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

Kasper

Members
  • Content Count

    689
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Kasper last won the day on February 5

Kasper had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

455 Celestant-Prime

About Kasper

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. What I've encountered: Warstomper's Hurled Body ability says "during the combat phase" and as such isnt limited to when he piles in and can be used after everyone have fought. Seems unintentional considering how the other abilities function (upon piling in). The ability Longshanks says you can only move over a terrain feature if it is less than 4" tall. What if other parts of the terrain feature is 2" tall (like a fence) but theres a building which is 4,5" tall - Is it possible to move over the 2" fence without a movement penalty from "climbing"? Stomper Tribes "Getting Stuck In" says it adds 1-2 damage depending on enemy unit size. It doesnt mention melee attacks, is it intended for it to affect the Chuck Rocks shooting attack on the Mancrushers? I mean it is worth sending in questions, but I think some of those are very easily explained. 2) - Longshanks is essentially just a "nerfed" version of fly. Fly doesnt allow you to move out of combat except if you retreat. Longshanks should be no different as a result. 3) The warscroll ability specifically says when "a model" charges, hence it works for each model that charges. Gore-Gruntas in Ironjawz have a similar ability and it works that way. 5) Just above the artefacts for each tribe it says they are exclusive. For Taker Tribes it says "Kraken-Eater Mega-Gargant only", hence a Warstomper cant gain these artefacts in any way. 6) It specially says "they cannot use any other command abilities". There are no other command abiltiies except the general ones like "On the double" so it seems like a hard no tbh. Else I think the question should include realm command abilities.
  2. With GW releasing FAQs 4 weeks after a book release, have anyone made a compilation of questions we can send in to ensure as many odd interactions get answered?
  3. Straight up making a game impossible to win is incredible stupid, but kicking an objective out of your deployment zone in Battle for the Pass to deny your opponent the possiblity of earning 4 pts and instead 2 pts seems reasonable to me. Afterall it is quite clear we arent super tanky but not super killy either, so the gameplay is meant to revolve around objectives and outscoring VPs. Thats likely why many new battleplans (that were released at the same time as SoB was meant to be released - hence points in the GHB2020) include additional points if you have a hero, behemoth etc.
  4. Keep in mind its done in the hero phase, so really only useful to do that if you get the double turn. Certainly strong to kick it backwards and way out of reach of your opponent. I do like the triumph tbh. Reroll hits and wounds is meaty with all those high damage attacks. Reroll saves is also alright.
  5. The Warstomper guy making people -1 to hit if he has attacked is kinda cool. I considered trying it out with a KE in Takers and then put Extremely Intimidating ontop. Could be fun to run those guys together and make the enemy -2 to hit.
  6. I feel like a Kraken Eater is too good to pass up on. I have only played (3 games this weekend) as Takers with 2x GB + 2x3 MC and had multiple situations where kicking the objective would have been great. I won all 3 but none of them were against hyper competitive lists (40 Blightkings + Glotkin, SCE with Gotrek + Prime + Stardrake and mirror against Takers with 2 KE + 1 GB). I think Im gonna focus on Takers in the future. Against armies that cant deepstrike, you can kick it backwards and likely buy you another turn getting points while you move the KE forward and engage stuff, assuming your kick went far enough for the opponent to not just retreat onto it in their turn, or maybe you have placed your KE in such a manner that the opponent cant really retreat far enough since he has to go around your huge base and still be outside of 3". You are still holding the objective on a majority of battleplans, even if you kicked it into a far corner while you sprint towards the middle. I wonder if they are gonna FAQ stuff like Battle of the Pass. You can also punt the objectives closer together so your force is standing ontop of each other etc. Quite a few options here. Even in Stompers I think going for 9 MC is a trap and that you would want WS + KE + 6 MC. I think alot of people in general are really focused on damage output when it comes to playing AoS. Almost any faction thread is largely about what unit deals the most damage etc. which is just not how you generally win, hence why I would prefer a KE in Stompers over 3 MC. 3 MC is gonna deal way more damage, but they also die/bracket way, way faster. Tabling your opponent by turn 2 is obviously a valid strat, but it is few armies that can do this. I do worry about stuff like IJ, Fyreslayers, Tzeentch and maybe retreating skinks in Fangs of Sotek. Many of the current top armies have a disgustingly high damage output, but some of them are also MW sprinkling which we kind of ignore, where as it eats support heroes in other armies. There are generally very few armies that have a great time against anything they face (if you talk about "hyper" competitive lists) so I dont think this is anything new or a major drawback for SoB. Im gonna try to get some games in vs my friend with both IJ, OBR and FoS Seraphon soon!
  7. Sure but effectively denying your opponent his command squad is often quite big. Multiple armies get quite good rules like Ardboyz +2 Bravery, Pink Horror banner etc etc. The fact you make your opponent remove these is a win on its own imo. I do like the Shiny β€˜Uns too since many units have 4+ save. I have thought about doing the +1 hit to Wizards/heroes to improve the shooting. It basically cancels out Look-out Sir. It might be worth losing out on some melee grinding power in favor of being able to snipe low wound heroes. I threw 2 rocks (2 breakers) at a Stardrake earlier today. He failed with -3 rend and took 8 damage to the face!
  8. Megas are not β€œjust a 35 man unit”. The fact you can kiss an objective and instantly steal it with a count of 20 (or 30) is massive. I have played 3 games during the weekend and the ability to retreat over models with a 13-18” retreat (played 2x gatebreaker + 2x3 crushers) and land just inside a tiny bit of an objective is crazy. All in all Gargants play very similar to Stonehorns, just with a couple more tricks.
  9. At least the other Mega-Gargants are heroes and can be buffed by artefacts/traits. They also do impact MWs which can be huge against certain models. While the slain effect is great, it will rarely go off against smaller heroes with 4-6 wounds and probably best used against lower wound models to pick out a champion/banner. He doesnt have any unique rules compared to the KE that can kick objectives etc. 1 Mancrusher is doing 5 damage to a 4+ save and 2 MWs on the charge, but only for 180 pts vs 500 pts. I could see the Bonegrinder being great at defending an objective, but ultimately I think the issue is that you have a serious lack of models on the table, so Mancrushers are IMO more interesting. I think I would rather have 3 Mancrushers than 1 Bonegrinder. The damage is significantly better, you have pretty much the same survivability but your model count is also higher. You can cover more ground with 3x1 Mancrushers too. Edit: Both the Mega and the Mancrushers can impact hits a 4-5 wound hero to death anyways, which is just as likely as you rolling their wound on a D6 for the Bonegrinder. Their effect is always useful however.
  10. He is doing 9 damage on average vs 4+ save. That is pretty pitiful damage for 500 pts. honestly. No impact damage to bracket another monster or add to his damage. He has the "pick a single model" which is realistically 1-2 MWs (killing a 1-2 wound model).
  11. Typically when I start a new army it is because I just love the idea of a certain subfaction or list. Right now I dont really care too much about the mortal/Tzaangor aspect of Tzeentch (I do have Tzaangors and Enlightened/Skyfires from my days playing BoC) and Im not into the Eternal Conflag with mass Flamers. I play Seraphon currently, so if I want to play a heavy shooting game, I will just bring my 80+ Skinks, Kroak etc. The playstyle feels very similar (at least on paper) tbh. The reason I wanted to try Tzeentch was for the more controlling aspect because it is a completely different way than just shooting your opponent off the table or running up to bash their face in. It is very unique way of playing. I just fail to see how I can tune down the power of the list without making it crumble all together. I love the idea of Be'lakor. I love the idea of Kairos. I love the combination of Spawn + Palisade + Host Dup. If you start to remove any of those pieces, it isnt really the same is it?
  12. I completely agree. I think it is an art to be able to "downscale" or significantly reduce the power of your army in order to have "fun games" with your non-competitive mates. My issue is that I personally enjoy trying to squeeze out power of my army. If I purposely have to downscale or remove synergies.. A lot of the fun goes out the window for me. Also I think its hard to reduce the power of this "control list" that @Gwendar was playing. I could obviously remove Kairos, switch to another host, not bring the Palisade or place the Spawn in such a way that I lock my opponent down, but are you really playing "control" then? I feel like it is a combination of all those things that makes the list strong (and fun) to play.
  13. The mates I often play with are not the most competitive guys around, so I think the issue is that they dont want to deal with all the hyper competitive/strong ******. They just want to play some "fun" lists. Im of the same opinion as you - I currently dont mind facing Tzeentch because I will have to do it in tournaments anyways. My odds of doing well are low if I keep skipping out on matches against them. I play against another bunch that are hyper competitive and they want to play against the good ******. All the fun lists are kinda a snore fest for them, since the reason they play in the first place is tournament play.
  14. Tzeentch seems to have a certain stigma atm. You are kinda "that guy" if you bring it. At least around here. Not really different to playing KO, LRL with Archers and Seraphon with Starborne. They just know by default that if you turn up with one of those armies, your list is typically really strong. I think a lot of people are tired of fighting Horrors that just "keep on splitting".
  15. Question! Do you ever run into issues with people simply not wanting to play against you? I havent started my Tzeentch army yet but I have been really tempted lately. I talked with some of my mates about my ideas with your list (coupled with some changes) and they more or less rolled their eyes and said it doesnt sound like a lot of fun to play against and after some games they would probably just not want to play. I made the arguement that there are tons of matchups that arent exactly super fun to participate in, but at least against many of them they get to roll dice, where as this list kind of seeks out to restrict your opponent from doing too much. Apparently they would rather be shot off the table and at least get to roll a bunch of saves, instead of simply not really doing anything due to the movement shenanigans.
Γ—
Γ—
  • Create New...