Kasper
-
Posts
956 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Kasper
-
-
On 7/24/2020 at 5:25 PM, Snoogens said:
So whats the verdict? Have Seraphon really lost Sylvaneth as an ally, just like that? Seems strange.
Yep. The GHB2020 specifically mentions that only Stormcast are viable allies for Seraphon.
-
Not sure why the reroll 1s is specifically to melee it doesnt really make much sense to me, but overall it seems like a great change. Gives you an incentive to run something else than mass Mortek Guard.
-
3 minutes ago, El Syf said:
That's all very well and good until he rocks up at an objective and wipes everything out.
If he really was as broken as you suggest, dont you think more competitive lists would field him?
It is exactly how you deal with Gotrek - Ignore him and focus on the other objectives. It is effectively 1500v2000 at that point.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, NauticalSoup said:
Probably manpower. 40K is the big priority right now, it probably ended up in a pipeline somewhere and nobody looked at it again until whatever more important thing they were working on was capped off.
Are you serious? Manpower? Their company is huge - Updating the digital PDFs on their website shouldnt take days. It feels like a conscious decision not to do it but I really dont see what they gain from it.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, aktanolt said:
Totally wrong. They are a unit with a strong output on only 3 models and some board presence ( 12 model) Charging a flying unit of sallies made me win lots of game because noone expect it and it destroy in melee.
Take things out of context much?
Yes I have won games by charging with my Salamanders too, but arguing that Razordons are better (they still arent) because you will always get the charge off is just wrong.
-
17 hours ago, PJetski said:
I guess if you just ignore their charge phase shooting, Rend within 6", and combat phase then Salamanders are much better.... though I'm not sure why you would do something that silly
It's also much easier for them to hit targets behind screens with their 18" range, even if it means you lose out on Rend-1
Because you generally dont really want your Salamanders/Razordons into melee, and typically if you have teleported the odds of it happening is also rather slim. I would prefer significantly stronger shooting so I can teleport and pick off a key unit, then maybe try to charge some weak unit afterwards. You just cant do that with Razordons.
-
10 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:
I'd like to sew some pretty hefty point increases and it definitely has nothing to do with game length it has to do with narrative dissonance.
For me a lot of armies in the game are getting to a point where the narrative and lore doesn't match what is seen on the board. Stormcast are the most obvious example because even Liberators are supposed to be elite troops and yet they are 90 points for 5 and the only real use for them is pathetic meatshields who are only in my army because they have to be. Varanguard are another good example. Making them cheaper sure might make them playable but it kind of undermines what they are; the absolute elite of Chaos mortal forces.
I just think we are getting close to points being a bit of a race to the bottom. I'd prefer to see GW take a more meaningful approach to balance than just constantly reducing points over and over again.
What? If you did a flat 25% point increase to everything this wouldnt change any of your issues at all. The only thing that can fix those things are re-writing the warscrolls which would make the units worth their weight. Atm they arent re-writing the warscrolls, so the only thing they can do is drop the points to make them semi OK.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, japaricio said:
I would say that what the game needs in a long term perspective a global increase of points. We are moving towards a horde playstyle again, and above all, this is the thing that keeps aways new entrys to the game. It would be a fine movement in the competitive environment to have more point updates across the year (online always) and specific ones por subfactions, but the thing we need the most is getting back to the original idea of AoS, a game you need few models to play.
Hard disagree here. Many of my games take maybe 2-2,5 hours which I dont find absurd considering AoS is a tabletop tactical wargame that is meant to imitate a giant battle between 2 big armies. Sure games can take much longer, but that is on the players small talking 24/7 (everything takes much longer if you cant multitask and just talk all the time) or simply not knowing their rules properly so they have to look up every little stat on every single unit. Come prepared and things are much easier and smoother.
If you want to play with "just a few models" and have a quick game there is Warcry, Meeting Engagements or in general smaller point sized games. It is also entirely up to you not to make a horde list or play a primarily horde focused army. There are multiple armies with just a handful of models as is.
For new players there are escalation leagues in various GW shops etc. fairly often from my experience, you can do start collector vs start collector box, play 500 pts games, meeting engagements etc. etc.
I really dont get the need to force this down the throat of everyone wanting to play the 2.000 pts game version. I really enjoy AoS as is.
-
4
-
-
11 hours ago, swarmofseals said:
I finally got a chance to really tuck into the 2020 battleplans and auxiliary objectives. I really think that these sections are flying under the radar and will be absolutely massive (for tournament play especially).
In reading through all of the battleplans I can't find a single one that I outright dislike. They all look fun, and some of the new and updated ones look especially interesting. There's plenty of differences from plan to plan, so people are really going to need to think about the battleplans when list building for tournaments.
Auxiliary objectives are also really cool, especially over a 5 round tournament. In a single game or 3 round event they are less game changing, perhaps. But as it is in a 5 round event you will need to use almost all of the auxiliaries at some point. You'll really need to think about what auxiliaries you want to use during each battleplan and against each opponent. It's a potentially very deep additional layer of skill testing that runs across the entire event.
Most importantly, I think that the auxiliaries will really push people to build more balanced lists. If your army struggles to complete half the auxiliary objectives then you will need to rethink it even if it's super powerful in a vacuum. Meanwhile, dividing resources between auxiliaries and normal gameplay will add another layer of skill.
Agree that the new batteplans + changes to previous ones look really good. Im a bit annoyed that the Forcing the Hand isnt just a straight line, but instead this tetris thing that they removed from many of the other battleplans.
The auxiliary objectives Im less interested in. They will matter in tournaments, but for "normal" play they will have almost no impact. I cant remember the last time a game ended in a draw.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, PJetski said:
Razordons and Salamanders were pretty close when they were both 80pt. With Salamanders going up to 110 it will be easy to swap to Razordons and keep Salamanders in the summoning pool.
What? How were they close? Razordons do nowhere near the damage that Salamanders do, even if you throw a Starpriest onto the Razordons.
21 attacks (average 6D6) at 3/4/0/1 with 6s to wound = 1 MW in addition is just under 6 damage against 4+ save.
12 attacks at 3/3/-2/D3 naked is around 10,5 damage against 4+ save.
Edit: Salamanders are still Kings. 40 Skinks come close but they provide something much different than teleported Salamanders do.
-
There are 25+ player events (2 dayer) already happening in Denmark. I really dont understand why people are SO afraid of wargaming. We obviously do not touch each other's models, dice, measure sticks/tapes etc. There are hand sanitizers at every table. People give each other space and you obviously dont have 10 bystanders around a table.
From my experience it is in general WAY more crowded in many malls or shops, so I dont feel like wargaming is especially risky in regards to COVID-19. Sure the ventilation isnt the same, but there are significantly more people moving through the same space in a mall during an hour than at an event for a whole day. There have been studies showing that COVID-19 can last for a long period of time in the air, so unless you are super scared of going outside, I dont see why you would be more scared of doing wargaming.
-
1
-
-
On 7/11/2020 at 1:13 PM, Tizianolol said:
The only problem is with troglo you got only +1 from kroak to cast. The +1 from troglo count if i use him as oracle?
The +1 on the Troglodon is only when he casts a spell, not when Kroak casts a spell through the Troglodon.
I would still take Balewind for Kroak - The +1 spell is really strong. Kroak already wants to cast Comet's Call + 3x Celestial Deliverance + Stellar Tempest (in most matchups). Sure you could cast Comet's Call through another Slann or the Troglodon, but when you are stacking so much +casting on Kroak you really want him to cast Comet's Call too for that D6 targets on a 10+. If Starborne you likely want to forego 1 spell for CCP too, making the +1 spell even more important imo.
I think Troglodon can be good, especially if it drops some points. It is currently just overshadowed by mass Salamanders since it is much easier to win by just nuking your opponent with a bunch of shooting. I have played around with the Troglodon and it felt great against slower armies that want to play back and maybe castle up. Against armies that want to push forward and smash your face like Stonehorns/Terrorgheists the Troglodon is kind of wasted points since models will be within Kroak's range either way.
-
1
-
-
The warscroll builder is updated to reflect the point adjustments done in GHB20 so people dont have to sit and do lists with pen and paper. That makes perfect sense to me. Im guessing it will be updated once the FAQ is out too.
-
Age of Sigmar is a much better game than Fantasy ever was imo.
-
15
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:
Because balancing games (and especially games that are as complex as AOS) is really hard. I'd love GW to do better, sure, but it's really not that simple. Your loss re: ME.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly is so bad about ME anyway? I know people have complained about summoning being too powerful, but aside from that?
Alas I dont really bother with ME anymore, but off the top of my head: 1) Summoning was incredible broken. 2) People were alphastriking you just to prevent you from being able to deploy units in future turns due to fixed positions. 3) Stuff like Morathi made impossible/frustrating games.
4 hours ago, Grimrock said:To be honest though, I don't think splitting things out would really increase the quality for anything. The Matched Play section is lacking because... well there really isn't much you can do for Matched Play without it becoming an edition change.
I disagree. I feel like there are plently of points that could be focused upon and fleshed out.
- Updating/refining battleplans and introducing new ones to keep things fresh - They already do this and I think they are doing an OK job at this.
- You have the obvious point adjustments, but they are simply too subtle and dont have any real impact on the game outside of a couple of situations. Dare I say rushed? I feel like if they put in more effort into this we could actually see meaingingful changes. Decreasing the points on a monster by 10 points isnt doing anything to the game.
- As I wrote in my initial post many units wont ever be fixed by points - They require warscroll changes. Get those things in there. It is absurd for some units to have to wait 3-5 years for an updated tome to get their time in the spotlight.
- They do small updates for Matched Play rules in general - The introduction of more terrain effects was welcome, but I dont get why we have things like Arcane and Commanding in the pool when almost every other effect is super lackluster. There is noway anyone sat down and thought "yeah these are all pretty much ok and have similar impact on the game". I feel like they should think up more meaingful terrain effects to make terrain matter more in general - If this huge piece is Volcanic right in front of me, I should have a damn good reason to move my units right through it. As is, I dont care one bit. You can pretty much ignore everything outside of Arcane, Commanding, Entangling and Overgrown. The last two are very situational and the first two are so impactful they will alter what side of the board you pick every time. Anything else has zero impact.
- Realm rules were again rushed IMO - They are super bland now and lost a lot of what made them interesting. I understand the wish from GW to streamline them and ensure they are used more frequently in "normal" Matched Play (i.e outside of tournaments). Personally we never really bothered with Realms because there were so many things to keep track of and many tournaments (at least around here) even decided to say "no thanks, we wont run with realms). The new rules have an unfortunate impact on Malign Sorcery and I really think this massive impact was terribly implemented. It also seems absurd there are no changes to some of the Endless Spells that have an absurd empowered effect. Most tournaments had fixed realms, so you couldnt choose and from my experience many people outside of tournaments never bothered with realms, so it had little impact on the Endless Spells. Now it is so streamlined that you are likely always gonna have a 50/50 on having your spells empowered.
There are a lot of things a dedicated Matched Play tome could improve upon and flesh out. These (imo) halfassed attempts just create this odd situations where people might just opt out of it. Just like last year where the terrain rules were so poorly implemented.
-
1
-
13 hours ago, Kramer said:
I would be against this. I see two main disadvantages and one missed opportunity.
For one you said yourself you want to throw your money at GW. But not every player has that kind of bank. I known didnt when I started out. That would invalidate two out of three playstyles depending which is more prominent. That’s a portion of the community that won’t broaden its horizonssecondly there are more production costs to making three 33 page books vs one 99 page book. Costs which will end up going to be included in the price.
lastly I feel it’s a missed chance if it’s separated more. Not only is it good to have options and ‘educate’ all gamers on different ways to enjoy the hobby, it also makes things unavailable. For example the mercenary rules were a fun matched play addition that shook things up for some factions. But they were in the narrative sections. Would have been a shame if wasn’t a matched play option because they separated it in 3 books.
This hobby is expensive. The GHB isnt THAT bad though - It is basically what a normal foot hero costs money-wise. The thing is though, imagine if you wanted to play narrative games and could buy this 100ish page book dedicated entirely to indepth narrative play with proper campaigns/missions where systems were truely developed instead of halfassed as they currently are. I think it would be a huge win for everyone and if players felt they really got some bang for their buck, I think most people could and would find the money for it.
The point wasnt to just split the GHB into 3 books and call it a day, that is pointless - It was to split it into 3 books but go DEEPER and develop the different systems properly. The hero system is obviously rushed and halfassed - There are tons of obvious broken things that even half an hour of tinkering clearly shows. The fact they keep missing the magical little sentence "a unit cant benefit more than once from this command ability" is a pretty clear sign to me that they didnt put as much time into it as they should. The fact people can find such absurd combos in a matter of days after the leaks clearly shows to me that the system isnt fleshed out and playtested at all.
Effectively I want 3 books each at 100 pages (or whatever) that all go into detail and provide worthwhile and useful systems to play around with. If players liked all the systems and were tempted to play them, they would have to pay 3x the GHB price but get an actual good product that you might play around with for more than 1 month.
8 hours ago, Jackroks981 said:I think in the current age there is no excuse at all for taking nine months to publish a points change, I don’t even think twice a year is good enough personally, they could easily do regular points updates to address key offenders like every other game on the planet.
There is a big difference between an online game and AoS though. For many even looking up an online FAQ is a burden and too much trouble - Which can be seen on various FB groups. Even reading the warhammer community articles is too much work for many players. If they had to keep track of point changes every 3 months I think you are gonna drown a lot of players. I want solid changes but not THAT often.
7 hours ago, swarmofseals said:If GW keeps iterating on ME we could have a really robust way of playing at lower point levels as early as this year, or maybe in another year or two.
But that is the point isnt it - Why isnt the system fleshed out and done properly from day 1 rather than releasing a halfassed product that players have to betatest for you for years in order to get it right. To me this is a huge loss - If the system is so bad at launch Im not gonna step into it at all. I dont care if ME is actually decent right now, the terrible release has scared me and I wont bother with it again.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Kurrilino said:
So it is illegal until someone else agrees to it. By default it's not legal.
But this is not my question. My question is, what do the Destiny Points do and what keeps me away from using 20.736 DP
What's the difference between 20 and 40 DP?
I love the “but it is legal if...” I mean ANYTHING is legal in matched play by that logic, as long as your opponent is OK with it! 🤨
As others have mentioned - You spend DP to upgrade the hero with various mounts, weapons, better characteristics etc. Each DP = 10 points, so a hero upgraded to 20 DP = 200 pts on the table.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, swarmofseals said:
My short answer is yes, it's good enough.
Longer answer:
I think most of the highest value content for me personally could probably be given away for free. The matched play updates are honestly what I get the most mileage out of by far. Points changes, battleplan changes and the occasional rules tweak could easily be pushed out for free. In fact, GW is already doing this in the Winter update.
That said, I also value the content in the rest of the book. I like that they put effort into Narrative and Open play content even though the playerbase for those modes is smaller. If there were more Open and Narrative players then I'd pay a lot more attention to that content. I expect if my kids ever get into the hobby I'll probably start them there and will care more about that content then. When that time comes (if it comes), I will be thrilled to have years of GHB battleplans, scenarios, and weird rules to delve back into.
Would it be nice if this were just published for free every year? Yeah.
Is it worth $35 to me? Absolutely. That's the cost of a single foot hero, and the GHB improves what I get out of the game far more than a single model like that does.
Reading some of the comments I feel like some people dont get my point. I dont think the GHB should be free or Im advocating for getting stuff for free in the future in general. I really dont mind throwing money at GW if I feel like Im getting something for my money. Im also not talking about that they should stop making a GHB - My point is that it could be better and of better quality. Imo they should seperate the playstyles within AoS and give them much more dedication and love. Sell 3 different copies each costing what the GHB currently costs and people will buy all 3 if the quality is there and the game systems are fun enough. Make 3 times the bank but have consumers 3 times as happy too. It seems like a win-win for everyone.
2 hours ago, Mandzak-Miniatures said:I think it would be more worth it if the anvil became a new way to make legit heroes for matched play. The return of old hero building is much needed.
perhaps they will rethink and amend the ruling if there is enough poor reception.
otherwise it’s just another set of gimmicky rules that fade away when the next ghb is released and a new ploy to get people to buy things comes out.
yall remember mercs and how quickly some of those instantly went away? Lol
This is what I fear too. It smells like Meeting Engagements in GHB19. It needed more effort to be properly implemented into matched play. Im fairly certain people will have fun making their own heroes, but in a month from now the majority in matched play will have shelved the custom hero rules and move forward just like the majority played ME for a month and never touched it again.
There will obviously be people that love this due to WHFB wibes and keep playing with it, just like there are people really dedicated to ME, but it will be the vast minority that does this.
Again - Had they put in more effort and implemented it properly into matched play Everyone would be so much more happy. Scale it properly, and then have a slider for narrative/open play where you crank the combinations to 11 but keep it reasonable within matched play.
Missed opportunity.
-
5 hours ago, amysrevenge said:
Warhammer internet, in a nutshell.
Actually I do believe your post is the perfect example of todays "internet"; Pick a sentence out of context and make a useless comment that contributes zero to a discussion. Literally the next sentence (that you didnt put in your quote, how odd) was the entire premise for my post/thread. You obviously can not comment on the GHB20 unless you have followed leaks etc. I have personally already read GHB20.
2 hours ago, Laststand said:How about people give the thing a chance to be released first? We know the GHB is meant to cover ever style of play, everything gets a bit of support and there is some content for all.
What its not is a solution to all the things people dont like. If you see it like that you will be disapointed. See it for what it is, a AOS annual with some interesting features and updates. The points updates is a bit of a mess but imagine print schedules, covid and all sorts of plans have collided around that. Give GW space.
If you really dont like it, dont buy it. Simple as that, vote with your wallet.
See above - The whole premise for my post was that you have been following the leaks/read it. The whole point is exactly that - The GHB20 is lackluster and is a rushed book where a bunch of game systems are combined into this forced annual thing, rather than creating seperate quality books. Just because this is how it has been done in the past doesnt mean we cant move forward and do better. We should be able to expect better, and I will pay for better quality any day of the week. I dont actually think you read the whole thing because I did say that I only buy it for the Warlord's Edition due to the unique battleplan/realm cards that I like a lot. If those were sold seperately I wouldnt buy the GHB because as it is, it simply isnt worth the pages it has been written upon.
Edit: Also, if COVID is somehow an excuse for GHB20 (it isn't - the book was made at the end of 2019, otherwise it makes no sense they couldnt print the points for armies released in October 2019 and forward) what was the excuse for GHB19? Because that was terrible too, but I guess people forgot about all the whine threads here on TGA and on Facebook etc.
This is an ongoing trend, hence my post - Because I dont see anything positive in the GHB. It is a lackluster product that could be so much better, and it kinda makes GW look bad too since the GHB looks like a somewhat forced purchase for a large amount of their consumers.
I think many of us are more than happy about throwing money at GW - As long as we get something good.
-
11
-
-
Is anyone else kind of disappointed with the General's Handbook yet again? I realize it still isnt out yet and is due this saturday, but I bet tons of people have already looked at various point and rule leaks and know by now whats coming to us - Im not gonna spoil and go into detail about anything here or link to leaks. May I remind you all that last year (GHB19) was a complete shitshow with especially the terrain rules being forced down everyone's throat and making a lot of faction terrain invalid due to restrictions (Gnawholes anyone?). This was later band-aid fixed with an errata/FAQ but luckily a large part of the community simply said "no thanks" and ignored those rules all together.
The GHB feels lackluster to me and honestly it kind of feels rushed and cheap - It seems to be an amalgamation of a book that tries to please every aspect of AoS instead of making seperate and proper books with updates that are satisfysing for each consumer. Meeting Engagements is cool, but dont just introduce it suddenly and give it 10 pages and call it a day. It needs much more support. Same with narrative play - Give it some more dedicated love and let people have fun - I realize they have tried that in this GHB20, but is it enough? Matched play also deserves more than just point changes. Many units are simply bad due to the warscrolls being bad - Change them. You already have digital FAQs that invalidate warscrolls, alligiance abilities etc. a week after a new tome is released. Why cant there be digital updates to bad warscrolls? Im sure people are just fine with having their warscrolls invalidated if it means they can actually field new units that significantly improves their army, especially for armies that are years old and wont see a new battletome for a good while.
Im personally a matched play guy and prefer the more competitive aspect of AoS. For me the GHB is a big waste of pages and money. The only reason I buy the Warlord's Edition this year is to have those cards (they are exceptionel and amazing, thanks GW!) for battleplans and realm features since it makes gaming a lot easier. All the other tokens and rules in the GHB wont see the light of the day. Obviously there are important matched play rules in the GHB, but once you have read them twice you wont need the book again if you have those gaming cards - Again, they are amazing and I wish they would sell them seperately.
The points are also kinda meh. I see people hyped about saving X points on Y unit, but at the end of the day it wont really make a significant difference in your games if you can field a couple more minis. The point changes are too weak and subtle. I feel like it is such a huge missed opportunity for GW to really shake things up and alter the general "meta" (yes I used that word). At the same time I do understand that GW cant just turn everything on its head since people are super invested in this hobby - It is no fun to see your army go from hero to zero in a heartbeat, especially an army that you have spent tons of hard earned cash on and hours upon hours of painting every fig. Being able to field another 10 figs for the worst army in the game isnt gonna change anything. Those require warscroll updates. Also there should exist a middle way where an army doesnt go from hero to zero and reverse, but actually gets some proper fixes/support - 10 point adjustments for a terrible monster that nobody really uses is just not gonna cut it though.
I feel like this is the equivalent of going to the McDonalds. You build up hype to go there and once you sit with your burgers and take a couple of bites, you realize how terrible the food is and start to question why you do this to yourself. After a while you start building up excitement and hype for your next trip to McDonalds only for it to repeat again. Every GHB feels the same - Im hyped beyond belief about possibly rule changes, updated and new battleplans, exciting point adjustments, only to realize this new book that almost every player is semi forced to purchase wont really have an impact or change things up.
I also dont understand the whole point of making a seperate booklet with points. This year half the armies will have printed points and the other half will have points in a digital PDF. Why even have the booklet in the first place then? Why cant all the points be digital? That way GW doesnt have to make point changes half a year ago (when it was sent to be printed etc), some of which make no sense today since the "meta" changes so fast with new releases.
Is this really what we want as a community or can we possibly expect more from GW? I personally want more from the General's Handbook. I dont know if Im alone with my feelings about the General's Handbook (not necessarily entirely this years GHB, but more in general). I feel like each gamesystem within AoS deserves and requires much more love in a dedicated and seperate book, rather than a rushed amalgamation.
At the end of the day - I love this hobby and Im super invested in it. I want to throw my money at GW but I want something for my money at the same time. Produce quality and I will empty my wallets without hestitation.
-
13
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Gistradagis said:
Not having much around people playing might be the explanation, then. Many people aren't particularly happy with the direction Seraphon and Lumineth have taken (other than their players), and people fear we're seeing the rise of a meta of hero-sniping and factions with overwhelming control over the Hero phase. With Seraphon especially, it's the first time in my time with AoS where I've consistently seen people go "lfg AoS 2k (no seraphon)" so much.
While some things are fixed with a simple rule introduction (hero protection similar to 40k), it is true that the last year or so has seen some impressive power creep. Perhaps that makes people hope for AoS 3.0 to be at least in the works already.
This sounds so stupid. Where do you see "lfg AoS 2k (no seraphon"?
22 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:- Misattribution of loss. There is nothing GW can do about this. In any game there are always lots of people who will attribute their struggles to luck or bad design rather than difference in skill etc. I suspect this is a huge factor in complaints about AOS.
Absolutely. So many people are too naive to even consider for a moment that maybe their list wasnt as finetuned as the opponent's list, or their deployment was terrible or they simply made a lot of bad mistakes during the game. Maybe the opponent was simply at a higher skill level and better at playing the game. There are a lot of factors why you lose a game of Age of Sigmar, but people are so quick to jump the "your army is way OP compared to mine and there was nothing I could do".
Somewhat related to this - Having played and observed games in a lot of different clubs (what I would consider "middle skilled players"), I wonder how many AoS games are actually played correctly by the rules. My guesstimate would be 20%. The remaining 80% are games where people completely butcher either core rules or their own army rules that significantly alter how the game plays. This isnt necessarily on purpose, but simply due to not understanding the rules properly.
I have seen people play Slaanesh with Keeper + Archaon where they used the Excess of Violence to literally fight 2 times with both heroes right away before the enemy had a chance to activate a single unit (this wasnt due to Locus of Diversion) because thats how they read online how the rules work and how they understood Excess of Violence to be working. Needless to say, the receiving player thought Slaanesh and Archaon was badshit crazy op.
I have seen people recently play with Lord Kroak thinking Celestial Deliverance was boardwide spell and other people play him with the oldschool Celestial Deliverance where it was *any* unit within range, not a max number of 3 units.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
42 minutes ago, Ogregut said:
AoS 3 will have been done and dusted by now or at least very nearly finished. I can't wait to see the box set if the new 40k stuff is anything to go by.
What are people expecting from AoS 3.0? A complete re-write of the current rules (like combat) or re-write of various tomes? This GHB making FNPs non stack-able does feel kinda AoS 3.0-ish to me.
-
1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:
Not sure I'd be doing my job as a mod very well if I took this approach 😉
You can moderate a forum without engaging in a meaingingless debate.
4 minutes ago, Raptor_Jesues said:at this point i dont even know if GHB2020 will drop as soon as 2021
The GHB20 is coming this saturday?
-
1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:
I've changed my opinion on this over the years. At one point I loved the leaks it was great finding out little bits and pieces and discussing them. More recently I've found they can cause more upset and unpleasantness than they're worth, because we end up arguing and debating when we don't actually have all the information. It also frustrates me that in many cases, somebody has been lucky enough to get a preview copy but decided to break their NDA and leak it. It risks GW not sending out those preview copies in the future
Just dont engage into silly debates when we havent received the full picture? If someone else wants to, let them. I dont see how this hurts or bothers you in any way.
It isnt necessary people that received books early to preview - Retailers get them early, and some of them do distribute the books prior to the official release date.
Which Faction has the best Battleline?
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I mean it hugely depends on what you want out of a battleline unit.
10 Skinks for 60 points with a 5+ save is quite amazing for screening your army or grabbing objectives with their 8" move.
Hearthguard Berzerkers are obviously disgusting in combat.
Pink Horrors is a proper tarpit. They die fast and it might not look like a lot when there is only 10 Pink dudes in front of you, but those guys are effectively 50 wounds. That's rather crazy.