Fulkes
-
Posts
378 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Fulkes
-
-
Considering the updates they've given us to older models, an updated Doom Diver would probably be the kit of the year.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Kamose said:
To be fair the Wolf Riders and Gitmob Grot infantry models were plastic; really old and ugly as hell, but plastic.
Could have been an issue with the molds then. If the mold gets too worm they retire them after all.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Kamose said:
Wolf Riders and Chariots and the artillery pieces. I think its the artillery pieces that most people are upset about. To be fair, that Doom Diver was pretty sweet and flavorful.
Oh, I almost forgot about Snotlings and their Pump Wagons! Poor Snotlings... 😢So all the stuff that failed to make it into plastic. Gotcha. Hopefully it'll see a return in the next update since this one was Squig and Troggoth focused and they only have so much budget for models in each book release.
-
@PlasticCraic Was there anything in Gitmbob that isn't in Moonclan in terms of models?
-
1
-
-
@PlasticCraic remind me what armies after Brets and Tomb Kings that got the boot?
I'm not sure what advice other than patience ome can really give. Do you want us to tell people to go play something else instead?
AoS 2.0 was the jumping off point into a stronger effort to actually get things on the table in ways that make them playable outside of the Grand Alliance lists and microfaction format. This shift means they basically reset the clock on how long you'll be waiting for a real update (still waiting on a Free Peoples book myself). We have word the goal is to have everyone done by the end of 2020 with it looking like more will be coming soon.
-
2 hours ago, pseudonyme said:
You should listen to the honest wargamer Stormcast faction focus podcast épisode with Jacob Rage of sigmar. There he says that Malifaux is a far better system than AoS, BUT, AoS has the best fun community ever
Episode 2 they both talk about how they left Malifaux due to the "gotcha" moments the rules create.
I think people need to listen to the Stormcast podcast and hear how the designers approach the game. Plenty of interesting insight into the process there.
-
3
-
-
28 minutes ago, Zanzou said:
You just ignored the part of my post that countered all of that- Slaves have been terrible and overcosted since the last books as well, and we were all aware of it. Or we were still "waiting" back then, were we?? We can all agree points can't fix everything without rule changes, but they haven't even been thrown a bone.
As I said, most people here won't be willing to admit it and will try to excuse everything.
Slaves to Darkness don't have a Battletome and you're complaining they don't stand on par with Battletome armies? Are you trolling?
We saw a shift in design from AoS 1.0 to 2.0. Some things that may have been started could have gone back for massive fireworks or left on the side as the army lacks the model support needed to finish updating it (Endless Spells and a terrain peice for everyone seems standard these days after all).
Just because they didn't rewrite a sttuggling army from the ground up in this GHB doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing.
You're assuming the worst of other people with no evidence of your claims. Chill out, have a cup of tea and ease off the attitude. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we forgive what GW does to armies. I'm pretty salty about Allherd and Gor (much less the points changes to Gor that didn't take enough off the top end) but accusing GW of incompetence and lashing out because I didn't get what -I- wanted is a bridge too far.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Zanzou said:
Or the uncomfortable fact that GW's AoS rule/planning team is exceptionally incompetent. Most people here aren't willing to admit that that is the truth.
(Slaves were terrible for the GHB 2018 as well- there was no battletome coming back then, so you do the math)
From what I've seen from the internet, GW is more competent at writing this game than the average player is.
There are a few possibilities for the reason for no update that don't start throwing mud on the rules team: waiting for models to expand the army, waiting for playtesting to nail the right feel for the army, waiting for enough space in the release cycle to fit things in.
Or they are waiting on stuff stuck in China (which I assume is the issue with Warcry right now).
-
5
-
1
-
-
So I felt like I should share my thoughts as a rattlecan zenithal enthusiast:
So Mechanicus Standard Grey is the darkest color seems to be you can put it over and still get the intended effect. So use that instead of black, swap in Grey Seer as your mid tone and use Wraithbone or Corax White as the final bright (I used Corax White on my test models). To compensate for heavier nature of the other primers I then varnished the models with Munitoroum Varnish.
In short it worked perfectly. I'll likely be a bit more proactive with the prep work following the varnish to get details to pop a bit more (wash and drybrush of Pallud Wych Flesh), but this opens some more options on priming models for those of use using rattlecans.
-
1
-
-
While not Orcs proper these two lads where done using a zenithal prime of mechanicus standard grey, Grey Seer and Corax White followed by munitorium varnish before giving the a coat of Ork Flesh.
-
2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:
Fully agree. Slaves to Darkness is trash because they are both very overcosted for what little they do... and for what little they do. They are a faction I'm not even sure I understand why they keep around because their rules are so bad.
My prediction is that we'll be seeing the rolled with Everchosen into one book and from there the army will see the love it needs to at least be playable again.
-
STD is in a place where points alone can't fix their issues. They need a proper book with updated rules.
-
1
-
-
The problem I have is if someone is passionate about an army outright telling them to not start said army can equally backfire.
My advice is to never tell the person no, but instead try to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the faction they like. If that ends up helping them find a new army, them they made the choices themselves instead of feeling forced to do so.
Heck, I've had people try to tell me "no" over the Bonesplitterz only for me to point out that I'm building both a 40k and a AoS army with the same models (conversions inbound for the stuff I can't run "count as" on). Basically all my building for a legal Bonesplitterz force is to let me get more put of my hobby dollar, but if I listened to people telling me "no" then the cool Feral Ork army I've wanted for years (basically since I saw my first Savage Orc, followed by reading Imperial Glory which reinforced how cool Feral Orks are). And losing thay kind of project can really kill someone's motivation.
I won't pretend we don't have bad armies in the game right now, but the choice on if someone wants to collect them or not should be on the collector, all we can do is help them make an informed choice.
-
31 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:
I think thats because largely people see the same DoK or FEC build... the broken one, that the rest of the faction is not seen and therefore doesn't exist to the mind.
It's not seen at top tables but something is losing games in a game meta that largely lacks meaningful shooting.
-
Win rate in a vacuum is nearly useless on its own. When we break it down to which builds are over/underperforming and against which other faction builds and the data starts gaining enough meaning to make fully informed statements. It's uncommon for the data to be filtered to that level.
For example it's not all of FEC people cry foul over, it's Gristlegore. It's not all DoK, it's Hagg Nar. And yet when we start talking about what's broken the discussion aims a finger at DoK or FEC as whole factions.
So yeah, the statistics as we generally discuss them are useless because they don't properly identify the specific common threads in the faction that are causing the faction to win far more games than they should average.
-
I don't think the Rukks will go away as much as they'll be retooled. Likewise the themed Battalions will likely see a rework to be our nutters fight (maybe they'll be realm themed?). Arrowboyz will likely always be a need in the army due to how important having some level of shooting in the meta is to pull lynchpins out of opposing army combos, but the ability to nuke something completely with more shots than Skaven has clan rats is likely going to go away.
-
3 minutes ago, HammerOfSigmar said:
Well, the current FEC mechanism is far more than interesting and fun from my point of view......
The FEC mechanics aren't really the problem as much (and to steal a bit from Vince over on Warhammer Weekly) the issue of "and then". Because some of the issues come from these combos that just keep letting you stack more and more stuff into the base rule which takes a reasonable rule and turn it into a hot mess of feel bads that just makes it no fun to play against.
-
1 hour ago, tripchimeras said:
I agree that a lot of people asking questions like this just want assurances what they are getting isn't going to make for completely joyless games, but the answer to those questions is entirely contingent on how good their opponents are at the game in combination with how competitive their opponents' lists are, something they probably don't even know the answer to. I'm not saying I don't disagree that we are all far too ready to just focus on competitive sometimes, but it can be hard to know what the balance is where you are guiding someone away from doing something they will be completely disappointed with, while simultaneously not pushing them down a path that will lead them towards perpetual meta chasing. The "just take whatever you want" answer is not what people are looking to hear when they post a question of this sort online.
While I agree that trying to let people know how bad certain parts of the army can be, the fact is the discussion often runs "don't run this EVER" with little explination of why it might not be that good. It's rarely about what the unit seems to be tailored to do so people can decide if they actually need said unit or not (of if they're committed to a particular unit, letting them then figure out how to build around that unit in a meaningful way). Basically I'm saying the conversations we have about armies need some work as they are unbalanced and are creating the issue of the over-focus on competitive play by the community.
-
18 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:
Thats likely because the default conversation setting is competitive tournament context, at least online.
Very true, which is a problem in and of itself. Even when people make a point that they aren't looking for the most competetive army or most competetive build the internet still tries to redirect the story that way.
Listening is not the strong suit of the internet.
-
5 hours ago, RuneBrush said:
Can't agree with this more, but I think I'd go one step further. Hopefully this doesn't come across as too controversial, but there is a portion of gamers out there who let themselves be convinced that they're not going to like an army because it isn't any good* - and by not any good I mean not competitive.
As an example of this, I've a friend who recently posted on a couple of Facebook groups that he was looking to build a new army (this will be his third) and a list of options that he fancied doing in the form of a poll. The vast majority of the responses were telling him not to go for specific factions and listing the problems for it. Now he'd made it clear that he was doing this for his own enjoyment not for winning tournaments (in fact many of the options weren't very often seen armies) and the poll results bore no resemblance to the comments, but it's a good example of how somebody is immediately steered down the route of focusing on what's competitive/dominant.
I'm sure we've all heard it "don't go for that model because they're rubbish in game". This also becomes a self-deprecating issue too - that new player that's been swayed as to what's they'll enjoy promoted the same views onto the next one. This means that when GW rolls out something to identify the problem (normally points, sometimes errata), people feel really aggrieved that their previously dominating army is now merely "competitive".
* I will quickly add that I don't think this applies to any of us TGA! This comment is meant more from the aspect of social media
I've seen this a lot myself. If I go out somewhere asking what models I need to get first for Bonesplitterz the first thing most people will tell me is to not play Bonesplitterz rather than answer the question.
-
1
-
-
After listening to the Warhammer Weekly crew talk abouy the GHB, I feelmlike some of the reactions could be putting the cart before the horse. We still have a FAQ coming, and with it could come some changes that address things points can't.
Points have limits in how they can reasonably affect the game, but eratta has more room to shift.
-
1
-
-
Based on my limited know-whatz of the army the Kunnin Rukk is probably safe until they get back around to us for an update (whenever that is).
That said, we have a lot of general versatility in the army so it's not hard to shuffle things around to fit into a new list.
-
1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:
I think your assessment is dead accurate. That is the model at play in AOS. If you want to be competitive you have to be willing to churn and burn your collection. Any other route means you have to be ok with and embrace losing because of army disparity and be ok with that. That is also the biggest complaint that I personally hear when we have recruitment. New players don't want to churn and burn, or they jump in and after the first GHB kneecaps them they sell their collection and leave for good because they don't want to keep that cycle.
I started about two and a half years ago and of our initial group which was about 18 players , there are only four original members remaining because the others got out because they didn't want to have to buy new armies.
As much as I hate to say it, but this is an issue that Warhammer of all flavors has this problem as far back as I can remember, only the stuff that's at the top of the heap can get smacked off the pile a lot sooner than it used to be.
Frankly I like the more frequent shake ups because it means stuff that's broken doesn't stay broken forever, but at the same time I can understand why many find it frustrating if they feel a need to chase the current hotness in the meta.
-
11 hours ago, AlexanderGonzo said:
Not sure if this has been discussed already, but what are everyone's thoughts on the GHB 2019 changes to BoC? I really love that our endless spells went down across the board and that gors went down making my battleline super cheap! Sadly, no Bull/Bestigor changes but still really good points for the units. Do you guys plan on playing BoC throughout the year or pick up a new army? Personally, I'm looking at DoT because I love casting spells and playing in my Hero Phase
BoC is my slow build army at the moment. I'm using it to learn a lot of new painting things (like a better way to do skin). With Contrast paints out I've decided to finally crank out that Feral Ork army I've wanted for a while (especially since the new GSG help source somce nice bits like Squig Hoppers for Boar Boyz to ride to be count as Storm Boyz). I won't be converting a lot of the regular basic models though so they can be used to play Bonesplitterz without explaining why they have guns (I'd rather use their standard equipment and go with count as instead).
Attached is my Wii Gorgon and all his lovely skin (skin I still need to put tattoos on).
-
3
-
My experience providing GHB feedback to the design team and my thoughts on GHB2019
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Squig Hoppers are an even more recent example.
My general hope is thst the kit will be able to function as at least two different artillery units, if not three or four. Let the players figure out how to use the extra bits, just give us a lot of options in the box.