Orbei
-
Posts
131 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Orbei
-
-
1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:
I don’t see a use for the Thrallmaster. He is a support piece that’s supposed to fix a disfunctional unit. So one basically pays double to get use out of Namarti Thralls.
You‘d basically have him running around locked in at the -1 Aura. 🤷🏼♂️
unless they‘ve also changed Namarti I don’t see how the addiction of this Model helps the army.Hard to say without a full warscroll. Even if he's halfway decent on his own he could be appealing. Reavers are already very good and can have surprising output in melee. While this guy isn't going to justify thrall spam, he lends support to an already good unit in reavers and may very well be an interesting choice.
-
5 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
There is no way to run a fluffy dragon spam list that isn't problematic.
The idea itself that dragons need a fluffy spam list option seems dumb to me in the first place. Why do these ultra rare dragons, a species only recently returned to the realms, get an option to be spammed as battleline in the first place? If dragons of all things can be battleline what is the point of battleline restrictions. Just let people play whatever they want because there's no reason 11 dragons is more fluffy than 13 doomwheels or 7 GUOs.
-
7
-
-
18 hours ago, AaronWilson said:
It's however loads of fun, you just got to roll some dice and accept the game for what is is, or don't play it.
It's not loads of fun to play against. That's the point. The notion that something can be broken and if you don't enjoy playing against it hey that's your problem is sad to hear. Maybe the problem is with the broken units, not the players. Maybe people want the game to be better than it is.
On 1/9/2022 at 8:35 PM, Doko said:They are usefull due to movility and tanking,but they are overcosted and fulminators are so much better
News flash: Fulminators are broken. Pointing at fulminators and saying they are adds nothing to the conversation. Fulminators are stupid and need a nerf but it's apples to oranges because it is impossible for fulminators to do the specific thing a SDG spam list can do.
SDG are a very poorly designed unit. How the designers of the Stormcast book thought that giving one warscroll 7 different abilities and powerful synergies would be okay is baffling. This unit cannot be fixed with points. You can nerf it to the ground (500 points for 2?) so it becomes unplayable, but at any reasonable point value the unit will be a problem because of spamming them and the unique problems they cause. They need a warscroll rewrite.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Points listed per model as well as per unit. You can add or drop models as long as the unit is within a certain range, with reinforcement points needed if it is over a certain amount. If I write a list and it's 2005 points let me remove one 10 point model, or add a guy if my list is a little short. This would make list writing so much more flexible again.
Everything in the game gets 2" reach.
A form of limited alternating actions. You get 3 activation points a turn and things cost between 1-3 points to activate. So you can either use one big monster or 3 basic units, etc. Units get a cool down token and can't be activated again for a certain length of time. I go you go has always been the worst part of WH. The game would be more engaging with pretty much anything else and lead to fewer blow outs. Way too many games are decided by mid turn 2.
No more grand alliances. You can ally in whatever the heck you want with 25% of your points. The mortal realms are a vast enough setting to let people get creative with the lore of their army. Come up with a cool story and have fun. 25% of a Chaos list are Stormcast descending into corruption? Gloomspite from Shyish who have formed an uneasy alliance with Death? Sounds cool to me. I'd love to see what people come up with.
-
56 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:
You do know factions like Kharadron only have one battleline warscroll, right?
Yeah. I play IDK which only has one default battleline as well. They should probably give factions like those more kits.
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:
I would like to see the reinforcement limit done away with--the problem was always with inappropriate horde discounts and not with hordes themselves. I do love the standardized unit sizes it brought though, great quality of life change with 3rd.
I think reinforcements has been more of a net negative to han a positive. I'd love for battleline units to be exempt, and I'd also love for all of the "becomes battleline under X condition" rules to be done away with. Limit the specialty units and let people take as many of the basic grunts as they want.
-
11 hours ago, HollowHills said:
They literally did the worst thing they could do other than just squatting the faction and releasing no models.
The battlebox is extremely disappointing. What's worse is the way their feedback loop seems to work. Players are fed up with a dull box and skip it? GW likely interprets this as IDK and FS being poor sellers and focuses on other factions. Players gobble up the box to support these factions? GW interprets this as the single foot hero battlebox model being a success and keeps doing this.
I think the IDK hero looks pretty sweet and absolutely want the model, but will just wait for the solo release as I don't need the rest of this box. And while the hero looks cool it's the last thing I would have picked for a new kit release.
-
Although the army specific options are strictly worse, simply having them as options gives you an edge over factions without them yet. You may have already completed some of the easy generic tactics and late game are scrambling for points, when perhaps the faction specific tactic is your best option left. Alternatively, complete a battletome specific one early if you are able. Then you have the generic one still available. The battletome specific ones offer you flexibility which can have great value.
They should be kept out of tournaments because of the uneven playing field they create.
-
2
-
-
The best big dragon model we've ever had. So glad they can be built without any Stormcast accessories.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Kitsumy said:
yes thats the new hero for sure. and it is sooo dissapointed, it is 99% gereric baldy with sligthy different choker and weapons.
in morathy book she promised us powerful cithay souls, so new idk like volturnos, i mean even better than akhelians, fully powerful sea elves, not this useless baldy
Gotta say that as an IDK player this doesn't excite me either. What worries me is that she has an eel looming behind her. It makes me think that she might be a foot hero with a trained eel, similar to SCE heroes and their individual griffhounds. I don't want this. There are so many amazing sea monsters they can use and I already have plenty of eels. Foot hero with eel sidekick feels pretty bland and uninspired. Especially considering the many obvious gaps in the range which could be filled.
-
16 minutes ago, Feii said:
For a player who is not a nurgle player I can just say that this great, flavourful, probably successful book showcases how bad GW rules department is. The inconsistency and volatility with the new rules we see lack any quality control step - or a very bad one where certain writes are favourites whoever is in charge of the department and can push any rules - and they talk about useless and constrictive ways how to design a warscroll meanwhile they can fully circumvent it with the battletome rule set. For me this book and hedonites rules or bonesplitterz exist in a completely different universes. Miles apart in quality being sold for the same price.
Yep. I found it silly how people were looking at the SE and OW books and trying to interpret design direction for future tomes from them. We should understand by now that each battletome exists in a vacuum with complete disregard to the design of old, recent, or planned new books. It's simply whatever they feel inspired to write when looking at the models in front of them. This also applies to points.
-
1
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Sigmarusvult said:
I like most of it except for the allegiance ability which sounds like you have to keep track of lots for just doing MWs.
Its an interesting rule in theory. While I don't like the prevalence of mortal wounds in the game and this let's everything in Nurgle deal mortal wounds, the cap of 7 means you can't rely on those mortals alone to burst things down. If you load up a unit with 7 tokens it will still likely only take 3-4 mortal wounds that turn, which can then potentially be countered with heroic recovery/rally/etc. It also means if you're relying on those mortals things will get a chance to swing back in combat before they die. Pretty cool actually from a mechanic standpoint and very thematic. But from a bookkeeping standpoint yes it sounds like it will be a bit of a nightmare to track and remember. It just has to be 7, one more than could be tracked on a D6!
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
You need way too few ressources to achieve immortality atm. And no, no model should be immortal as long as you can buff it up a little. We're not talking about complex, accurate movement or well performed plans to make something immortal. You basically spent one CP and chuckle, maybe some magic and maybe an aura. And nothing stops you from repeating this over and over and over again. And suddenly immortl for a turn becomes "immortal whenever I need it". This is plainly stupid.
This is a big part of the problem. There's no real choice or tactical thinking involved - you point at the strongest thing, buff it, and now it doesn't die. Resources that are incredibly easy to access (5+ cast mystic shield, were they drunk?), All out defense every turn, finest hour which is 100% guaranteed and unstoppable. There's no counter play on the other side. No dispelling mystic shield since it's cast from the other side of the table. All out attack is pathetic compared to all out defense. In all cases the defensive buffs are just better than offensive buffs. You either have a skew list which pumps out mortal wounds or you don't kill the target.
It's way too high of a return on investment when you apply these buffs to high armor save hero monsters. No one cares if you stack a bunch of save buffs on an average hero to achieve a 4+ unrendable. But save stacking gives obscene value when applied to 3+ save hero monsters, beyond the investment in either initial points or in game resources.
-
It's important that the start of every syllable is included in the acronym. To avoid confusion. Hence, SBGL.
Other favorites are HDNOSN, OSABR, LMNRL, and KRDOVL.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Horizons said:
I think the new tomes show that GW knew that save stacking could be problematic and that's why there is access to rend -2, -3 and MW's.
I think there is a balance that needs to be achieved. It's just as frustrating to place your 800-1000 pts model and have it dissapear, then it is to have it be an unkillable menace. The fact only Archaon is problematic (competitively that is) shows that there currently is a pretty good balance.
An interesting exercise could be to try and see what tools new books/armies would need to combat this trend.
I disagree with the idea that mass +save auras are problematic, in the armies they currently appear in I think they're pretty essential. Fyreslayers, Sylvaneth, Daughters, OBR and Idoneth all have access to bubbles of + save and aren't problematic.
I agree with most of this, especially regarding auras. I don't see auras as a bad design choice at all and work just fine in those factions. I think there are more problems than just Archaon, though.
The arms race of higher rend and mortal wounds in new battletomes worries me, though. If you give out enough rend to crack the save stacking problem, armies that can't achieve high saves just melt even faster. This is the problem I see... Units are either killy enough that they can blow most anything off the board or tanky enough that they are almost impossible to remove. Anything in the middle is irrelevant.
I like the proposed cap at 3+. It's not a perfect solution, as it devalues units with a native 3+ and makes 4+ the new sweet spot. Still a much healthier place to be than where we currently are.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Kadeton said:
I mean... Ishlaenn Guard were doing the 2+ unrendable save thing way before everyone else jumped on the bandwagon. They don't need or even benefit from save stacking.
Yes, on the charge only. A single all out defense gets them there. Take away the leviadon and nothing is really going to change here. I don't see them as relevant to this entire discussion.
4 hours ago, Kadeton said:I'd say from the games I've played so far, save stacking was almost exclusively relevant when used to bring a unit to a 2+ save and ignore some rend, when facing an overwhelming amount of incoming attacks.
We're on the same page here, saying the same thing. It's a haves and haves not situation because of this. I don't see new tomes as fixing the issue because I don't expect Gitz, BoC, Nighthaunt, etc to suddenly find 3+ armor saves, which is what this mechanic demands to be worth it. And even if they did, I am not happy with the mechanic in games. Completely skews the value you get from certain pieces.
-
3 hours ago, Kadeton said:
Yeah, I'm with you on that. Buffing multiple frontline units to un-rendable levels is not good for the game. Anything that creates no-brainer choices is anathema to satisfying tactical gameplay.
(I'd still separate the concepts, though. Save stacking is fine. Abilities that provide save bonuses to multiple units are flawed.)
Its interesting that you use the leviadon as an example. I think the leviadon's aura is fine in the context of the army it is in. If it was in StD, Stormcast, Ironjawz, etc yes it would be problematic. But Idoneth don't really have things it can push to the all important 2+ or other ways to stacks saves beyond the normal. They don't even have a strong magic game for mystic shield. Upping the save on thralls from 5+ to 4+ or eels from 4+ to 3+ really isn't the issue that people have with save stacking, is it? For the same reason, if Gloomspite or BoC got access to a similar aura I wouldn't find it offensive. The problem people have are the things that become ridiculously resilient regardless of how much offense is shoved towards them. Save stacking is specifically a problem when 3+ becomes 2+, often ignoring a good bit of rend. The value you get from it becomes completely disproportionate to the cost.
Also, I don't think save stacking is some amazing tactical gameplay. It's generally blatantly obvious what is going to get buffed. Oh wow, Archaon/mawcrusha/Nagash got all the buffs this round. Such tactics wow.
-
46 minutes ago, Kadeton said:
The fact that some of those armies won't receive their 3rd Ed update for some time only supports the argument that GW's release model is bad, not that save stacking is.
Can't both be bad?
-
1
-
-
Save stacking is a decent mechanic as a concept but its implementation is very problematic. Capping it at +1 to your base save might sound reasonable at first, as people don't want to see 2+ saving skeletons or something. Unfortunately what this does is favor high native save units too much. Anything with a native 3+ can hit the magic number 2+ and double it's survivability. For the same effort something on a 6+ can reach a 5+, which is only a 25% increase to survivability. Armies with good base saves can take advantage of this much easier than those with poor saves.
I think the situation would be improved with either no cap, letting you go crazy on any unit, or (preferably) no improving at all above the base save. There also desperately needs to be an equivalent way to stack rend if we can stack saves. There's little counterplay beyond mortal wounds at present, which is also a haves and have-nots situation.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:
Unless you go for something really weird and like buy a bunch of different warbands and mix them all together for your marauders, who then end up looking thematically incoherent. Some people maybe like that, but it certainly isn't your typical AOS unit where individual models look "of a part" with the others.
This is the coolest option for the warbands by far. A mish mash of various lunatics whipped into a crazed frenzy. Finally some actual chaos. Would love to see someone do this.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Noserenda said:
Its not like warcry not existing would give us more AoS minis anyway, they are completely different systems with different teams working on them, some of the warbands might have seen release as "proper" AoS kits but they would probably have all languished on various drawing boards or in artists heads leaving nothing in their place.
I don't really understand that. Yes, they're on different teams... Because the specialty games are a thing. But it's one company with finite resources. They could just say "okay warcry team, we're moving you to AoS and you all get to make updated saurus warriors this month."
-
2
-
3
-
-
Warcry shouldn't exist. The new warband models look really cool. At the same time, Nurgle gets 1 new model with their update. GW can't handle adequately supporting their mainline games (AoS and 40k) and it's sad to see so many cool models released for a niche game which appeals to a small subsect of the player base. It's a waste of resources.
-
5
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Lurynsar said:
I understand they’re on the app, and the app is in a free beta. Has this changed?
This is still the case. GW has been very cagey about what will be free after the beta. We know that the army book codes will unlock allegiance abilities. We also know that the app will have a subscription component, which will be included with Warhammer +. It's a pretty reasonable guess that this means warscrolls will be locked behind the paywall, otherwise what would you be paying for? This is the existing 40k model so not a reach to think they intend to push AoS in this direction.
-
5 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
What I don't understand is why a company that will do that also takes away free warscrolls and in 2021 is actually discontinuing the digital option and trying to force everyone to still buy physical books. It seems so out of keeping with the rest of their IP strategy for them to be like "yeah, go ahead and literally post every page of our book online, that's fine, as long as it's youtube."
3 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:It’s all about building up hype. That’s it.
2 hours ago, Sarouan said:Easy to understand, though. With "free warscrolls", it makes the job easier for third party to gather the informations for their own "app" or assimilated.
It's actually very consistent with their IP protection to keep this behind their own app and youtube partners rather than the webstore. Gives more control for them.
Youtube is about building hype, sure. The fact that people end up learning the rules through it is a side effect. I don't buy into the notion that this has anything to do with IP protection, though. This isn't going to deter wahapedia or piracy at all. In fact this will almost certainly create more demand for piracy, resulting in more IP infringement. The simplest explanation is that they are trying to drive as much traffic as possible to the app, which will then be placed behind a Warhammer + paywall.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Well, eel spam hasn't been viable since 2nd edition. The notion that IDK players are still spamming eels is outdated and those players probably just haven't played IDK in a while. But reaver spam isn't exactly the default best choice. IDK are in a pretty good place as far as internal parity with a few exceptions. Good lists can incorporate reavers, sharks, ishlaen guard, turtles, and other bits and pieces to taste. Morrsarr are pretty outclassed by other choices though, I'd rather take sharks.