Jump to content

Landohammer

Members
  • Posts

    789
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Landohammer

  1. Yep I'm pretty sure they did. But to be crystal clear 40k 10th edition was received extremely poorly in my region. Tournaments and pickup games dropped off drastically. It was previously the dominant game system by a large margin 😬 So while i'm personally very optimistic about 4th, many in my group are quite concerned about how it will impact the playerbase.
  2. So the issue that 40k ran into at the launch of 10th was they made objectives occupy space. But this created issues with larger models where they couldn't reach their intended targets in combat, or in some cases couldn't actually navigate past the objectives. I would actually love to have physical items to fight over rather than the mats that everyone (including myself) uses nowadays, but there are some practical issues to that.
  3. I was thinking they will just keep the current rules of only 1 endless spell per wizard, and each wizard can only cast one endless spell per turn. So if endless spells become free, they therefore become locked behind how many wizards you bring.
  4. I mean yea any kind of secondary scoring system is fine. Whether you wanna call secondary objectives, battle tactics whatever. You just never want the game to become too focused on killing because there are armies who are clearly better at killing or not being killed. Faction battle tactics are a balance problem because you will never properly balance ~200 battle tactics. Their mere existence is the problem lol. I think you are being too hard on sigmar. If the primary scoring mechanism for the game was "busy work" or causing "halts" then it wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is. Sigmar 3rd edition is extremely popular in my region. It has even eclipsed 40k here. It was/is a really strong edition.
  5. Removing BTs altogether is a bad idea, because without them the most lethal/efficient armies will naturally just win the melees/shoot-outs over the primary objectives. BTs reward building flexible lists and make units (like furies) useful. Battle tactics are good, just faction battle tactics don't work.
  6. Its more like a 3+ year wait at this point because the SM codex is already out. I don't agree with selling, but I understand why its happening. Here is my anecdote: I liked the fabius bile books. So I made a Creations of Bile army a few years back. My Creations of Bile army formerly had its own chapter tactic, stratagems, warlord traits and items. So when i fielded them on the table, whether good or bad, they reflected the character/playstyle of that army. And when I actually played vs another Chaos marine player of another legion, our armies felt extremely distinct. Even if the models were mostly the same. Now, we are both just "chaos marines" with identical rules. Yes I can take Fabius in my army, and yes my paint job still makes me look different. But they play identically to other legions, and for all official purposes they are the same as other legions. TLDR: People like to be snowflakes including myself. If my army loses its flavor and character its no longer interesting.
  7. Agreed. There are some mindboggling choices made in 40k 10th though. Like overwatch potentially being after EVERY movement. It always seems like players end up looking at each other expectantly after every move lol. Also stripping chapter identity out of marines and chaos marines has straight up made people sell armies in my area. I haven't sold any of mine but they are def on the back burner. Agreed on AOS too. AOS is far from perfect but as it stands I think overall its a better experience. I just hope they revisit faction tactics and grands in 4.0. The Leviathan Deck in 10th 40k, love it or hate it, is an objectively fair way to achieve VPs.
  8. All I can speak for is my local scene. And while there are quite a variety of opinions regarding 10th, I don't think any of my 30-40 local players would call it "the best edition". Not even close. But I will agree to disagree. However I 100% will agree with you on AOS tho. If they revamped Battle Tactics and Grands and continue rolling out the battlescrolls I would have zero problem playing AOS for another couple years. Its in a really good place.
  9. Worst thing about the game is overwatch during enemy movement and the stripping of sub factions/chapters/legions. Along with the absurd amount of hotfixes they had to apply. It just killed a lot of interest in my local group. Codex/Battletomes becoming obsolete is nothing new. Its been a thing for many years and ~3 year cycles are ALOT better than 5-10 year codex cycles. The index is the only fair way to allow everyone to play in an edition with overhauled rules. Now one could argue that changing the rules to the point that old codexes become obsolete is a stupid idea. AOS 3.0 is overall in a great place and so I would probably agree with that. But indexes are not by their nature a bad thing necessarily. There are enough online resources that any of us could easily play AOS or 40k without a book in hand. They are completely optional. And as a TO I am more inclined to check the app or other resources for rulings than a hard copy.
  10. I think a lot of 40k players, myself included, think 10th edition 40k was the most botched edition change since end times/AOS 1.0. They found a way to simultaneously suck the flavor, fun and balance out of the game all at once.
  11. The cities example won't really work here. Because the book was gigantic. And huge sections were purged entirely. Whats interesting about Cities is that they announced the purging in detail several months before it happened. So if its coming up we should see a post about it in the next two months. So as a BOC player, your options aren't great, bc in likelihood one of the below is going to happen Option 1 - You get an index/codex and your range is politely neglected for another 3 years with only occasional heroes/underworld kits. (see fyreslayers/idoneth) Option 2 - You get a complete revamp. TOW continues with old models while AOS uses the new models. (see Humans in cities). Many of your old models are likely now obsolete. (unless you proxy them) Option 3 - You go to legends (or get scattered to other factions like tzeentch) and remain a core TOW army. ( see wanderers ) If we are being objective, which seems the most likely? I would put my money on Option 1 or maybe Option 3. I just don't see Option 2 happening at all. Would be happy to be wrong though.
  12. Isn't that basically what they did from 2.0 to 3.0? The codexes were cross compatible.
  13. I'm a thousand sons main and honestly the psychic change didn't actually bother me. I understood the reasoning and it seems to work ok (more or less). What killed my entire interest in the game was when my Raven Guard and Creations of Bile armies effectively became just vanilla Space Marine and Chaos Space Marines. The SM codex didn't really even fix that. I really don't see a need to overhaul AOS like they did 40k. The game works really well. They could just change up the scoring system (no more faction tactics or grands) and maybe cleanup the summoning/recursion mechanics and the game would be fine IMHO.
  14. On paper its the fairest way to do things. But it was a huge cluster in 40k 10th edition. Its stripped out all of the subfactions and just gave you a really vanilla watered down version of your army. And while I'm sure the next battletome will fix this issue, many will be waiting on their battletome for years. And you would think that just having the indexes themselves would make the new edition a lot more fair and balanced, but it actually didn't. They had to drop a ton of emergency hotfixes bc the index win rates were even more skewed than the outgoing 9th codexes.
  15. My observation is that heroes are going to be quite strong in this edition. I have already faced a 2+ rerollable armor save Baron with +D3 attacks and a damage 2 weapon. (it killed a Treeman in a single combat). So in theory cannons could serve as a means to deterring/countering them. Cannons seem to lose their value once all the large targets are dead or in combat. Bc as with all artillery, LOS is the main challenge.
  16. Understood. To be honest I don't have enough TOW games under my belt to really know what is gonna be problematic. But we are hoping to rely on people to police themselves to some degree. The rule of 3 and 10 man wide caps are just soft nudges. I am fortunate enough to have a really healthy 40k and Sigmar community around me, and I already play about 7 games a month. So I am comfortable with being picky on who I choose to play TOW with. The best way to cure Tryhard fever is just to let them play each other. 🤣 Let me steal a quote real quick that sums up my stance on the whole issue of TO'ing TOW events: I can't define what an abusive list is but I know it when I see it. 🤣
  17. Thanks. Didn't know it had been debunked. I guess I just liked the narrative of executives being dumb 🤣
  18. So the rumours are that TOW was a passion project and was driven primarily by a small team under skeptical management. Which I find personally pretty stunning since its probably the cleanest rank and flank rule set they have ever released. I'm not sure if that means this team was just extremely adept or if rules-writing overall has improved. (probably a mix of both lol) Also, and not trying to be a negative nancy, but there are also twitter rumours that the lead on 10th edition 40k was inexperienced and the contract with Amazon for the tv show was severely mishandled by a single rogue executive. So of course this is all hearsay, but there does seem to be a lot of social media/industry/rumor buzz that despite record profits the company might have some internal upper leadership issues. HOWEVER they have always struggled with calculating demand. I don't think that, at least, can be blamed on current leadership.
  19. We would just be capping units that otherwise have no cap. So 2 per 1000 would not change but for example you couldn't have more than 3 units of glade guard. It's basically the same thing GW did at their first TOW matched play event. It's not perfect, and there are examples of where it's not fair (see orks and goblins) but it helps loosely mitigate the super silly stuff like all gyrocopter armies or extreme shooting spam.
  20. We have had about 7 games so far played in my club. I have played 2. Quick thoughts: -All things considered the game actually feels quite balanced, even in PDF armies. There are definitely some problematic builds (archery spam, insane hero builds, etc) but as more games get played people are learning how to mitigate them and scores are getting closer. My second game was a tie vs Brettonia. (<100pt difference) -LOS in this game is absolutely huge. I can't stress it enough. So many instances of not being able to see something you want to shoot/charge. -Cavalry range can be crazy high. What is interesting is that if your charge target flees, you actually get to move your full charge distance. So we have had many instances of "incidentally contacting" units that were normally illegal charge targets. -We are discussing some "house rules" for our events/tournaments going forward just to make sure things stay friendly. So far we have mostly just landed on enforcing a rule of 3, and limiting units to 10 wide. We are not sure if the 10 wide stuff will be problematic yet but I see absolutely no reason why a unit would need to be MORE than 10 wide. That would be obvious abuse and would break the aesthetic. Anyway, open to more ideas. And already looking forward to playing more games!
  21. I came here to argue with you but after reading the Waystalker and Lone Character rules carefully I actually believe you are correct now lol. The Waystalker ignores all of the targeting rules for Lone Characters only. So once they join an appropriate unit they get the normal protections afforded a hero. Honestly I felt the Waystalker was fine even if he had the ability to target heroes in units . He is expensive and even if he hits every shot he will still need at least a 4+ to wound. That really only nets to like 3ish wounds over the course of a game before armor saves. So he MIGHT get a level 4 wizard if he manages to take a shot every turn. Like you said, at best he is just a champion sniper. Really only useful if you had a big gribbly character running around.
  22. I think it would be cool/funny if one of the "Empire" sides was Sylvania 🤣
  23. I think you are hitting the nail on the head. Woodelves being a great example. Nobody in the old world is a good guy. Its literally just an arbitrary way to sort the factions into two books.
  24. They are all evil to someone. All of them. Especially the woodelves. I can't imagine Bretonnian peasants are big fans of the Wild Hunt or Dryads. Good and Evil are just broad and highly subjective terms GW needed to sort the factions into two books. It could have just as easily been "A and B" or "Red and Blue". Its just a practical means of organizing them. I would not let this impact your hobby/enjoyment in the slightest. Similar to playing an evil paladin or a good rogue in DnD, its just frame work. Your army can tell any story you want.
  25. I totally get what you are saying, but I interpreted this more as "TK are complicated, but at this point in time they are not the good guys as we see it". Which is something that is extremely relatable in the history of real life warfare. The bad guys of today can be your closest allies 75 years later and vice versa. I think this is good world building. Something I have learned over my many years playing fantasy/40k/AOS/HH is that you shouldn't ever try to identify with a GW faction outside of role playing/satirical situations. All of the armies, even the "good" ones have terrible flaws. Sure, many of the individuals can be noble and relatable and that makes them appealing. But taken in its entirety, 100% of the Warhammer races are doing horrible things to somebody lol. And if you simply want your army to tell a different story than what the fluff says, bring some allies, regiments of reknown and make some conversions and make your army different! 👍
×
×
  • Create New...