- Priority rolls remain: battles are unpredictable and so are games, it forces adaptation. Most of the "Problems" result from poor army/warscroll design and the idea of a double turn is largely fine in a game with a heavier focus on melee combat
- Strengthen look out sir: either make it a -2, pass off wounds on a 4+, or readjust line of sight rules so models can't be spotted as easily ("my archer can see your wizard's staff over your troll so I can shoot it") maybe something as as simple as larger bases block line of sight to smaller bases if they're 7 or less wounds.
- Points going digital: print them in battletomes/ghb if you want, but make them accessibly digitally for free and put more cool stuff like battleplans and Anvil of apotheosis in the GHB
- DO NOT POINT UNIT OPTIONS: I've been dabbling in 40k a bit since the new edition after dropping it for a few years and the way points is laid out is awful, a unit's weapons are not built into their cost, so in order to figure out the cost of something you need to reference: the warscoll, the unit points table, and possibly several equipment point tables. Its just too much, and doesn't add anything of value, since different equipment has vastly different values on different units anyways.
- Keep the core rules as small as possible: 40k has way too many rules that should be moved from being keywords in the rule book, to information on the warscroll. This is something AoS already does that is great and hopefully won't change. The less things we need to reference the better.
- Reduced amount of bravery 10 and army wide battleshock immunity. I think battleshock immunity is fine if there are restrictions on it.
- Destruction to finally get some narrative focus (and characters, the entire GA only has 2 named characters with rules)
- return of gitmob (Rippa's snarlfangs are way too cool to be a one off)
- Proper rewrites of monster warscrolls, it seems that recently they've gotten the hang of it with the giant cows, and hopefully gargants follow suit.
- Clarity on what sources are matched play legal, and for how long, and which aren't
- New beasts of chaos models, Every "new" BoC model is amazing, but the line is so old. That new Slaangor looks amazing, I don't even play the army but I don't think I could resist if they had a few more newer sculpts like that, I've already got way too many Tzaangor for my Tzeentch army
- Anvil of Apotheosis built into new battletomes
I agree. I'd add
1) priority for first turn (instead of by drops)
2) no psychic awakening style rules bloat.
Mostly age of sigmar just needs more of what it already does and balance within the existing system, rather than fundamental rules changes
-
Sometimes more drops is an advantage, esp if you've already given up trying for turn choice. The ogor oneis solid and makes it any list I don't run a regular hunter. As a deep strike to sneak backfield objectives and 2x little drops to screen out their deepstrikers he gives a lot of value, which is otherwise had to replicate with ogors. To hold a backfield objective against deepstrikers you would need to commot 120 points of gluttons instead of 20 points of that single frost sabre.
-
1
-
-
I live the shadowstalker models so much. I dream of an army like that. I hope they are relatable. The new character could be good too. A useful command ability besides the slaughter queen would be great I think.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
LotR‘s combat mechanics
I loved how heroes worked. They could use their might to win key combats but also felt like they could still get overwhelmed if alone. Thematic! And how they attached to units without formally doing so with heroic moves etc.
Also, I also like the double turn. Makes aos not a shooting gallery, and gives a significant edge to t2. If say almost too strong, but still interesting. I wish first turn was also decided randomly
-
3
-
AoS 2 - Beasts of Chaos Discussion
in Chaos
Posted
Why are people so down on gors? Even for a cheap screen/sacrificial target. The 4+ save makes them sturdier than ungors per point. They also hit slightly harder per model. At only 10 points that seems reasonable for some uses
Thinking 10 man squads where you should be able to get all into melee if needed, so the base size doesn't matter.