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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 18121812

  1. Another point that accelerated the adoption of the gun, despite early guns being kind of, well, not good, was that they're actually cheaper and easier to transport. Many people seem to assume a bow/crossbow and arrows/bolts is cheaper than a gun (including OP). A gun is more expensive than a bow. Bullets and powder are much cheaper and more compact than arrows, and you're buying a lot more bullets/arrows than guns/bows. A good arrow is actually a pretty difficult item to mass manufacture and transport. You need a chunk of decent iron for the head, far larger and more expensive than the mass casting of lead balls. You need a good quality piece of wood for the shaft so it doesn't warp in transport. Mass gathering undamaged feathers alone was a significant task. In 1417 in England an order went out demanding 6 feathers from every goose in the country. Then transporting the arrows without damaging the fletching was a difficult task, and at the final stage, actual battle, a soldier can't carry nearly as many arrows as he can bullets.
  2. You don't like guys running away. This is literally a thread about how many people think Inspiring Presence (and other abilities) result in too few models are running away, so that's obviously not a universal opinion. I definitely think psychology/moral should be part of the game, and the ease with which it can be ignored by many factions is a little lame. However, the battle shock mechanic itself is flawed, and there are some hammer units that can throw out insane damage that need Inspiring Presence as a bit of a counterbalance. Dropping Inspiring Presence would break the game.
  3. This is some of the stuff that's really keeping me from truly enjoying AoS and the Realms. It just doesn't feel like an actual, functional universe inhabited by people to me.
  4. The problem with polar coordinates around the center is that it gets really polar coordinates get really non intuitive the closer to the pole you get. Lets say you're trying to navigate in England, or California, or anywhere a lot of people live. If you were to orient yourself facing North, and walk a mile, you'd still be facing North. East would be to your right, and West to your left. Turn and face East. Now North is on your left. Walk a mile, you're still basically facing East, and North is still on your left. Now, lets say you're meter away from the North Pole. If you face East, North will be on your left. Go forward one meter. North isn't directly to your left anymore, and your not facing due East anymore. Your facing South-East, and North is to your rear-left. Step another meter, and you're facing South-South East. Walk a couple kilometers, and you're practically facing entirely South. The direction 'North', from your perspective, rotates as you move. Imagine trying to give directions using that. Mentally trying to compensate for how much or how little the direction East isn't a straight line? This works fine on our planet. Very, very few people live and work around the poles. But in AoS it seems the centers are the most populated areas. Having a system that's hard to use around the most important areas seems like a bad idea. A grid layout rather than a polar system would be far more easy to use. If the sun in the Realms had a consistent path, I'd pick that as one on the primary lines, ie, East/West is parallel to the direction of the sun, and North South runs perpendicular to East West. Set up a Cartesian grid with 0,0 at the center.
  5. Thanks for the write up. There's a lot more pressure to drop at the 3-4-5 drop count than there is at the higher counts. At that level, you're probably banking a bit on having the choice, even though you've suggested the 9 to 8 sees the greatest improvement. By the time you're at 7+ drops, you've accepted that you're probably not going to have choice of turn, and have built a list/strategy that first turn isn't important. Even though going from 9 to 8 at first glance looks like it yields large improvements, it's going from "not likely to have the choice" to, well, still not likely to have the choice. Additionally, the math is accurate, but somewhat deceptive. It's somewhat similar to armor saves; depending on how you look at it, the change from a 6+ save to a 5+ save, can be the same, or very different to a 3+ save to a 2+. Sure, in both case, it's a +1/6 (+16.7%) improvement. But in the second case, it fully halves your chance of failure, while in the first the chance of failure is only reduced by one fifth. I'd restate the percentage gain as what the decrease in odds of 'failure.' The more useful formula, rather than initial% - new% is (100 - new%/initial%). IE, 20% improvement for 6+ to 5+, 50% for 3+ to 2+ armor save. Going from 4 to 3 takes you from about 80% to about 90%, meaning your chance of failure has gone from 20% to 10%. So your chance of not having a choice has been cut in half (50% improvement). For 9 drops to 8, you go from about 75% chance of no choice, to 60%. That's only a 20% reduction , significantly less than the 50% reduction in failure from 4 to 3.
  6. Another thing I'll add to the "poorly written" pile is over-utilization of special rules. The sheer number of special rules in the game is crazy. It bogs down the game with excessive rolling, explanations of what's happening, and looking up of rules. For an example of excessive dice rolling, here's a frequent example, Reapers v Witch Elves. Reapers roll to hit. Re roll to hit. Wound roll. Save roll, bounces wounds back. Reapers take special saves. Witches take special saves. Witches re roll special saves. Champion's bonus wounds kick in, witches take special saves. Re roll special saves. Witches roll to hit. Re roll ones. Roll to wound. Re roll to wound. Save. More often than not I re roll from mystic shield. Special save. A normal, out of the core unit combat has 6 rolls. Hit/wound/save, each side. I have to count, sort, and roll 17+ times for this combat. It just takes too damn long.
  7. Honestly, I don't use the Realm and terrain rules out of simple special rules fatigue. There's just too much stuff to remember. Unless I can see an actual improvement in how fun the game is, why bother? I've played with all the rules. I don't hate any of them. But I don't think they are worth the time.
  8. The fact that anyone responding here means they're playing the game, which means the rules can't be too bad! 😃 But there is a lot of room for improvement. I have problems with a lot of the movement and line of sight rules in general, and in particular with how they interact with terrain. Part of this comes from the scale being wacky, the rules alternating from models being accurate representations or abstractions, and just some inherent difficulties within the medium. The movement and measuring rules work perfectly fine on a totally flat board, but even simple terrain can kind of break the rules. The movement and measurement rules are extremely simple, but can cause some questionable situations. By default, all movement is measured from base to base. It never states how horizontal and vertical distances are measured in the 'measuring distance' section, leaving me to conclude that its straight line, diagonally. However, multiple exceptions apply. I've had to debate this with multiple people though, which is a sign of a poorly communicated rules. Example: Model X is on a 3" high vertical sided column, and horizontally 4" away from Model Y. If X is shooting Y, he's 5" away. If X flies, and charges Y, he's 4" away. If he's a non-flyer charging, he's 7" away. One of the ways this can cause something very wonky is with 'deep strikers'. If you've got a model on top of a 9" tower, a unit that has to stay more than 9" away has to be a hair away from the base of the tower. It then has to roll a Zero or higher to get withing 0.5" if it's a flyer that ignores vertical distances. How a Rock Can Break GW's Movement Rules: I have a simple rocky outcrop piece of terrain. Let's simplify it to a rectangular block, 3" long, 1" wide, 1" tall. I have a monster with a base larger than this piece of terrain. Can this monster move freely across it? Sure it can. And it costs 1" to go up, and 1" to go down. Super easy. Now, here's where things get *****. Said monster stops on top of the rock. The entirety of the terrain is now underneath the monsters base. The monster appears to be hovering 1" in the air. The FAQ establishes free hanging partial movement on terrain as permissible. It is now unchargeable, because you can't complete a charge against it. You can't get within 0.5" of it to complete a charge, because you can't reach the rock to climb it. Why True Line of Sight is a poor rule: Age of Sigmar is not to scale. Both time and distance are abstracted. If you were to estimate how big an inch is to scale based on either the size of the models, how far a man can run in the amount of time a battle takes, how far units like humans with bows can shoot, etc, you'd get wildly different answers. The models are not in scale with the board, the terrain, or typical ranges of units. They're abstractions. EG, how big is a hill? Most models of hills are about 2", because bigger than that is just cumbersome. Which means ballpark 12ft high. That's a gentle rise. To earn the moniker of hill in real life, you're looking at something more like at least 4-8" high, which would need very big terrain that's cumbersome to move, store, and play on. Drawing "True" line of sight when things aren't truly to scale is bad. The board is also a very 'cleaned up' version of a battlefield. Small shrubs, tall grasses, dust, and smoke don't exist. The guys you're shooting past and shooting at are standing perfectly still when you whip out your laser pointer and say that your guy can shoot past the guys he's standing behind, between the heads of your guys, through the window in the ruined temple, between the legs of my infantry, and hit my character's foot with a cannonball (yes this actually happened in game). When that happened, I just gave up on LoS. I just assume everyone's got LoS to everyone now. Why Terrain Rules in General are Poor: Most of the time, the terrain has very little impact on the game due to its own inherent nature. They're too permissive in many respects; hills are too small to block significant LOS, ruins are too porous to block LOS, and models can scale vertical walls with the same ease that they can cross open fields. There are no rules for things like deep mud/rivers that might impact movement. There are no rules for how partial LoS blockage works (seeing the foot of one model of a unit of 40 models? You can full force shoot the entire unit). The cover bonus isn't really intuitive. You're on a bald hill? It's terrain, cover bonus. You're behind the hill? If you're not 100% out of LOS, no bonus. To make the terrain actually impact the game, there's all these cumbersome random rolls. This hill? It's an Arcane Hill. Why? So that at least it does something. Maybe next game it'll be a Sinister hill. The hill aspect of the hill doesn't matter though. To me, that's poor rules. +++ MOD EDIT +++ Please watch your language - TGA is family friendly
  9. @whispersofblood You're absolutely right in that in a competitive list, each unit should have a role, and absolutely wrong that points cost is the last thing to look at, and can't make a unit good. Points cost is part of determining the role. You can't decide if a unit is potentially good at a role until you've looked at its points, and any unit that currently exists in this game could become an effective choice in the game if you reduced its points enough. If the unit gets cheap enough, roles appear. The argument to the contrary is frankly bizarre to me. So yes, reducing a unit's cost enough will eventually make it competitive. Swarmofseals' makes some excellent points in his thread about why just massively dropping points until they're cost effective is a bad idea for GW long term, in that some units would just feel wrong being super cheap, and jerking non-book armies points down now and then back up again when they get better rules would go over poorly. And I'm not sure why you keep referencing sports teams. No one is saying analysis isn't useful, just that they don't agree with your analysis.
  10. Well, I'm more or less happy with what I've seen. I've been playing GW games for 15 years. This update certainly isn't perfect, but it's about the closest to balanced GW has ever been. 😃 And I prefer an error on the side of caution in terms of changes rather than wild swings.
  11. Well, you've only spent 1800pts of your 2000pts; you probably want to get some more Ghouls or try to squeeze in a battalion.
  12. They don't quite cancel out. It's true that if you've got one unit that fights first and he's got one, you end up alternating like normal. Where it gets weird is when someone has multiple 'start of the phase' abilities. You resolve *all* of your start of the phase abilities, then your opponent gets his. The place you'll see this most often is Idoneth. Their tide lets their entire army fight first. In the Idoneth players turn, that means his entire army would fight before your guy who fights first.
  13. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/21/who-fights-first/ If you have a unit that gets to fight at the "start of the phase" and your opponent does not, you will get to fight twice before your opponent fights once, before we take any other special rules into account. Once with the "start of the phase" unit, and then your choice of regular units. If your opponent also has a "start of the phase" unit, say Fanatics, then it would go your "start" unit, then the Fanatics, then one of your regular units. Feeding Frenzy can be activated as normal, so if you had the command points, and your opponent does not have any "start of the phase" units, you could fight 4 times before they go once.
  14. @Gwendar I'll use an example to explain. Let's say there's 3 valid units in range of your courtier's ability, and you roll 3 successful 5+. You can return one model to each, two models to one unit and one model to one unit while the third unit gets none, or three models to one unit. You do NOT return three models to all 3 units.
  15. Hey @Laier, your list is extremely similar to mine! Have you played any games with it yet? How'd they go? I haven't played a lot of games yet, so not a lot of definitive advice. The differences between mine and yours are only artifacts and I went with less Ghouls and more Horrors (20 ghoul, 6 horror, 3 horror). I go with more defensive artifacts on the mounted guys. They already hit super hard, but aren't super tanky. I went with Gryph Feather on one, and the chalice of heal D6 wounds on the other. Also took the re-roll damage on the bite mount trait, which got me a lot of extra wounds in the last game I played. I went with more Horrors because they're the unit that gets augmented by the Haunter Courtier. But you're having me second guess that, 40 ghouls will get the +1 attack bonus, and better board control.
  16. @Aleister I like having both the TG and ZD as well, for the reasons you mentioned. But to clarify the Charnel Throne ability only works for Archregent and GK on foot.
  17. I'm on the fence with the chalice too, in part because I don't want to spend the cash when I don't think I'll use the other 2. I think it depends on what else you're taking. If you have 2+ archregents, I think it's almost an auto include. If 0-1 Regents, it's basically balanced, not definitively good or bad.
  18. The authors supposition that the start and end of the combat phase aren't part of the combat phase seems a little off to me! 😃
  19. I'm just starting up FEC, and I like the look of the Abattoir battalion. Has anyone here used it much? What're your thoughts on it?
  20. @JackStreicher For all your insistence that there's a widely accepted scientific definition of immersion, I find it absolutely hilarious that the first sentence on the first paper in your first posted link is this:
  21. I can't seem to edit my post now, but I meant bottom left, not bottom right, which I'm sure most of you figured out anyway.
  22. I've been playing GW games for a LONG time. There's always been power creep. If you could assign a number to each books relative power and plotted it with release date as the X axis, it would surely look something like the plot on the bottom right of the picture; the newest isn't necessarily the most powerful, but there is a significant upward trend over time. 7th/8th it was VERY obvious. I think GW need to manage power creep a lot like governments need to manage monetary inflation. A little bit is actually good for the game. It helps encourage people to buy new things. Too much creep, like too much inflation, is disastrous, like 7th Ed Daemons caused more than one person I know to quit because they were so insanely above every other 7th ed army at the time. To me, the question isn't, "Is their power creep?" I don't see how anyone can possibly think the answer to that question is anything but a definite yes. The important question is: "Is the power creep at an acceptable level?"
  23. I'm leaning towards yes, based on the word "immediately", which implies you do it before any other action, like removing a dead model. It's a question worthy of an official FAQ answer though, as I can see valid arguments either way.
  24. OP didn't mention it, so just for clarity he's using a textured rolling pin made by a company called greenstuffworld. http://www.greenstuffworld.com/en/textured-rolling-pins/365-rolling-pin-hobby-roller-temple.html
  25. I'm casting another vote for stacking. Here's the actual logic/reasoning. If the rules say you can do something, you can do that thing unless later an exception is made. For example, the rules say you can shoot, say you can shoot until something says you can't, like if you've run. So if a models rules say it gets some kind of combat bonus, it will have that bonus unless something explicitly denies it.
  • Create New...