Jump to content

Lurynsar

Members
  • Posts

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Lurynsar

  1. In rumour news isn’t the Fyre, Deepkin and then Death the exact rumour we had a few weeks ago? Looking like it’s playing out. And if there’s more than 1 model for each (I think 2 and 3 were mentioned) then it could be the “big” model other people are speculating on.
  2. That could be because Soulblight won’t be getting a Battletome for a long long time. As such they’ve given them the few things they need to be fully “3.0” as the profiles and points cost were clearly planned for the new edition. It also allows the narrative players to have the updated Path to Glory rules sooner than 2 or 3 years down the road.
  3. This is likely because Custodes and Genestealer Cults were suppose to be out before Nurgle. As such the articles were written and released in a set order. I would expect they get spoilers this week and start of next week.
  4. Ah I thought the rumour was a Fyreslayer versus Deepkin Battlebox (which is always a new hero and old units) and then an additional 1 unit for the Slayers and 2 for the Deepkin. Although it would make sense to have maybe a generic Monster and a Hero Monster from the same kit. So two kits for each, but one gives us an extra Warscroll. I think that’s where the confusion lied was I saw people talking about different things. My bad. As to the rumours I’ve found the lore and idea of both Fyreslayers and Deepkin super cool. They have depth (hahahahaha) but are relatively untouched right now in that depth.
  5. Don’t really have a horse in the race. But didn’t Slaanesh daemons end up being the precursor with Masque, Keeper and Fiends resculpt along with the new Contorted Epitome and Infernal Entrapures? That’s quite a larger list. Also Sisters 100% got a huge wave with their book, while Drukhari (the other half) didn’t. The Slaanesh stuff once again was also a massive wave of new options compared to Daughters. Not talking about what’s in the Battleboxes as new. But the fact the armies that come in them do not receive equal support in model releases after said box. But again maybe I’m misunderstanding what you are all talking about.
  6. Hello fellow forum dwellers! Today I wanted to ask/discuss an issue that isn't talked about as near as much (although there is a semi recent sorta related conversation in this very forum, so kudos) as I think it needs to be. Terrain. For those who aren't aware, when 9th Ed 40K released there was a massive growing pain as people had to not only add more, better terrain to matched play level events, but also become much more familiar and comfortable with intense makeover of the terrain rules. It is widely accepted that there was a 6+ month lag before the meta really was playing on "proper" tables with enough and the right kind of terrain for 9th Ed. Even to this day there is a divide between "official" 40K tables (used at their GW Opens), ITC/ITC Player Placed, WTC/Europe and just events having enough of it in general. While we are fortunate that this isn't as much of an issue with 3.0, we also lack a really good set of terrain rules IMO. However I am a matched play "stickler" in 40K and also run a number of events locally. As such I want to use the GHB/Core Rulebook on terrain and make sure my events have the proper terrain for the game. So while this conversation will mostly follow the ideas of "Matched Play", I am always open to ideas from players of every caliber and type, especially as I myself have some house rules currently that are used locally. With that said, enough rambling and onto the meat of the post. In 3.0 we are suggested to use at least 8 pieces of terrain. Now personally I divide terrain into 4.5 categories. 1) Area Terrain - Think a terrain feature units can enter and hold. Wyldwoods (which can also block LoS), Graveyards, Ruins etc. These terrain features should be big enough to allow at least a unit of 5-10 models to move into. Giving them full use of cover on it, and around it. 2) Barricades - Mostly just fences, walls, toppled statues, large bones and the like. Basically cannot me moved "onto" but can be used to provide cover for a unit by being behind it. 3) Garrisons - Buildings, Towers, Outposts etc. These are usually of the non large or extra large variety on my tables. 4[.5]) LoS Blocking[Impassible] - This is one that should be large enough to block LoS to anything behind except maybe the largest models. Fortress walls, cliff faces, massive mountains/hills. In addition the AoS terrain movement rules are kind of bad, and as such models can move up or down terrain features, as such we have a house rule called Impassible, which for some of these to only allow models which can fly to move over them. They cannot be scaled so to speak, this is to stop models having to stop half way up, or whatever else weird jank comes from the rules and is usually reserved for large 6"+ pieces (especially ones without flat tops to stop on too). So ideally we would have 2 of each "type" on a table. But of course not every theme uses each of these as well, as such we do adapt and change as needed. Two example tables I have are; 1) Grave Town of Shyish - 2 Large Mausoleum (Garrisons), 2 Graveyard w/ small Mausoleum (Area Terrain), 2 Dead Forests (Area Terrain/Wyldwoods) and 2 Broken Fences (Barricades) 2) Wilds of Ghur - 2 Beast Skulls (Barricades, as they cannot be entered like Area Terrain), 2 Sheer Cliffs (LoS Blocking and Impassible), 2 Death Forests (Area Terrain/Wyldwoods) and 2 Hut Villages (Area Terrain) So what I am looking for are answers discussions around the following 1.) Does this mix work for you? Is there other things you as a tournament (or general Matched Play) player would want to see? 2.) How much space should terrain take on the table? 25%? 50%? More? Less? 3.) Is 8 pieces (being the actual minimum) too few? If so is that because of the average size? Would 8 be fine if they took up a certain amount of the table? Do you instead prefer 10? 12? 4.) Is LoS blocking important to you? Would you rather have all terrain be "see through"? 5.) Does the "Impassible" rule (see above) bother you? It is used to make the game cleaner in our experience, but is a house rule 6.) Are Garrisons important to you? If so what size? Beyond that there also a few terrain rules I often see totally ignored or changed for events. On a more in-depth look, especially for tournament goers I am curious about things such as 7.) Do you want the "Defender" to roll Mysterious Terrain? Do you want Mysterious Terrain at all? Would you rather Mysterious Terrain be pre-rolled and applied already for everyone to see at the table? 8.) Do you prefer terrain preset for the table? If so do you prefer it set for the entire event, or reset for each Battleplan? 9.) If not preset, is the "Attacker" placing terrain ideal for you (per the rules)? Would you prefer if the "Attacker" got to set the terrain, but only in preset locations? Such as being able to place the 8 pieces, but the pieces had to go in one of eight pre-marked locations on a map for the table/Battleplan? 10.) Are there any terrain style/rules/options you love for event tables to have? Any you utterly despise? 11.) Does the quality/amount of terrain actually matter to you at an event? It is "less" important than in 40K, and some of the tables I have seen for AoS events have been bare IMO, but is that acceptable, or even preferable, to you? So for anyone who actually got through all that and answers thank you very much. Locally Age of Sigmar events often are weird. They have a lot of house rules, crazy scoring and a ton of extra moving parts. There has been some desire for balanced more "40K like" Matched Play events. So I am very interested to hear from TOs who have had similar questions and found answers to reach out to me too. AoS still feels very young in its tournament life, and I very much am excited to watch it grow. So if you can offer any feedback (especially from a Matched Play) perspective it would be much appreciated to help grow my scene (and hopefully others)
  7. Technically they’re just flat markers you measure form the centre of. So a 25-40mm base with a nice tombstone or death symbol is best if you want a physical representation; which some might not as they’re not actually there and thus a physical marker can get in the way of placing models. As to size if make it as I said a base and nothing more. It isn’t a terrain feature, can’t be used as one, and cannot move a terrain piece to make room as terrain features can. It will also get in the way a lot of its any real size as it’s just a marker. If you wanted to design a graveyard terrain piece I would do that as a terrain piece or even an entire table to fight over. That would look amazing and thematic.
  8. 4 for AoS, 6 for 40K. 10 total. Same as now. Seems they doubled up on Death as last year they doubled up on Destruction at the exclusion of Death.
  9. They won’t be. And that was never the intent. The “assured printing” is a made to order offer for new product only that is limited in release and won’t be out for many months (or at all) separately. These items are all fully out and abound. The boxes are just a bundle at a better price. They were never going to be included in the Print/Made to Order. They’ll be one and done like they always were.
  10. Just want to address something and maybe ease some fears. A few years ago (just before Covid) Games Workshop moved all “game development” to into the main studio. What this meant is that the same groups (groups, not group) make the rules for all of the games. At the same time Forgeworld was recategorized internally as the “specialist department”. This is why we haven’t seen new 40K or AoS models out of the studio. They’re responsible for the creation of MODELS for all of the non core games. This includes both Horus Heresy and The Old World. In addition Forgeworld is no longer a “resin studio”. They’re able to work with various mediums as they choose (and as directed from up top I’m sure based on the intent of the product). Many of the specialist games are now part of the main trade line; despite being modelled and created by the FW team. Gone are the days of Forgeworld being a boutique of hobbyists creating specific visions in resin at a high cost. While this may remain part of they purview, the team is now all about creating and supporting the various side projects of the Games Workshop as a whole. What this really means is the Old World rules will be created by the rules team that works for Games Workshop. The models will likely be a mixture of Plastic and Resin; unless that direction changes before Old World fully releases. They aren’t cannibilizing the AoS team, they’re not throwing AoS out the window. AoS will be as much of a focus as it is now. On another note, I feel like people are going to be really upset when The Old World launches as something that isn’t WFB. There’s a reason it has a different name. This is not a rebirth of Fantasy. It’s a new game set in the same world with some of the old factions. People expecting to walk into GW on launch (or ever…) and buy Brettonia, Tomb Kings, Cathay, Druchii and whatever else are going to be upset. I expect to see a lot of negativity towards TOW as the previews and game come more into the spot light. If you love the world and lore; it’s going to be awesome. If you are expecting a rebirth of WFB you’ll be sad.
  11. Unless I’m blind Daemons of Khorne also aren’t there. If that’s the case then I would suspect they just omitted all the daemon boxes for whatever reason. Likely because they’re not marked with their armies name and don’t want to “confuse” new players with boxes without an army name, but then again they have Skinks and Cities so likely just a whatever reason. In my experience GW works like a machine. You can see patterns and overlaps everywhere. Space Marines and Necrons released together a couple months after the new edition. They didn’t get Combat Patrols for about 8 months. Stormcast and Orruks didn’t get Battletomes for a couple months after the edition launch. They currently don’t have Vanguard boxes. If you ignore the Space Marine supplement books, 40K got one release in the same year beyond the two starter armies. AoS is getting the same amount. This leads me to believe we won’t see a Vanguard box for any army without a 3.0 book. And we can expect the Stormcast and Orruk Vanguard box sometime between March and May.
  12. Aren’t Combat Patrols 110 Euros? This would make them cheaper by 10 Euros.
  13. I just reached out to my Rep at GW. He has no idea about Battleforces boxes, but if they’re coming he expects them to be announced this weekend. He was also confused how your LGS can order something they don’t have part codes for at all. Until something is actually announced and in the system it’s not really something we can order. GW asking us to order something NOW without telling us what it isn’t really how it works. Also they’re taking final numbers for the Black Templar release today and tomorrow and don’t have any time to add anything else. So my Rep is highly confused about what your stores been told. He asked me to see what the stores name is so he can reach out to that stores Rep and ask what’s going on as they aren’t in the office currently (work from home) so he wants to follow up. So if you could PM your local stores name that would be awesome.
  14. So I feel there’s a lot of misconceptions or downright bitterness at GW about 40Ks Combat Patrols. Combat Patrols are a specific level of 40K. Either 500 Points or 25 Power Level. The boxes are all right around that with one of the builds in the box (they’re full kits so people can make more or less depending). They’re meant to be able to be picked up by two players and have a fair starter level game. Something Start Collectings have never been able to do. While there was a single one (Death Guard) that had issues. This was due to a change in the Rules for that army that’s want properly communicated early enough. The box is actually still playable, but it is sadly, the lease efficient. These boxes still have significant discounts (the average is 33%, with a few being even more). While some Start Collectings were a better monetary value, many were downright awful value and playability. Combat Patrols have been seen as a positive in most 40K circles in my experience. Even at a higher price point the discount is great and the actual balanced way for two players to start together has been a huge boon for new players. For the most part they are not good to buy several of as an army, but that was never GWs intention of Start Collectings either. So while some people may be upset that they can no longer buy most of an army through a few SC purchases; that’s just a by product of making the sets as intended. The Start Collectings range was so wildly inconsistent that theirs update was good for most, and bad for some. But is much better for new players as a whole. Ive noticed through trade that Start Collectings have been slow to restock for AoS. So while there’s no promise they’ll be discounted they’re certainly having stock issues (more than normal) right now. It’s very likely IMO that starting with Nurgle we will see “Battalion Boxes” which are around 500 points and meant to be played in whatever Battalion GW decides. This will have the Combat Patrol price tag and help new players enter into AoS with any army they want at a “balanced” level with a friend.
  15. I mean GW has done things where the rules and what they intend are different. However I cannot see anything actually written that lays out a General isn’t a General when selected to be a General for another cause/rule. I suppose though it doesn’t actually matter in the app. You could select the Lord of Pain as “the” General; then add two additional Generals. Those Generals are able to be take the Command Trait as far as I can tell (one of them) and any Hero can take the Artifact. So it’s likely just a coding thing to make it work that way with conditional Battleline.
  16. Correct. The only stipulation for a Conditional Battleline unit to become Battleline is the General is as listed. In this case the General is a Lord of Pain. While others may also be Generals, it has no bearing on the requirements. You have a Lord of Pain who is a General; therefore the condition is met and Painbringers and Twinsouls are now Battleline in that list.
  17. So the issue you’re having is that Battalions covers two types of Battalions. Core Battalions designed for Matched Play and Warscroll Battalions that are now in other types of play. Some Warscroll Battalions are made up of several other Warscroll Battalions, but this has nothing to do with Core Battalions. Core Battalions tell you exactly what fits in them. And you cannot use a model in more than one. So a Hero with 5 Wounds can be selected to be a Commander or Sub-Commander of any single Core Battalion. But not multiple, and each goes to the Core Battalion of your choice that you’ve selected for the list (remember you have to fill the minimum requirements of each you choose to use)
  18. Chapters in Canada has in the past had these types of boxes. Might be worth checking there.
  19. So I think the problem is two-fold personally. The first issue is balance is impossible. No not trying to say GW can’t do better, but in any level of competitive game you’ll always have optimal. As such Warscrolls are often seen as weak, bad, garbage etc (especially among the more competitive minded group of us) when in reality they’re just not optimal for the optimal list in the optimal faction. This issue will never be solved. Better scrolls or points changes will simply change what’s optimal and new Warscrolls will become bad, weak or garbage. I personally wish GW moved primarily to the app. This would allow changes to literally anything at a whim should it be truly needed. I understand some sect of the AoS population is against the app, and is against constant changes. Like said nobody wants their entire army to change. I mean I do. Constantly updating stuff makes the competitive meta so much more exciting, and wouldn’t really bother me if it was implemented well, but would likely hurt the casual players who are the largest playerbase But to the actual issue points are the easiest way to disrupt the least amount of players. People in this game often seem so against change that they don’t take time to understand it before they claim OP or Garbage or whatever their go to is. Look at 3.0s release. A ton of people calling it bad, or broken or ****** or what have you because it changes the game. But the tournament scene seems more healthy than before. Are certain things overturned? Sure. But it doesn’t seem anywhere near as bad as times in 2.0. This is why points works. Most of the issues right now can likely be fixed via point increases on the stuff that’s too efficient and that will likely naturally shift the games balance. So could Warscrolls be changed? Yes. I’d even want them to be. However you open a can of worms with players thinking X Y and Z deserve changes, but only A, B and C getting the changes. And to be totally honest most of the people who try to tell me about why something is good or bad in this game… are not people I want having any say in pushing for changes. People rarely can be objective and the amount of people who automatically have an opinion that something is OP/Garbage is way too high. Very few Warscrolls can be properly evaluated without a ton of games played, despite what people will claim. This is why I’d be terrified of any sort of system that updates Warscrolls if it has any public input. People subconsciously are bias one way or another in design, and it shows time and time again. So can GW do it? yes. Should it be done? Maybe. Should players have any input in it? Nope (for proof of this see how hard Warmachine failed even when trying to do constant changes with the entire community able to play test). But at the very least GW needs to embrace digital technology and their app and use it to update the game/armies as needed without being tied to new model releases and physical media. That would be better for everyone if every 3.0 book just came out with the new units coming “soon” just omitted until they released. Sure some spells or allegiance might make less sense until the model release. But at least we wouldn’t be waiting and told “the game is balanced with all the new books, just wait until they’re all out” (like 40K…)
  20. Age of Sigmar sales as a whole are increasing. Not Dominion. Dominion reached market cap basically upon release. They produced more than they needed. My post was simply an explanation of likely why they did. They 100% have too many boxes of Dominion especially when many of the options themselves appear in the new starters too at a lower price point. Warehouse space is the reason to liquidate it I believe. The game is fine; Dominion wasn’t a flop, just a miss. Huge difference financially for a company. We can hope they learn from it, but given GWs desire to push Stormcast as Space Marines it’ll likely happen again. It’s refreshing how many different factions I see in a league or event for AoS, so while GW may continue to miss on these particular boxsets, the health and meta of AoS seems in a good place overall with the rather slow, and disappointing rollout of 3.0. So I feel it can only get better. Health of the game is strong basically. As to “better than they’ve ever seen” you have to realize how niche GW has actually been until the last half decade and more so the last two years. Indomitus sold more boxes in an hour than Dark Imperium (the previous starter) did in almost 4 years. The best selling box of WFB (6th edition Starter) sold less than 20% than the AoS 2.0 Starter (Soul Wars). This is mostly because of a growth thing. There was almost no chance Dominion was an actual flop. The sheer number of players who buy these things on release would likely propel this box to the top 3 boxes of AoS ever sold even if it was pure garbage. Games Workshop is just simply very popular right now. GW pushed harder than they should on this box. But it should not worry anyone about the game. Discount it. Clear up warehouse space. Move on. It’s exactly what stores do too. I’ve found smaller LGS stores who discounted Indomitus because they had them sitting around after a year. It’s simple economics at this point.
  21. Not that my anecdotal evidence is really valuable but I can offer a little insight into Dominion from talking to GW reps and a few people in the know. Games Workshop made roughly twice the number of Dominion Boxes initially compared to Indomitus. And were already producing the planned made to order boxes when 3.0 launched with Dominion. The sales for Dominion were well and above anything ever sold for a single AoS product (or WFB). However the demand was mismanaged. GW didn’t quite account for the difference in 40K to AoS (although apparently internally the numbers are far closer than most people claim). Space Marines make up to as much as 40% of the “active” armies played in 40K according to several sources, at any one time. On top of that more than 70% of players have purchased, or own a marine faction of some flavour (this may be more or less as it was an open submission questionnaire in 2018). You have a game that has more players overall, and a faction that has literally more players than most of the rest combined and you have the recipe for a very popular, large discount boxset. Remember though that Indomitus blew their minds how fast it sold out. Dominion was in the middle of one of the biggest single year growth spurts GW has ever experienced. This combined with Indomitus made them calculate some mistakes. Stormcast nor Orruks make up close to 40% of the playerbase of AoS (likely combined). 70% of players do not dabble in or own Stormcast or Orruks. This factor alone hurt them. But the game isn’t hurting. GW just has an over stock of Dominion boxes as the planned made to order is now nearing completion and they have not had the volume they poorly predicted. I don’t have exact numbers. But say the best selling box was 18,000 units. Dominion sold 25,000 units in the first weekend. But GW figured they’d need 45,000 units long term. That’s all. These products take up a ton of space. So liquidating them is harder for sure. But don’t let the abundance of leftover product of a single boxset make you worry about the games health. According to GW the sales are slowly climbing each and every month, and this is with the very slow rollout of new models because of Covid. AoS is better than it’s ever been sales wise.
  22. So I don’t have skin in this debate. However are free Warscrolls gone? Or just moved? I understand they’re on the app, and the app is in a free beta. Has this changed? I have Warhammer+ which includes the 40K and AoS App. But it’s my understanding that even without a subscription you get access to the Warscrolls. I have them for Stormcast and Orruks without their new codes. Is this a subscription thing only? Is this a beta thing only that we have been told is going away? I’m just trying to figure this out. Locally we just tell everyone to download the App and they do. Right now it seems they get all the old stuff for free (which I understand will eventually likely go away). But are Warscrolls? It seems given they’re free for Stormcast and Orruks that they’re part of the generic coding. So if they’re free forever on the app I suppose it’s just about the medium. For me free on the app is far superior than each as their own download on the webstore. But to each their own I’m sure. I’m just curious if we actually know “free” Warscrolls are gone or going.
  23. For me personally Soulblight are a miss. I was really hoping for a “Vampire Faction”. Not new Vampire Counts. Give me the monstrous Vampires we got, but flesh them out more. Give me Vampire infantry, and other choices. If they needed a “horde” option I wanted Thralls. Humans of Shyish who serve the Soulblight under their banner. For me “Soulblight Dynasties” would have been my preference and truthfully was my hope. Majority of the army being elite Soulblight units of every makeup with Barons and Baronesses (or whatever name you wanted to trademark lol) as their generic leaders. Thralls fill the vassal role and serve as the numbers to bulk out and round out the army. Then you leave the Skeleton feel to Bonereapers and all of a sudden we have two awesome undead armies with their own niche and flavour and who feel more natural to AoS to me. Again this is all a personal opinion. Seeing redone Skeletons and Zombies were kinda sad. Especially when we got craziness from the crazy mutant Vampire and the gorgeous, huge and imposing vampire foot models of the Crimson Court. It was so close, and felt like such a cop out to me that it just about hit its stride and instead we got Vampire Counts 2.0. They’re also not really popular here. People who had Vampire Counts (or Legions of Nagash) play them. But only like one person bought into them brand new. Death as a whole isn’t popular. A smattering of Bonereapers and Nighthaunt has a lot of fans, but they need serious help so most people have other factions they play instead. Quite a feel people like the theme and feel of Flesh-eaters. But they (myself included) seem to be waiting to see if GW fleshes out (heh) the range while keeping the flavour and making it interesting.
  24. Might be an unpopular opinion. But Skaven from WFB don’t fit in or belong in AoS. I believe Skaven as a race can be made to fit, but the current flavour they have is basically just WFB barely reskinned. And it’s bad. Again I’m posting this here because I understand a lot of people who loved these WFB races strongly disagree with me. But the games dead (for the better) and if they’re not going to be given a real AoS flavour then toss them in Legends and move on. The new armies made for AoS are by far the best flavour. The ones reskinned properly (say Daughters of Khaine which is a mix of old and new) fit pretty decently. The armies sitting here from WFB don’t look good model-wise and feel flavourless in comparison because they’re trying to straddle two lines I feel. The themes and general model tone could be rescued, but until they are I strongly dislike them and enjoy that locally almost no one plays them (Cities, Skaven, Ogors, Beastmen… sadly lots of Seraphon haha)
  25. Yes it’s an unpopular opinion. And Skaven have been “chaos” without being tied to the pantheon forever. With the poor outing of AoS 1 they tried to jam them in to replace Slaanesh. Obviously management and design changed and they were left to languish in a pantheon that is very different than the WFB days. Skaven are one of the totally unique aspects of WFB, and could be one of the totally unique and interesting parts of AoS if it was just refreshed and got a new skin IMO. The stupid clans of WFB were bad in Fantasy and are stupid more so now. Both Skaven and Beastmen languish because of GWs design choice I agree however. That said, it feels pretty clear the Gods and the style of Chaos in AoS is going to be much more similar to 40K than to WFB. As such God armies are going to get the attention and the focus in Chaos. So let’s cut the ties of Beasts and Skaven from this (or as I said get rid of them all together because they’re kinda stupid from the get go) and allow them to become something totally new and totally unique and not just shoehorned into AoS Chaos which I don’t think they’ll ever fit with the current design theme and team.
×
×
  • Create New...