Kasper
-
Posts
956 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Kasper
-
-
I have yet to play Big Waagh but planning to do a list largely of Ardboyz, Maw Krusha and 1 unit of 6 pigs.
Im used to playing Ironjawz (Ironsunz) where aggression is key. How do you guys deploy and play turn 1?
My plan was to deploy in a tight ball for the BW CA to generate points and be passive and pretty much just wait for turn 2 to get the +1/+1 online. Ardboyz would screen the outer layer in case the opponent gets double turn or decides to alpha.
Is it too slow to simply hang back for the first turn and let the opponent gets the objectives from your experience? Or will the global +1/+1 make up for it in the later turns?
-
25 minutes ago, Jabbuk said:
I think Big Waaagh is another answer. We have the option to add 30 arrowboys, which is pretty damn potent at sniping targets, even moreso monsters. I'm looking more and more into going into Big Waaagh actually.
Their attack profile just seems really weak. I havent tried them.
-
On 12/18/2019 at 6:33 PM, Skabnoze said:
There is a lot of crusty spots like that in the rules. For instance the whole activation wars thing is problematic given that they did not design the combat phase with clearly identified sub phases that rules could key off of. Hopefully they rework that whenever AoS 3 comes along.
I don't understand why it is problematic - They have divided every single phase into 3 sub phases. As an example:
Combat phase
- Start of combat phase
- During combat phase
- End of combat phase
-
4 hours ago, Overread said:
In my view the best first step is to remove the doubleturn. The second best would be moving the game to unit based I-go-you-go. In that situation a doubleturn for one single unit would be FAR more exciting and interesting. It would bring in all those unpredictable elements that many of you enjoy in terms of mitigating and taking risks with choices; but at the same time instead of it being the whole army that might lose out; it is instead one unit or one segment of the battlefield that would lose out
So what happens when you have an army like Mawtribes with maybe 5 units in total and the other player has like 10 units. Is it gonna be you-go-I-go 5 times and then the other player gets to make 5 moves in a row? Warcry kind of suffers from this in some situations.
The arguement that "it is boring to sit and watch for 2 turns in a row" just doesn't apply to my games. I'm excited even when it is my opponent's turn. Is he failing his cast? Can I unbind it? Is he whiffing his shooting? In the combat phase we alternate activations, so it isn't just taking models off the table.
Honestly this discussion is pointless and the thread should be locked. We're beating a dead horse by now.
-
1
-
-
@Malakree Have you been practicing your double Shaman list? I'm really curious on your thoughts on it and its performance. I like the sound of a more magic heavy list rather than go all out on the combat phase. I don't have an extra Shaman or the Balewind, so can't really test it myself.
With armies like ORB or even Fyreslayers, I really think banking on maximum combat is gonna result in failure. We need a way to snipe support heroes from a distance.
-
9 hours ago, Overread said:
I'm not sure that is true at all considering that you can play games right now and the double turn never appears during the match and nothing goes wrong. You don't have to rebuild any part of the game to remove it because no part of the game actually relies upon it to work. Every part from the turn sequence to the abilities and such all work without a double turn ever happening during a game.
But this right here is just flat out wrong. Even if a Double Turn doesn't happen in a game, the RISK of it happening is the important part, and it plays a big role. Good players take calculated risks based on this - What if it doesn't happen? Well it obviously doesn't happen, but that doesn't mean it hasn't played an affect on how the player moved and made other decisions during their turn, because there was a chance of it happening.
You could zone out units like Fyreslayers HGBs very easily. Without the risk element you could just go "oh threat range is X inches? I'll just move outside of X+1 inches" since there is zero threat of the opponent suddenly being able to move closer. This is what I mean by the game being easily calculated and predicted.
There is such a big difference between the current game where a Double Turn doesn't happen, but the risk of it is in play, versus the current game where a Double Turn CAN NOT happen. Im honestly surprised you can't see this.
Screening would be significantly less important if everything was in a set order of events. Right now you can sit in a bad position with no real way of winning, but you can take a calculated risk and bank everything on being able to move twice in a row and wrap around your opponents units and get an important charge off, securing a kill on important units/heroes that could open up the game. Or an extra round of shooting/magic etc. I think this creates a completely different element to the game, which would be gone in a fixed turn order.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Galas said:
The only reason people is defending it, is because is a GW sanctioned mechanic. Would the game don't have it, and some players would try to put it as house rules for tournaments, nearly everybody that is defending it now with tooth and nails would be opposed to it.
I'm sorry, what? AoS in its current form would be boring and dull without the Double Turn. There is no way you can remove it without revamping the whole ruleset of phases etc. Everything could be calculated and planned so easily.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Blisterfeet said:
Do we have any preference when it comes to how to build Varanguard? Does mathammer support one build over another? Mainly looking for then to be another hammer so any weapon combination good against 4+ saves.
It is hard to answer your question since it heavily depends on what kind of buffs you expect to give your Varanguard. Are you gonna mark your general with Khorne? Will they likely be in range? Do you care about maximizing the damage on the charge or expect them to be stuck in combat. Etc.
The online tool is super easy to configure, so you're really better off checking the math yourself.
-
I guess they rushed the Slaanesh "nerfs" bit and forgot to change the warscroll of the Soulfeaster Keeper of Secrets. Warscroll still says 30 depravity?
-
3 minutes ago, Chase said:
Anyone watch? Wasn't able to catch it, and interested in what happened.
It was, as predicted, pretty bad for BW and one sided. It felt like the dudes were just having fun showcasing STD and the BW player wasn't that serious about the game.
From what I remember:
- STD had Archaon, 3x3 Varanguard and a Gaunt Summoner on Disc.
- BW had a Maw Krusha, Weirdnob Shaman, 2 Warchanters, 1 Wurrgog Prophet, 3 Gore Gruntas, 5 Brutes, 10 Ardboyz, Ironskull Boyz and big unit of Savage dudes. Might have missed something.
BW had first turn in battle round 1 and was quite offensive in the movement phase instead of turtling a bit to generate Waagh points. Meant he got charged by Varanguard. Archaon had used his CA to roll a dice and knew who goes first in turn 2 - He won that roll and STD got a double turn. More Varanguard charges and Archaon came into play. The Varanguard has a once per battle ability where they can pile in and attack again. This meant any unit they charged was dead in the same phase. At this point pretty much everything in BW was dead.
The Maw Krusha charged and almost killed Archaon alone (had like 4 wounds left) but the Slayer of Kings managed to score 2 sixes on the wound roll, resulting in an Ethereal Amulet Maw Krusha with full health instantly dying on the spot.
Tbh if he hadn't been so offensive and waited for his turn 2, plus Archaon didn't score 2 sixes on the wound roll, this would have been a completely different game. He also got pretty much tabled while sitting on 3 CPs instead of giving his units save/reroll 1s to hit in the fights without +1/+1.
But it was fun to watch nontheless - I was really surprised how much damage the Maw Krusha put into Archaon who is a 800 pts model. 3 Brutes with +1/+1 in round 2 with a WC buff really put some work into the Varanguard too.
-
1
-
1
-
4 hours ago, Sleboda said:
Oh, I see the advantage for sure, but for me, personally, they are a step too far away from the visual appeal that is so critical to the complete experience.
Even if the marker would be transparent so you could see the board beneath or maybe with some magical runes or whatever that could indicate a point of interest? I completely understand a fat mousepad-like marker with some company print being irritating.
-
8 hours ago, whispersofblood said:
This is not true.
Can you elaborate why this is not possible? He has both the mortal and hedonite keyword.
Edit: I missed the "fought once" in the KOS CA. So yeah, you'll have to settle with fight twice, not thrice.
-
Just now, JackStreicher said:
Nagash also dies against the rest of his attacks.
I am a hardliner against instant Death abilities, those ruin games (not competitive ones though)
Yeah but you could have the remaining attacks go into another unit and just rely on getting at least 2 sixes.
21 minutes ago, Gibs said:If Archaon is attacking 2-3 times in the same turn getting double sixes is probably 'win more' anyway. Its still a cool feeling when it happens though but it can also warp the game and ruin it for others when you roll doubles early on.
It is a situation that is just about never gonna happen.
Pretty much your entire army would consist of some heroes with zero meat for objectives etc. It could be fun against armies with super tanky heroes. Khorne dragon army?
-
4 minutes ago, Landohammer said:
Tzaangors have the same exact issue on a slightly smaller scale. They typically have four different attack profiles.
I always get annoyed at models with excessive attack profiles, especially infantry. It slows down the game terribly.
Its particularly terrible when playing vs unfamiliar armies. I find myself constantly asking "any more attacks" and "may I swing now?"
Orruks Warclans had multiple units previously with multiple attack profiles. They were all condensed. I'm guessing this is the trend going forward and Tzaangors will likely receive the same treatment when the new Tzeentch book comes around.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
Archaon: when rolling two sixes to wound with his Slayer of Kings he can oneshot a Hero.
I‘ve heard several times that this would not work for heroes on monsters. But why? I don‘t see any rule stopping a hero on monster to be oneshotted?
There is nothing in the ability that indicates this, so can't see why this would be. In fact the ability states it is 2 sixes in the same phase, so you could have Archaon fight multiple times and as long as you score 2 against the same target, the hero will die. Chaos Lord has the "Spurred by the Gods" that allow him to fight twice. If you for some crazy reason had a Keeper in there, you'd be able to have him attack three times since he now got the Hedonite keyword.
3 rounds of attacks in hopes of scoring 2 sixes vs Nagash?
-
12 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:
You're absolutly right, RAW there is a gap right now which you could still abuse.
Honestly I feel a little sorry for GW. Every single time they create a new rule or change a current rule, they have to twist and turn every single sentence, oand in some cases, even a word. 😛
-
I think a lot of the changes are OK and it is always nice that they actually care somewhat and try to make some changes. In general I'm much more of a fan of smaller changes (20-40 pts. adjustments) rather than sweeping ones. It is no fun to have invested a lot of cash and time painting an army, only to have it nerfed to oblivion which would leave a bad taste in the mouth.
Some of the changes do seem like knee-****** reactions (like Slaanesh point changes) and wont really change the fundamental issues with said armies. The change to Fyreslayers HGB is actually kinda smart at first glance (changing cap from 30 to 20), but when you look into it further it is actually a buff since they get a horde discount now at 20. Fyreslayer players will likely just field 2x 20 instead of 1x30, which is much harder to deal with for many armies.
It is difficult though - I'm sure GW got loads of different motivations for making changes to armies/units (sales especially) but who should they listen to for feedback for future changes? It is kinda obvious from a lot of the FAQs that they don't really playtest armies/units internally beside simply checking "does this work on the table?" rather than "is this broken OP when optimized around X, Y and Z?". Personally I'm a casual-competitive player (I don't really go to big tournaments, but I still enjoy competing with locals) but wouldn't like the game balanced around the very top players that got the "WAAC mentality".
-
1
-
-
Seems really unclear. It could be neat if the intention is for the Stomp to go off if the Khorne choses to go first. Would add some more tactical decision making into taking the double turn or not. Based on the replies in this thread, the FAQ certainly needs some clarification.
-
16 hours ago, relic456 said:
Yup, though I think there are a few battleplans that do within 3" of an objective (ex. Duality of Death).
https://www.gamemat.eu/en/terrain/mousepad-terrain/2d-zones.html
Gamemat.eu has a less optimal solution that would work for some playmats but definitely not all.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Premium-Objective-Marker-AoS-Set-8-x12-Circles-3-x6-Circles-Warhammer/254334445500?hash=item3b3783a7bc:m:m_OF8Vscpf3YvQN_wuTP-TgThis guy is selling a bunch on eBay, though $100 USD seems pricy but you get 8x12" and 3x6" objectives.
I honestly wonder how much it would be to just send a custom design to someone and have some made up using an image that's visually consistent with your favorite game mat. Might have some copyright issues?
Yeah but from what I recall the majority of objectives are captured within 6". It would be nice to have 8 of the 6" radius and 4 of the 3" radius.
I was afraid of it getting too pricy if custom made. But if one was to supply some magical/rune/summoning pattern for them to print it could be okay I guess.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Galas said:
I play with these after being gifted to me for attending a tournament of this store.
https://banduawargames.com/es/exclusivos-web/39878-6-acrylic-areas.html
I have no affiliation with them. But they don't distract from the game.
Looks pretty good and subtle. What kind of material are they made of, hard plastic?
-
15 hours ago, Gibs said:
What was the list out of curiosity?
I am in a bit of a conundrum as to whether I build more Orruk Ironjawz (purchased the new book and some Gore Gruntas) or double down on my Slaves to Darkness army now it is has been resurrected. TBH I am a little over the whole Chaos thing and I have really enjoyed the Ironjawz fluff and models to boot. However, the fact the army is so limited in units is a bit of a turn-off and even more so given the Megaboss on foot feels redundant with most commentators writing off Brutes in favor of Ardboyz or more Gore Gruntas.....I have always said that Brutes to me are the best looking models in Age of Sigmar but building a unit of 15+ isn't a cheap undertaking haha.
Are you planning on participating in tournaments? If not, you shouldn't worry imo. The difference between Brutes and Ardboyz isn't THAT major that Brutes are flat out unplayable. Some tournament lists field a couple.
There have been multiple top 3s in bigger tournaments where the Maw Krusha wasn't picked in favor of the Megaboss on foot.
I agree that the model range for Ironjawz is rather limited compared to Skaven having something like 20-30 warscrolls, but how often are you seeing all those warscrolls? If you look at competitive lists they don't field THAT many different units tbh, but obviously you do have the illusion of choice in those armies, where as you dont in Ironjawz. All of our warscrolls are good and worth their weight. Big Waagh seems to me to be the way forward, which opens up the Bonesplitterz collection too. I'll be honest and say that if you plan to be hardcore competitive, it likely wont change much for you - It'll largely just unlock their Wardokk, Wurrgog Prophet and MAYBE Arrowboyz.
But hey, I understand your struggle - I've been eyeballing an Archaon + Varanguard list for a while.
Likely not competitive, but could be fun to whip him out for some beerhammer.
Edit: As a matter of fact, they will actually showcase Big Waagh vs Slaves to Darkness tonight on twitch.tv - Then you have a chance of seeing the two in action. From experience the match might be slightly biased towards to new army.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Floom said:
I think "identical" would cover adding it to the battalion, no? I know the Destruction Firestorm allegiance had something similar and the "identical" part covered any traits/artefacts it had.
I'm not familiar with the Firestorm thing, but it now specifically says you add it to your army, where as it said to the batallion before. I read that as you get an extra unit added to your army that you can set up, however it isn't part of the batallion, hence you can't recycle if the new unit dies.
I read "identical" as being the same size with the same equipment (irrelevant for Ardboyz) and same leadership troops etc.
-
8 minutes ago, Overread said:
Not sure how I feel about it really. They've only increased the costs of units to summon with Depravity and not actually changed anything with the mechanic itself. Whilst this might tame the power curve that depravity generates in games it still leaves Slaanesh as an army which internally still just wants to take leaders; still just wants those 3 keepers and still just wants to summon more leaders.
That's the bit I'd really like GW to address - not removing depravity just making it so that playing other styles of army with Slaanesh doesn't feel like you're taking an interntional "weaker" force possible with the book.
My issue with increasing the point costs is that Slaanesh will "just" summon 3 Keepers in the matchups where they harvest it like crazy instead of maybe 5. Against armies with pure 1 wound models they will struggle even harder with summoning in units. The depravity mechanic is flawed imo since it's really black and white. Either they gain massive amounts or they gain next to non.
And agreed this does nothing to the internal balance of wanting as many Keepers as possible or just flat out heroes. If anything it just encourages players even more to always max out on heroes and max Keepers to meet the new summoning requirements.
-
13 minutes ago, DestructionFranz said:
Maybe I don't undestand one thing. Is it possible to use more than 1 command point to spawn the unit in the same phase if you fail an attempt?
In the phase your unit is destroyed (in your opponents hero phase as an example) you can use 1 CP max to try and bring the unit back. If he wipes multiple units from his spells, too bad, you can only use it once. At least that's how I read it now.
-
1
-
AoS 2 - Orruk Warclans Discussion
in Destruction
Posted
Yeah but how aggressive would you be on turn 1 with piggies and the MK etc? Would you shoot then up and pin the enemy? In my head I would rather hang back abit defensively while move up with Ardboyz screens and get ready to fight in my turn 2