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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

150 Celestant-Prime

About CaptainSoup

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

165 profile views
  1. What you have to always remember is that you can never please everyone. It may sound like everyone complains at a drop of the hat, but in reality its actually different people complaining about a certain thing at a certain time. When something is broken and it affect someone they will complain about it. If the issue gets fixed then someone completely different will complaining about that change and the cycle repeats endlessly. A perfect example is the World of Warcraft forums. In all its years of being online that place never seems to stop complaining about something. This mentality happens in literally all forms of updatable content from tabletop to video games and beyond. Whether all this complaining will lead to GW pulling the wrong lever and doing something they shouldn't to please the current vocal masses would depend on how much weight GW puts into all the screeching. I would like to think they have a decent head on their shoulders and would rather look at something more concrete like tournament data and sales of a recent set of releases. If the sales of the new releases are up then its all peachy. If the models sold for the new releases aren't great then maybe they will invest in new models at a later date, or more realistically they already decided it wasn't worth the investment to make new models at this time and just wants to make sure the existing range remains viable enough for more steady sales of current models thanks to the new releases. Regardless of the reasoning, maybe people probably shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, at least not right away. At least you got a new horse lol.
  2. The cool thing about Warhammer is it can be very flexible in its rules so long as the rest of the group agrees to the changes. One such way to make a "Free for all" game would be to do as you said with a center objective, but then add other secondary objectives scattered around the map so you can the Open War objective cards. In reality you can probably use most missions in the different books and adapt them for a larger scale, you'll just need to change a few things to accommodate the increase in players. I will warn you though that games with more than two people tend to drag a lot longer than the usual two person matches.
  3. This update just helps solidify the path GW is taking with releasing their battletomes, which imo is probably the best and most effic ient way forward. Here's to hoping by end of year or start of next year we'll have even more combined army tome releases. One of thing I think people aren't fully pointing out is the fact that aside from SCE the new FEC is the first ever updated battletome from the Kirby era AoS 1.0 days. This is now solid proof that GW is willing to fully update the older battletomes, something we as a community have been hoping for but never really had any evidence of it actually ha ppening until now. The future looks bright for AoS, let's just hope the momentum of releases keeps going.
  4. This update just helps solidify the path GW is taking with releasing their battletomes, which imo is probably the best and most efficient way forward. Here's to hoping by end of year or start of next year we'll have even more combined army tome releases. One of thing I think people aren't fully pointing out is the fact that aside from SCE the new FEC is the first ever updated battletome from the Kirby era AoS 1.0 days. This is now solid proof that GW is willing to fully update the older battletomes, something we as a community have been hoping for but never really had any evidence of it actually happening until now. The future looks bright for AoS, let's just hope the momentum of releases keeps going.
  5. So I've been working on some models lately and one of the things that bugs me during the painting process is trying to do some line highlights. I've read up on it, from the cupped hands and grounded elbows to putting the right amount of thinned paint on the brush. This is all well and good, until I actually put brush to plastic. It doesn't take long for my pointed tip brush to simply fall apart on the model, smugging my line and making it look a mess. I've been using a variety of brushes and sizes from your cheap synthetic to Rothmarder Sable, from size 2 to 000 and beyond. Regardless of the brush it happens. Perhaps it's from pushing the brush too hard against the model, but any lighter and the paint doesn't transfer from the brush (unless it's overloaded, which makes a different mess). My only hope seems to be using a Kolinsky Sable hair brush, but I can't find a real one anywhere, and even then I have my doubts. What do you guys think is going on? Is it bad technique or just the wrong kind of brushes? Or maybe something different altogether? I'm also curious what kind of brushes you guys use and why you use them. Either way thanks for reading!
  6. The only exception would be battalions that require other battalions. Units within those smaller battalions are of course part of the bigger battalion.
  7. Yeah the presence of AoS scene in the US pales in comparison to the 40k scene. It's a shame really. Still, I guess you can't look a gift horse in the mouth. 150 people is still 150 people lol.
  8. I only ever hear about the 40k portion of LVO. I'm curious, how is the turnout normally for AoS during LVO?
  9. I never said that it was due to the "raw power" of the units in the way you seem to be implying them (how strong a unit is in a vacuum??) though I can see how you might come to that conclusion. It's probably clearer to say something like, "... people using detachments from different factions so they can cherry pick the best stratagems that are used on units within that detachment which would make that unit the 'best unit...'" You cant use the best stratagems with the CP you farmed without the compatible unit to use them on. Therefore, you are cherry picking the best units to use those strong stratagems in those allied detachments. It all ties together, so its easier just to mention the units since it loosely ties into the subject matter of the thread.
  10. I was expecting something completely different when I entered this thread. 😏 Nice color scheme!
  11. Thank you for the clarification. I was thinking mostly in just GAs where you can just take what you like from the main allegiance and forgot about the other rules. I would probably still lean on my point that the points restriction is tight but fair as to make sure that no one abuses the system even with the other restrictions in place, but that sounds like a discussion for another thread.
  12. But there are no restrictions that are based on lore? And the only points restriction in place is the 1/4th allied rule? Its clear you want a more open system that allows more allies in an army, but I don't really understand why you think there are other restrictions already in place besides from the 1/4th rule. Right, it wont happen thanks to the 1/4th rule that's the point. Again, if we remove the 1/4th rule for allies it will quickly lead to army lists that just a blob of the best units with the best allegiance abilities chosen from the list of allies you have. For an example, "Hey I got this really nice Free Guild list I wanna try!" "Oh cool whats the list?" "Oh, well I got a bunch of of IDK eels, the giant turtle, some DoK and let's not forget the all important Celestar Ballistas!" "Um... alright. So what Freeguild units do you have?" "...some 80 point guard and a general?" I would argue that if you allow more open matched play rules for allies in armies then it would actually lead to less sales for GW, as new releases come out people will check to see what units could be applied to the best allied blob army and not bother with the rest instead of building a good army based mostly on one sub faction.
  13. I'll be honest I don't quite fully understand the details of the question being asked. This is very much in a opinion territory so I guess I'll post my very general view on this. When AoS was first released we had a basic transfer of all existing models from WFB and moved them over to the AoS format, essentially the 40k 8th edition equivalent of faction Index books. The presumed idea, like the Index books, was that over time these books (or PDFs in AoS's case) would be slowly replaced with their own dedicated material to fit the new game. Now we can all agree that the AoS release was more or less a ****** show (for the love of Nagash lets not go down that rabbit hole again) and while they probably did have some sort of plan for how AoS was going to progress, it didn't exactly pan out and over time GW started changing gears into what we see today. We have bi-yearly FAQ and yearly point updates to keep the game as balanced as possible and we have the semi consistent release of new Battletomes to keep the new models flowing. This brings us back to the original point of the thread. We have all these older model ranges sitting in Grand Allegiance purgatory while new armies/books continue to roll out. Every so often we get books like the new Grot battletome that takes older models out of purgatory and into their own book, with even some new models and spells to go along with them. This seems to be GW's current plan going forward for releases in that they either release a brand new army, give an older faction their old tome (if they are already large enough) or they mix the two incorporating multiple smaller sub factions together. It seems to me that people had some preconceived notions on how GW was going to update the game and their older model ranges. Perhaps people thought each and every faction as they currently stood would get their own book with their own set of rules. Or maybe all the factions in their current form would just get more models to throw at their existing armies. IMO, GW seems to really be getting their head together on what they are planning on doing for the release schedule of new AoS content. The idea of putting a bunch of older model ranges together with new spells, abilities, synergies or even new models is simply a brilliant way of breathing new life into existing model ranges. At the same time they are also bringing in new armies into the frey to further spice up the game which, balance willing, is a good thing for the continued existence of the game. There is also the idea of simply giving older ranges new models. While we are seeing a lot of stagnation in some armies in how old their models are. Again I think the idea of slowly churning out new BTs that incorporate older models into a new faction is the best win-win for not only for those people still holding on to their old WFB armies but for GW and their profit motive in releasing new content. While it is slow, everyone wins in the end. In the meantime, the idea of releasing box sets with new models for older armies is a great marketing idea as it spreads the new GW love around for everyone (though IMO I don't' think just releasing one or two new models to an existing army isn't going to change much in the strength of most armies, but a new model is a new model). So at the end of the day, is what GW is doing with the way they are releasing their AoS content bad for older models? Probably not, but that is solely based on the perspective on someones idea of doing harm to existing models. GW seems to be running on all cylinders pushing out as much content as they can and sticking their fingers in as many pies as possible to keep their customer's busy and for now, it seems to be working pretty well for them. Being from across the pond myself, one could argue the opposite. If the store owners do not support their customer's interests then the customers will simply go elsewhere. It doesn't really make much sense to purposefully alienate your customers because they ****** you off. If you ****** them off they just ban you from the store and move on. Ideally a store owner would want to accommodate as many game systems as they can to not only keep their store up and running but to keep the gaming community alive. Like you may have implied tabletop gaming is very niche over here, so making sure you have an accommodating FLGS with happy customers is more crucial than ever. All I'll say is be careful what you wish for. If AoS is more forgiving to allies than it will very quickly turn into what 40k is currently dealing with, people cherry picking the best units from different factions to create super meta lists that mono-factions simply cannot compete against. Mark my words. Besides, whats the difference of just choosing a GA as your allegiance then ally all you want? You can mix and match units to your hearts content while the lack of any overbearing abilities will keep your cherry picking in check.
  14. From what I understand if your units in question are in an alligance, you cannot just cast other spells from other alligances. Now, I think if the units in question are in an allied battalion then that battalion can use things from their own alligance, but they cannot help cast spells and abilities from a separate battalion in the army. At least, that my take on it anyway.
  15. I would think from a RAW perspective that it probably wouldn't work, since technically you are not fully within 12" of any Arcanite Heroes, just partially within. But I can see where your line of thinking is coming from so this is just speculation on my part. From a RAI perspective I could totally see this kind of wording be abused by WAAC players, having their cake (the ability) and eating it too (not having to be wholly within any of the models). I'm curious what other people's take on it is and if anyone else who knows more about demons has seen this in play or not.
  • Create New...