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

Battlefury

Members
  • Content Count

    245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About Battlefury

  • Rank
    Protector

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hey there! A player of my community and a member of my tournaments wants to have confirmation on how many artefacts he can use in his army. As I know, it is 1 genreals ability for his general and one further artefact for any hero. For one more battalion he can use one more artefact per battalion. BUT As I wanted to show him I saw, that it isn't written in his BoK Battletome. there is no restriction mentioned. I then had a look at the basic rules to confirm the rules, but couldn't find it. Now I don't know if that rules is even existing anymore. Could you give me the rules text for this within any of our documents please, so i can show him? Thank you in advance! Cheers///
  2. If I got you right, I would partially agree. BUT I can totally understand him, that the community might, and most likely will be splitted, as more options roll in. Sure, it is nice to have several games to dip in. BUT The prerequisite would be, that the now established players will be willing to pay fot that option to have. Otherwise there will be a distinct number of players wanting to play that version of AoS ( wich i really think it will be ), or the existing ones. Some of those will find it better than the AoS we know, others won't. I guess that's what his concern is. Iagree totally, that this shall not happen frequently, since communities are very integre, BUT that also depends on the community itself. If they are not that integre with each other, it might be a splitting in that community.
  3. Also not correct. It is not this product, that makes GW equal to EA. It is the path they already took until now, beginning at least 1 year ago.
  4. Since my post of yesterday, I am not that optimistic about that anymore, since I saw the release of Sororitas today ) although it is not AoS, but certainly it is GW's business practice again ). The picture, that it shows for me now is this: §1 This is a new cash grab, to drain money from those poor souls, that wanted WHF to stay §2 It will become a limited edition release fest a la couleur, that will give GW the possibility to gain mney as fast as possible §3 It was only released to secure the stagnating playerbase to stay for this and have a solid selling point ( potentially ) §4 The prices until that date will be far from ridiculous. GW hiked the prices not only one time this year, they still do. Each new box is slighty more expensive, than previous releases with a similar content. It is kind of the same, like it was with the Adeptus Sororitas for 40k. It took like 10 years for them to release plastic models with rules. Why though? It wasn't because GW wanted to get it right, or didn't have the ressources for it to be produced. They where sitting on these products to wait for a gap to release it in a moment, where there will be a fu** ton of people to buy it. It is literally 26 models with a book for 160€. That box is limited edition, just like everything what is entirely new at the moment, and is sold out already. Boxes are on ebay Germany from between 249,-€ to 400,-€. This is exactly, what we will se even more in the future. Because it works for them. And this is exactly the sense they will approach The Old Wrold. By waiting ( what they already do now ) for the right moment, when there is no retreat for those, who really wanted to have it, even though they didn't know what it will be, how it will be supported, what it will cost and what the release scedule will be for that. Imagine a product you spent like 500€ into, just to see it being abandoned like several other sub game systems. We should be sceptic, more than ever before, about the ( again ) upcoming business practice of GW. They became the EA of miniature game producers and let me tell you, that they didn't change, when they told it. They just changed some faces, but not what was behind it.
  5. Well, I am totally confused right now, after I saw this, to be honest. My initial thoughts where: a) Will this just be a rules parallel rules set, that brings back the WHFB rules? b) Will they shoot AoS in the Neck, like WHFB? c) Will this be the attempt to rewind and go for the soft reboot, like in 40k? I always said, that the 40k way to soft reboot the rules, but to keep all the rest functioning, was the better way to go. The anhiliation of the WHF world was a rough mistake, imo. They could have redesigned the rules and go for it. For that, personally, I hope they would rewind and go for that soft reboot style, by bringing back the lore, the world, the characters...just all of it, what made WHFB a good game backgroundwise. I know that WHFB was difficult to play for new players, and therefore shot itself into the knee a little, but I would like that soft reboot. Need to say, that i never played WHFB, just saw it played, but I had a look at the lore, wich was fantastic. So technically I am an AoS player, who likes the combination of both ( soft reboot version ) for our game.
  6. To be honest, most of those very strange name creations came up, because GW wants to copyright those. This is why for example Fyrreslayer have an "y" instead of an "i", because they where not allowed to copyright the word "fire". After they shot WHFB and lost some of the armies, as they froze some of the former designers out, they wanted to keep their stuff within their copyright. Because those designers took their work with them and didn't grant GW any right to their former designed products and product names. This is why we will never see another Bretonnia and Khemri faction anymore anytime. But I am with the creator of ths post, those names are often ridiculous and lousy.
  7. Hey there! If i would play an army, with their own allegiance, for example Sylvaneth, can I then include the generic Battleline for Order, wich is the Liberators without breaking the allegiance? Cheers///
  8. The spell to cast a wyldwood is reliant on the army allegiance, so it can not be given to the Treelord, as it is a magic lore for a sylvaneth army, that's what I read.
  9. Hey there! When I play the living city in the CoS Battletome, I can use Sylvaneth units in that allegiance then. My question: a) Is it true, that only Dryads could therefore be applied as battleline, otherwise the battleline from CoS? b) Can the General be a Sylvaneth unit? Cheers///
  10. Hello! Refering to it's warscroll I do have a question about the ability to plant a wyldwood of the treelord ancient. If he is an ally to another order faction, can he then plant the wyldwood? Can he than furhter awake it, and move/ teleport through it? For me it seems he can do all of that then. Cheers///
  11. Personally, I like the style of the new StD units. But the more I hope it will compensate the flaws of my main army, so i could combine it to be worth anything in the games.
  12. Very very nice model! Personally, I think a mono chromatic colour sheme could work well with this army. Cheers///
  13. I get what you mean and you're right. But here shall be a "BUT" in the sentence: The issue occures from the Hard Reboot, wich was Age of Sigmar. Befoer that hard reboot there where armies, that did funczion ( in a more or less baöanced way ) but every army had it's books and rules. When the roboot came, there was plane nothing, not even point values and players where supposed to throw together whatever they where please. What we see now is the consequence of a not very well made reboot. In 40k it kind of worked better, since they just reworked the basic rulesm but maintained the existing army books. The gap, that appeared after WHVF's reboot is still there today, resulting in missing army books & their rules, not fleshed out base rules ( to some degree ) and power cvreeps, that are not even funny anymore. The power creep only appears, because GW everytime has new ideas of mechanics, that they wanna implement in new books, but that's not how it works. If a game is being hard rebooted, the designer has to nominate mechanics, that shall be taken in all over the armies ( sure, not all armies would have 100% the same ), wich would be concidered to be balanced and then go for the existing armies and make those books, so that ALL armies have their rules anew. After that, an edition 2 could be launched with upcoming new books, new mechanics and new factions, but GW wants to do it all in one, wich does not work great as we see, at least imo.
  14. @McthewTotally agree. What I am concerned about with future releases are 2 things: a) the release manner of releasing 2 faction boxes with at least one limited* model in it ( I absolutely hate that! ) We, again, saw the feast of bones box being out of stock within hours and the models landing on ebay for ridiculous prices. Since ebayers do earn enough money to take more than 20 boxes per ebay shop, those releases are just straight up cursed to fail for the individual players. Pre ordering might help sometimes, but even that's not a guarantee, sicne the releases are time zone dependend. b) the squatting of models within new books I mean, why would anyone do that? Seems just that GW is lazy to rework all of the models / units. c) the prices of the new models Since when is it ok to pay 50€ for 10 Blood Warriors? And as I suspect, it will be the same with the Chaos Warriors. The price politics is just straight up sh*t and disgusting. *limited in eternity: These models are mostly a very important part to make an army viable ( bombardier, arch revenant, arch regent, tyrant ) and we will never know if, and when they are being released individually. Even today we are missing units from the very first 2 starter faction box of AoS, wich is the Lord Relictor, The Bloodstoker, Khorgorath and the Bloodsecrator. I know we can get those from ebay, bt that shall not be the way to go for GW tbh.
  15. Good thing you name is already "Honk"...
×
×
  • Create New...