Panzer
-
Posts
416 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Panzer
-
-
Summoning is more or less fine imo, it's just the Slaanesh mechanic that's wonky. Too limited in that it's only useful with leaders and too powerful in that Keepers are leaders which just wreck face and have lots of wounds themselves.
The easy way out would be to let Keepers not generate DP, however personally I'd rather see it adjusted so that every Slaanesh daemon can generate them but also to increase the points required to summon the units in return.
-
There's nothing Baron Samedi about anything Death in AoS imo.
-
14 hours ago, Souleater said:
I love the fact that of all the characters in AoS, it's Nagash, God of Death, who seems to have the biggest sense of humour.
Nagash be like:
-
1
-
-
They look so so much better with more realistic proportions and an upright stance.
-
The only reason why GW can't and won't do as many updates as a videogame dev is because unlike with videogames GW has no way to collect even close to the same amount of data. All they can get are lists and results from tournaments and the occasional playtests, both which don't happen multiple times a day every day.
-
4
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, frostfire said:
We see that the ironhand in 40k is quickly nerfed within a month. It’s suggested in the faq that GW rule team do receive player’s feedback and fix the problem in time.
But for AoS we could see slannesh keeping ruining the whole melee game for about half a year without being nerfed and are even going to get some much stronger rules in the WD.A bit sad TBH.
To be completely fair, IH have made a bit more of a splash than any Slaanesh list people have come up with so far, plus there are a LOT more Space Marine players in 40k than there are Slaanesh players in AoS so while you keep seeing Slaanesh regularly in the top spots they aren't completely dominating the top10.
-
Made to Order is awesome. I don't care much for most of the models and unfortunately I was low on money when they put Settra and Khalida into the made to order, however it's great for anybody who wants some of the older models and shouldn't bother people who don't. One could argue the made to order stuff costs a bit much, however I'd rather have it cost much than not having a chance of getting those models at all.
In my book there's literally nothing negative about Made to Order.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Forrix said:
I have seen several people in my area say "they don't care about an armies winrate just that its cool" then get frustrated when they get stomped in all their games.
Oh it definitely sucks to lose most games. That shouldn't stop you from starting an army you like though, especially not if GW offers a super box deal. You just have to manage your expectations. If you are super competetive though and care more about winning than about the models and the fluff of your army then yeah you are probably better off staying away from this cool army you actually like but don't.
-
7 minutes ago, HollowHills said:
Fair enough, but losing a lot of games can dent your enjoyment. It's a good idea to consider these things even if in the end you decide it doesn't matter to you.
I'm a former Tomb Kings player. Trust me, I know how it is to lose most games.
-
3
-
2
-
-
55 minutes ago, HollowHills said:
Nighthaunt I wouldn't buy, the army is really weak. If it has a lot of bladeghast and some chainrasps it might be decent for a LoN list. Otherwise while the model value may be high, the usable model value will be low.
Stormcast and skaven may be OK. Gloomspite will probably be the same as nighthaunt.
Personally I couldn't care less about that. If I think an army is cool I'll buy into it regardless of whether it's strong or not. I'm not playing warhammer just to win tournaments after all.
-
3
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, Malakithe said:
The issue is balance though. Its the battletomes/codexes are the reason for the constant imbalance. Its a double-edged sword. People want constant updates and new stuff but when a new book comes out it almost full tilts the game in one direction or the other. The core rules for AoS are just fine (double turn debate no withstanding). Its the new battletomes that full tilt the entire system. Slaanesh is the prime current example.
True balance can only happen when you pull 2 factions out of a hat at random and they both stand an equal chance to beat each other. Currently thats not possible nor has it ever been possible for both AoS and 40k.
The balance is not worse than in most other editions though. The gap between the strongest (not counting Iron Hands because they are new and still need to get adjusted) and the weakest faction is much smaller than last edition for example. And with the constant updates they have the tool to keep improving on it.
Also it happens extremely rarely that a new book full tilts the game. The top armies stayed at the top and the bottom armies stayed at the bottom for the most part regardless of the new hotness. There's the occasional release that tilts everything but those are the exception instead of being the norm. It's a constant up and down with GW and balance but it's much better than being stuck with a broken release for years , relying on the community to figure something out, like it used to be.
-
2 hours ago, Malakithe said:
Id say just look at the state of 40k. 8th edition was supposed to be the best and 'simplest' form of 40k ever and now look at it. The battletome power creep is nothing compared to the power creep of 40k codexes. A game of this size will never be truely balanced as there is way too many factors to look at and consider.
That's what many people get wrong. 40k was only supposed to be the best and 'simplest' form of 40k ever in regard to the core rules and constant updates. The core rules ARE super simple and the constant updates definitely make sure it's the best 40k ever since glaring issues can be addressed within a few months instead of having to wait years for a new edition.
That's as far as it goes.
The Codexes themselves were always a completely different topic, though I argue they still qualify for 'the best form of 40k' as no other edition of 40k had the benefit of constant updates nor got that much customisation in terms of subfactions (which only seems to become better now too).
-
14 minutes ago, Indecisive said:
Now that the release isn't so far off, what are your must gets and will skips?
Like, top 3 models you wanna buy and the 3 you're almost guaranteed to walk past.If I were to start the army the must haves would be the Harvester and Katakros. Obviously the Battleline unit as well. I think I'd pretty much skip completely on the cavalry though.
Oh and another must have would be lots of proper skulls, a hobby knife and greenstuff...
-
We can chalk up a lot to opinions, however it's a fact that AoS only really kicked off big time after GW introduced proper points and everything. That's pretty much the best proof of what the community wants and prefers you can get.
-
7 hours ago, Nerdkingdan said:
What kind of content would another Stormcast box have? What wasn't explored in a previous one?
GW has no problem letting the content of battleforce boxes overlap so it could partly be something we've already seen in an early battleforce box.
-
Ghosts?
-
1 hour ago, Ludicola said:
Something I remember Warhammer Weekly mentioning is that at a decently sized tournament of 30-50 people, if you're playing a casual list after the first round you should be matched with similarly styled lists. So the requirement to field filth is really only for those who really are gunning for that trophy.
Unless your list is more casual than 90% of the lists you are facing and even if you get matched against similar lists quickly it still means that winning would likely match you against more competetive lists again. Tournaments are simply the wrong place to bring non-competetive lists.
-
2
-
-
30 minutes ago, TheWilddog said:
MTG designers and pretty up front about the fact that they are constantly trying to balance introducing cool new toys to generate interest and promote sales verses the concerns of internal game balance.
GW and most of the industry has borrowed heavily from this approach. In my opinion GW has a conscious plan to weight sales and appeal over balance as a marketing philosophy. That is the reason the release schedule is fueled by the new. Every week new stuff is pushed for us to buy. Primaris replace old marines, ect. Their focus is on the rules pushing the new models. Yes they want a modicum of balance, but their main focus is pushing out the next product. They will now react to obvious overly powerful rules, but they still value pushing the rules power for sales over balance. Again this is not inherently bad, in fact it is the industry standard and a proven winning technique. I just don't see any other companies taking a drastically different approach in our niche.
The big difference is that MTG gets completely carried by what's strong and competetive while Warhammer gets also carried what appeals to the customer aesthetically. That's not to be underestimated. The actual hardcore tournament players are only a small part of the whole customerbase.
-
Considering the usual replies, explanations and actual actions GW gives/takes and sometimes even immediate nerfs after a release I'm pretty confident that strong releases are less of a business decision and more of them simply underestimating the impact of their new releases.
-
The wording of the rumour engine has never included any actual hints.
-
2
-
-
People need to learn that being "That Guy" has absolutely nothing to do with bringing a hard list or not. It's the overall attitude and behaviour towards others that makes someone "That Guy". That can be the case even if he brings a weak list.
-
18 minutes ago, Realmhead said:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/10/15/the-rumour-engine-october-15th-2019/
New rumor engine!
Looks like a Big Flippin' Crossbow to me. Maybe part of the Beastgrave Ogor Hunter...?
Reminds me a bit of the Infernal Enrapturess.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Chikout said:
I think there has always been a fundamental disconnect between they gw internally plays games and the way the community does. For the vast majority of their history gw has focused on playing fun games. The battles shown in white dwarf always feature a wide variety of units with little spam. They often fudge the mechanics in order to allow for heroes to face off, or create exciting encounters. Winning the game usually comes second to having an enjoyable play experience.
The community on the other hand does the opposite. Spam is common. Players don't choose the most fun or thematically suitable abilities. They choose the best. Since Ben Johnson joined the studio gw have gradually started to come around the the way that people actually play the game but it is a gradual process. The fact that the rules team is one of the smallest in the company and that playtesters are all unpaid volunteers are testament to this. I hope this change continues but I think the is an old guard in gw who is resistant to it.
For the future of the game I think the community needs to step up. If you think the rules are not balanced then use a house rule. If you are taking three keepers to a club and people are complaining that it is not fun then change your list.
If you have an idea for a change that you think is good then email gw or send Sam Pearson a message on twitter.
It always saddens me that the conversation is always about how broken something is rather than about how we can fix it.
^ this
From interviews, comments and practical observations we can see that GW employees mostly play what would fall in 40k under "Narrative Play" and "Open Play" instead of the "Matched Play" rules most people and tournaments use. That's because for them it's mostly about the models and the background and less about having a fair game. Even the ones who more or less often go on tournaments place pretty low because they just don't have the right mindset to write competetive lists.
It was the most obvious when they released AoS without points for units. That's all good and fun but not what most people want obviously. Having no points for units was and is unthinkable for the regular wargamer. People want a fair game as a basis (or at least as fair as possible) which they can slap the narrative and their fun background and beautiful models on top of.
GW is learning ... slowly, but ultimately they are still the same people who prefer unbalanced narrative focussed games over balanced games so that's the kind of rules they'll write primarily which they try to balance afterwards via General Handbooks/Chapter Approveds and Erratas.
However, so it doesn't sound all negative, GW is also at their best if they let themselves be creative with their rules. 40k has become rather bland rules-wise (not just this edition). Fun and interesting rules like for example the Greater Daemon ones you look for in vain. I 'blame' the 40k community being vastly more competetively minded than the fantasy one and GW being GW simply not being able to write rules that are fun&interesting and balanced at the same time.
The latest Space Marine Codex is them trying to bring a bit more flavour into their rules again, but it seems GW has a problem with seeing the results of stacking their rules. Something 40k players jump on immediately. So one of the Marine subfactions ended up way over the top for the timebeing. -
The only thing I regret about not wanting to start this army after all is that I won't be able to use the Harvester and Katakros.
AoS 2 - Ossiarch Bonereapers Discussion
in Death
Posted
Can you count fingers? If yes then you can tell the numbers. If no then you might need some pre-schooler to teach you.
What I don't like about them is that GW once again carved the symbols in instead of having them neatly painted on like with some of their other faction dicesets. At least they aren't as bad as the 40k Death Guard ones which are horrible to roll I guess.