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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mutton last won the day on January 3

Mutton had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

597 Celestant-Prime

About Mutton

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Warscrolls should be changed at intervals, there's no reason they shouldn't be---they've done it before. If we're changing units to make them more viable, I don't see an issue. There are units that are totally broken and useless, and no amount of points drops will ever get them to a table. With the current GW mantra, things like Blood Stalkers, Cygors, Lotan, etc., are all doomed to the shelf for YEARS until they get a new battletome (again). It doesn't have to be that way. Most of these could be fixed with a mere hour of dedicated thought. I think the biggest problem is GW doesn't hire enough rules writers to do all of this stuff. There's so much to keep track of. I do think GW struggles to find things to put into the GHB. That said, I'm excited for more team-play rules.
  2. I've tried at great length before to understand how the navigation works on 4chan. I think it's unfathomable.
  3. One thing I'd like to see in AoS3 is the introduction of a "minimum damage" rule like some things in 40k---e.g., "this D6 damage weapon does at least 3 damage." Or for something like the new Blast rules, where units above X number of models automatically take the maximum number of hits/damage. Also, get rid of drops as a first turn deciding factor. It's a terrible mechanic that only limits army creativity. Battalions are already insanely good.
  4. The last one had online updates as well, both points and FAQ.
  5. The GHB book is done earlier than most people imagine. Remember it has to be written, edited, sent to print, printed, shipped to warehouses, then made to order. It's a lengthy process, and if they were to try and include every new tome coming out, it'd never be done. It's also time to give the newer released tomes time to breathe and nail down what exactly needs changing, if anything.
  6. A reminder that battletomes released from Cities of Sigmar to now (Ossiarchs, Mawtribes, Slaves, KO, Tzeentch, Seraphon) are getting online points updates a week or two after the GHB; therefore, they won't have any changes in the book.
  7. I wouldn't be too concerned my friend. Maggotkin are first in line for a book refresh.
  8. Pretty sure Ossiarch Bonereapers and Ogor Mawtribes were directly after Cities. Then we had Slaves, Kharadron, Tzeentch, and Seraphon.
  9. I like to think that races of all types can appreciate the Ogor plight of "we hungie."
  10. Even as someone who frequently runs an ethereal Stonehorn, I kind of wish Malign Artifacts would go away now that we all have battletomes.
  11. When was the last time a new Xenos faction was introduced? I swear it feels like we've been running with the same set of 40k factions for 20 years. I know Admech is relatively recent, but that's again another Imperium force, of which there are multitudes. They recently released that one piece of art from the 9th edition book showing off a handful of alien races that exist in the universe, but aren't in the actual game. Those were brilliant.
  12. It's a three-part problem. 1) Power creep is absolutely a thing that happens---it's hard to avoid. 2) In developing new army mechanics, sometimes they stumble upon mechanics that are powerful but oppressive for the opposing player, requiring a higher level of skill to overcome. 3) Armies that become hard counters to others (something that hasn't really been a major problem until recently). Going back only a year ago, you can point to many allegiances, abilities, warscrolls, etc that have been further iterated on with stronger rules than their predecessors. Many people tend to agree that books releasing earlier in the life cycle lose their weight near the end. It's natural for this to happen. Designers want to err on the side of strength, either for marketing purposes or to ensure a book/product has staying power. A book with a "safer" rule-set is always going to be harder to lift up than a book that's more oppressive; because the tighter and more reliable the rules, the more readily points increases can mitigate its power (not that this is a foolproof idea, but largely true). However there's only so much you can reduce an army's points to make up for discordant rules (look at BoC or Gitz) before things get a little silly and you end up with 300 models on the table. Power creep happens in nearly every game. The real question is by what method and to what degree? Are Petrifex, Tzeentch, and Slaanesh overpowered armies that have crept their way into the top echelon by rules-writing alone? It often depends on the player's point of view. I often see very competitive players mentioning that there are clear counters to these armies if you have the right setup and know the right strategies. These folks will obviously say they're fine. Casual players who just wander into the game store every couple weeks and don't pour over tier lists will shout in agony to the high heavens and refuse to matches against them because of their miserable experiences playing against such armies. Nobody wants to spend 2-3 hours playing a game they couldn't win because they didn't do enough mortal wounds or didn't own enough shooting units. The fact of the matter is people want to buy, paint, and play with cool models. But when playing against some of these armies, you can't simply throw whatever you have/want onto the table and hope to have a chance. Even just owning a mixed army of your favorite models with a couple synergies flavored in there won't cut it, and you'll get smashed a majority of the time. Newer armies tend to skew towards needing a higher level of learning to beat, very specific counters, and they often have multiple safety nets (reliability) for the controlling player to avoid the ruthless nature of luck in a dice-based game. Why aren't people talking as much about Petrifex or Slaanesh anymore? Well because KO and Tzeentch have released since then and are pretty strong direct counters. Yet people still speak about Petrifex with venom on their lips, because many people aren't playing with those two armies, they're playing with armies that still intensely struggle in that match up due to the nature oppressive things like hyper-defense + offense or infinite summoning. Hell, barely anyone talks about FEC anymore, but I don't know anyone that enjoys playing against them specifically because of the chalice and terrorgheist. Would competitive players say FEC was overpowered? Probably not. I wouldn't. But the mechanics of their army, the very things that give them the best opportunity for success, are oppressive and difficult to overcome without prior knowledge and a lot of experience. I don't want AoS to head in a direction where pitting one particular army against another means an assured defeat by one of those players, but in some cases, we're already there, and it has been getting a little worse. That said, I'm hopeful the rules writers at GW can turn things around, mitigate some of these oppressive rules, and have the eye to spot a need for change. TLDR: Power creep happens and it's more prevalent when mechanics become too overwhelming for casual players to handle effectively without specific army compositions or extensive experience.
  13. Teclis should just have a rule that says: "At the beginning of the game, remove any non-Nagash, non-Slann wizards from the battle."
  14. Where was that rule for Teclis mentioned? Side note: I wasn't saying Lumineth was busted or anything, just stating the fact that Ossiarchs are, as matter of fact, weak to things like reliable mortal wound output, shooting, and magic.
  15. Mortal wound output in combat, versatility of ranged damage (which bypasses rerollable saves), and tons of magic (without Nagash Ossiarchs don't excel at it).
  • Create New...