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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

210 Celestant-Prime

About Landohammer

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Stormcast are actually pretty well equipped to deal with eels. Best bet is to deepstrike as much as possible and Surcharge the eels on turn 2 after they have lost their cover bonus. They can still shock you but they lose a lot of their punch if they get charged. The key is to kill as many Morrsarr as possible before turn 3 (high tide) happens. Also consider deepstriking ballistas or longstrikes. This may seem like a goofy idea but note that this is a great way to position shooty units in a way that makes targeting eels possible. Putting shooty units right in their face will also have the benefit of making the opponent choose between ignoring them or wasting resources on killing them since Deepkin generally lack an efficient way to deal with things at range.
  2. So if it hurts both elites AND horde armies (Gitz), doesn't that mean its anfair change lol? But do note that in the new 40k battleshock tests, you don't lose models equal to the difference. You only lose 1 model and the rest stay on a 2+. Its actually a huuuuge buff to horde armies. You also now auto-pass on a 1!
  3. I think battleshock immunity should just go away entirely, except for in extremely conditional circumstances. Such as a Sylvaneth being near Alarielle in a forest in the realm of Ghyran lol. But seriously, let support characters offer modifiers and rerolls. Never immunity. Note in that 40K battleshock is actually LESS important because the meta power armies generally run smaller squads. And they cracked down HARD on battleshock immunity in 9th. So this just leads me to believe that AOS 3.0 will be the same. And with the insanely fast turnaround time of 8th to 9th I imagine AOS 3.0 isn't that far away. I know that there is a bit of a cultural difference but most 40k players I know are great dudes and fun opponents. And in general they are even more involved in the fluff than AOS players are. Don't let a minority of whiners on the internet ruin your opinion of 40k players in general! But I will say this. 40k has a larger community than AOS because 40k players show up to events. Or at least they did Pre Covid. Its easy to pick on them because of their passion. But if AOS players got out of their hobby rooms more often we wouldn't have to worry about being overshadowed by 40k so much!
  4. Making "inspiring presence" once per game would fix about 75% of the problem. Support characters should offer either rerolls or modifiers. Never immunity. Being able to give immunity to a horde of 30,40, or 50 infantry just bogs down the game and removes any incentive to play tactically. I understand that certain situations in the fluff would warrant a unit being "unbreakable" but those should be extremely rare and conditional.
  5. So I disagree at bit on the problem with monsters. The core of the issue isn't necessarily the monsters themselves. Most consider degrading statlines to be a good thing for the game. The current problems plaguing monsters is more to do with the battleshock phase being broken. If battleshock was truly something to worry about, then monsters would be functioning as intended. Because while they do degrade in output as they take damage just like infantry would, they are exempt from any followup consequences. Right now battleshock immunity is too easily accessible to the armies where it matters most. If I had to truly worry about losing an additional 7 infantry after taking 10 wounds, then monsters would become A LOT more appealing. Yea I might take 10 wounds in the fight, but I don't have to worry about running away! I think there is hope on this front though. Notice that in 40K battleshock was completely overhauled and the auto-pass ability was limited to once per game. When AOS 3.0 drops I imagine it will be a copy and paste.
  6. So the battlefield setup rules definitely imply that we would place forests before choosing territories. That is a pretty harsh nerf since you could end up dropping it in your opponent's deployment zone. However do note that the "Battlefields at events" box on the same pages says to just roll off for territories "instead of using the battlefield set up instructions described above". So now I am confused. Does that mean we deploy terrain after selecting territories at tournaments but before selecting territories in pickup games? I can't believe there are 9 paragraphs of rules for terrain setup but we still need an FAQ lol.
  7. I think that is a bit semantic. Prior to the 2016 GHB the game was functionally Open and Narrative play only. With Narrative being recreating the limited provided scenarios and Open being everything else. The GHB added Matched play (and points) and simply gave titles to those two prior game types. I am willing to argue what the relative population of Narrative, Open, and Matched games played are. I still believe its 95%+ matched play but maybe I am wrong. But the primary purpose of GHB is indisputable.
  8. I don't really consider using matched play rules with narrative or custom scenarios to be "narrative play". That would be more of a league or custom scenario situation and would still be under the "umbrella" of matched play. I consider true Narrative play to be recreating specific battles with very specific army composition. But, you have a point: Narrative and Matched do intermingle some and I think that is cool. That is why we get stuff like leagues, campaigns and wacky tournaments scenarios and I enjoy those. Open play is a different animal entirely though. Its function is to specifically build a wall around itself. By choosing Open play, players are essentially saying "i want to field my models without any kind of oversight or regard for balance". Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, though I can't imagine there is a wide field of opponents interested in that sort of experience. So in my opinion Open play represents a very small percentage of players.
  9. Every player i have ever met, and every event I have ever attended has been solely matched play. Im sure the open and narrative guys are out there somewhere, but they arent attending weekly game nights or events in my region. Im not dismissing them, I just feel like the GHB is made for matched guys.
  10. The GHB exists as a balancing mechanism. Its primary intended purpose is to make Matched Play more competitive and fair. Thats what we are paying for and 6 years ago during WHF I would have KILLED for something like this. The fluff stuff in GHB is just that. Fluff. Its essentially free content for the Open and Narrative play guys so maybe some of them will buy the book as well. So its not really fair to subject it to criticism. It would be like buying a Harry Potter book and getting a free poster but then complaining when then next Harry Potter book you bought didn't come with a free poster. My only complaint is shared with @JackStreicher in that Mercenaries don't appear to still be around. I don't think they should introduce units in GHB if they plan on dropping them later. I guess I will be gluing some rockets to all my newly purchased (and painted!) cannons
  11. For a fun list, dropping glades is fine. But competitively it never make sense. You are essentially trading army-wide bonuses just for the ability to choose your warlord trait. The current meta is full of magic and shooting so the Branchwraith would likely get sniped early on unless it hides in a wood all game. If you want a magic focused list then just bring Gnarlroot with a battalion + stave. Regarding the rest of your list: You dont' have the bodies to take or hold objectives. If I was playing against this list I would just kill Durthu and sit on objectives knowing that TLAs, TLs, and Small dryad units don't have the output to do any real damage to me.
  12. I think it was a good idea but the overall effect will be negligible outside of Tzeentch and Hallowheart lists. Endless spells are relatively balanced due to their inherent cost combined with casting restrictions for the faction ones. Also endless spells require a caster (which cost points) and can be unbound. So their is already multiple levels of tax in bringing them. Some of the spells can do some pretty crazy stuffbut I think that is more a result of an OP faction than issues with the endless spells themselves. For example, the Soulscream bridge is pretty good, but it only jumps into the realm of OP when hallowheart wizards start casting it at +4.
  13. It is strange that our two most competitive units got point drops when units like TLA, Branchwych, and most of our endless spells rarely see play. I don't think Sylvaneth were playtested. These two drops are more than likely concessions to keep the Sylvaneth base happy. But TBH, our book can't really be fixed with just point adjustments. There are a lot of problems that can only be fixed with additional units or widespread warscroll changes. So this was probably the best we could hope for. .
  14. We are one of the last factions without leaked points yet. Its driving me insane lol. The only thing I have found so far was a hand typed "leak" that said that KH were going up 20, Spites up 10, Archie up 20, and Durthu up 60 and I just laughed it off because there is no way that its accurate. Sylvaneth codex was printed before GHB went to print so we should have our point updates reflected in the book and not in an errata. So I'm only trusting photos at this point.
  15. Its does cause a bit of unpleasantness but the hype it creates is beyond a doubt. All of my normally calm AOS FB groups are bristling with excited chat over the point changes and rule updates. The excitement is infectious and im seeing old players return to the chats. I would happily see all the NDAs broken if it meant more people participating in the hobby!
  • Create New...