Landohammer
-
Posts
811 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Landohammer
-
-
4 minutes ago, Azamar said:
The whole fights at the start of the combat phase vs fights before your opponent debacle ended up with a rapid clarification (and a whole article on the community page) within about 2 weeks of an faq update. It doesn’t happen often though
Thats good to know. But I can't imagine a single faction will warrant that kind of attention. The situation you quoted was a for a game-wide issue that affected many factions. It does however give me hope that the Ward Save fiasco will be addressed sooner rather than later
But as Mirage said, Sylvaneth players have been really noisy on the Facebook account. I have also emailed the FAQ team. If we stay noisy on both ends then maybe we will get the squeaky wheel treatment.
-
4 hours ago, Zeblasky said:
My guess that such things would still happen in the future, but pretty rarely.
But honestly, just recently I was wondering about this. Why community struggle with GW produced rules of quite a fluctuating quality for so, so long? Why not finally stop buying battletomes, say "no, this service is bad, we'll do it ourselfs" and produce a set or sets of partially or competely remade home rules for all factions and subfactions over time and then play by them at most tournaments? Honestly, coming from TW:W competitive scene, where all tournaments are played by their own rules and army caps (mostly by Shetland then Turin approved ruleset), this strikes me as extremely weird. Sure, it would be rough at first, you'll need a year or even two to rewrite and balance everything properly, but it would open doors wide for community feedback and creativity! Both 40k and AoS communities would be free from current sets of problems (most of imbalance, FAQ wait time, steep power creep, etc), rules would be widely available for everyone... And the best part, if this would eventually become mainstream enough, it would force GW as a corporation to invest in much better rules quality in the future. In other words, win-win.
The most obvious question though would be "and how would we organise such rule creation process?" The answer is quite simple - however you'd like! As long as there are a few sets of home rules in circulation, natural selection will choose the best one and the most popular for most tournaments, while still providing alternatives for some. The most logical way though is to get together a small group or interconnected groups of most experienced and well respected players and start from there, probably beggining from the core rules, trying to keep everything as laconically as possible.
I also do not believe that GW would try to legally stop such a thing (unless they want to make a really, REALLY bad and probably quite illegal PR move). It would not be a free distribution of their battletomes rules (and they are already in a free access on youtube and some other places anyway), but it would be just a free distribution of free home rules, may be somewhat remade from battletome basis, but remade nonetheless. As long as you'd play it with official models, you should be fine.
So, why not?
You just perfectly described The Ninth Age lol.
We learned a lot from the Ninth Age experiment, and I personally enjoyed playing it as a means to bridge the gap between the End Times and AOS 2.0. It definitely served a purpose. But it was a MASSIVE amount of work by a lot of talented/dedicated people that ultimately went nowhere.
People will always prefer officially supported games, even if the product is inferior.
-
To my knowledge, GW historically does not do post-FAQ hot fixes, at least for AOS. If they mess up something in the FAQ, its pretty much always left that way until the next scheduled FAQ or a related publication hits.
I hope I am wrong and they make an exception for Sylvaneth. Fortunately several TO's on twitter are allowing Sylvaneth players to continue to use the teleport as a house rule. So if we are waiting 3-4 more months for the year end FAQ, then at least a few events will help us out.
So the hurdle of having to buy the forests is annoying, but I also personally find transporting 3+ wyldwoods to events/games to be quite impractical. I usually have my army on a nice neat tray, and then a giant clunky rubbermade full of trees lol. And the leaves/branches are particularly fussy. I do it because I love the faction, but I can't help but feel like the odd duck.
I am *really* hoping that we get a WD article. Based on the rumour thread, it doesn't look like we are on the schedule for a new codex anytime soon.
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, Popisdead said:
Oh sorry, haha I meant I also have played a 30-SotW CoS list and it was,.. brutal. They point and click remove something reliably every turn. Bow Hunters don't. So like Alarielle it's a bit of all sorts of things that add up for them. Obviously you don't aim them at something with a save and save stacks on it. Irondrakes are better in CoS. As much as there was this feeling of synergy between Sylvaneth and Living City it never seemed to materialize in an incredibly useful format.
I have 6 Bow Hunters (I admit I bought 3 in AoS 1 then 3 more recently) but my 6/6 Sword/Sycthes are old Treekin on 50mm bases with KH weapons and bitz to bulk them up. So I've been through enough long ago to have things on hand. Surely your opponents must be okay with counts-as? My opponent joked I could use a coke can as an endless spell for all he cared.
So I would obviously avoid targeting anything with a save buff, but the issue is that my opponent will be popping All out Defense as soon as I target them. So even a basic 4+ unit will jump to a 3+ and still save half of the bows Rend 1 attacks.
Yea my typical thursday night opponents wouldn't care at all, but I generally try to be as WYSIWYG as possible in tournaments, and I often play at least 1-2 of those a month. So there is no point, for me at least, to dial in list I can't use in a tournament.
2 hours ago, Kiekeboe said:I've tried Ironbark as well, was great fun, just not very competitive it seems, but there are options. Irondrakes need a Runelord and you can't fit 20 Irondrakes with a Runelord in <400 points. If you want irondrakes/sylvaneth, Living city is the way to go tbh.
What I would recommend if you want to try Ironbark is a Runesmiter with 10 Auric Hearthguard. It's a solid deepstriking/scalpel package with good ranged damage to snipe key targets. Especially vs monsters it's effective. It's 21 shots, 3+/3+/-1/2dmg (vs a monster + all out attack). Teleport a miniscreen of Tree revs, deepstrike the Fyreslayer bunch behind them and fire away. If they survive or if you double turn you can use the Runesmiter prayer to give them rerolling wounds the next turn to finish off the wounded monster or pick a new one. I'm definitely going to give this another go now that I'm thinking of it again.
Yea the Fyreslayers and Dispossessed bring some very welcome tools to a Sylvaneth list, but like you said, that kind of playstyle is just flat out easier in a Living City list. Also, unlocking those allies requires you to give up meaningful subfaction buffs and that is a REALLY heavy price IMHO.
I continue to express my frustration at losing Wanderers as allies, while retaining access to Duardin. I mean, even Idoneth have access to Aelf cities units without any kind of subfaction requirement. I can't help but wonder if Wanderers falling off the allies chart was just another in a long line of careless oversights for the Sylvaneth faction.
-
18 hours ago, Popisdead said:
The point is to identify threats and deal with them over the game, not expect them to dominate a single round. I would take 30 Sisters of the Watch if i wanted that.
You would have to bring Living City to field Sisters since the 3.0 FAQ removed Wanderers as allies. Just another kick in the ribs for Sylvaneth😭. I have been considering an Ironbark list just to bring 20 Irondrakes, but the Irondrake allegiance rules are so bad I cant bring myself to do it.
I'm still not sold on Bow Hunters but I haven't given them a fair shake yet. The models are pricy and I never bothered magnetizing the 21 Swords/Scythes that I own. So its a $110+ investment to try them out. 😳
-
13 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:
The thing is, the more I look at it the more it looks like a deliberate attempt to just remove a mechanic they didn’t like without giving anything back in return.We often disagree on stuff, and here is another one lol.
There is no way they intentionally removed our primary allegiance ability. Other than sub faction abilities, the teleport is pretty much all we get. If blocking LOS and the charge phase damage on 6+ is all they do, I wouldn't even bother bringing more than 1 to games.
Personally I do think the teleport as a mechanic is bad, since it forces players into having to purchase and transport multiple forests to games to fully capitalize. But removing it entirely in a FAQ so quickly after it was overhauled just can't be how they intended to do it. They would have waited for a new codex or at least a WD article.
-
4
-
-
Oh yea, shackles can be brutal for sure. But its limited range and relatively high casting cost can make it tricky to execute safely. Its also a fairly high points cost. The biggest downside to shackles is that you are allowed to attempt to dispel endless spells in each hero phase, and any hero can attempt it with a heroic action. So you will almost always have 2 shots to stop it, and in the event of a double turn you could get 3 shots.
Cogs can be casted on the board edge and provides immediate benefit, with little to no skill or risk required.
Shackles still might outperform Cogs in specific situations, but Cogs is probably better overall.
-
Yes they are probably the most powerful endless spell in the game ATM. I find myself eyeing them even in lists where I only have two wizards. Because they can effectively double your magic phase. My armies pays around 100pts for a single caster but 275-360pts for a double caster. So getting multiple potential double casts for 45pts is a no-brainer.
I think they only reason we don't see Cogs in every single Tzeentch and LRL army is because those guys pretty much always take Spellportal (and the Tzeentch Tome of eyes), and may struggle to find the points for additional endless spells.
-
On 8/29/2021 at 7:33 AM, The World Tree said:
Sylvaneth are actually decent in 3.0 (the current faq up notwithstanding)
I know there are some Alarielle and Warsong fans out there (i'm not one of them) but Sylvaneth really benefited because of the update to wyldwoods that let you "scatter" them rather than drop a single cohesive piece. This gave them a massive boost in mobility.
That combined with the Treelord ancients new aura command ability which can quite often make nearly the entire army +1 save, pushed them up probably 2 tiers. (From D- to B- IMHO). Though I'm not a fan of Alarielle or Warsong, I do appreciate that they offer the army additional tools, so in the big picture I think they are also helping the faction.
While I'm pretty sure the FAQ disabling the teleport was a mistake, I'm not entirely sure the change to "scattering forests" was. If that was intentional and remains intact I imagine Sylvaneth will probably continue to lanquish in C+ tier, with the only exception being a few highly skilled players with skewed lists.
If they don't fix the teleport for 6 months we are in biiig trouble though. Its the only primary allegiance ability of note in the faction.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:
I'm sorry for your loss. At least you have endless spell revenant cheese!
Thanks. I....I actually don't think he is that good. ::ducks thrown tomatoes::
My meta is full of Tzeentch, LRL, Slaanesh and Archaon at the moment. So him and his endless spells get shut down or ignored
The Warsong combo is usually 345-390pts. So when strong antimagic pops up, its a huge handicap.
-
8 minutes ago, HollowHills said:
Is... is this a joke?
Yes but clearly a poor one lol.
This was a really frustrating day for a lot of mid-table players like myself. This is like their fourth shot at writing wyldwoods and they ended up breaking the entire faction lol.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Hey guys I play Sylvaneth, Nighthaunt, and Deepkin. I am just gonna go grab a drink real quick and then look at my FAQs. I'm excited!
-
6
-
-
51 minutes ago, Sleepa said:
For those of us who have tons that's maybe doable. But for new players? Sylvaneth wouldn't be a viable army choice anymore.
I think I see your point now. Reducing it from 3 models to 1-3 models per summon does lower the threshold of minimum models needed to play the faction and perform a teleport. You are correct.
But I don't understand why that had to take away the ability to summon 3 separate pieces with each summon. It was absolutely a huge buff that we desperately needed.
As it stands, we probably have one of the worst 3 basic allegiance rules in the game, since it hedges entirely on either getting a spell off or bringing a model that can auto-summon it. The "split" rule helped alleviate that.
I guess its all moot since we don't technically have the teleport at the moment lol. Here's hoping several paragraphs are missing from that warscroll
-
1
-
-
There are a lot of things in that are bad for the game, but spamming trees was not one of them. It gave us a pretty big leg up competitively, since it let us teleport with a lot more versatility.
We have always had to have a lot of forests, that change had no impact on that.
-
You can no longer summon 3 distinct pieces of terrain with each summon. We are back to a single model consisting of 1-3 pieces.
This absolutely nerfs us back to 2.0 levels. The ability to summon 3 separate trees per use was critical to us capitalizing on our teleport. (which also, hilariously, was forgotten about and is now gone RAW).
This is a bad day to be a tree 😭
-
I actually like these changes, though I would still hesitate to enforce them at any event I ran. But if the community wanted some comp, this would be a good start.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Chikout said:
Honestly the top end isn't too bad with only DoK inching above 60%.
It's the other end that needs urgent help, specifically Gloomspite, BoC and Slaanesh with winrates well below 40%.
If they can give those armies an overhaul and bump up the points for Gotrek and Morathi, the meta will be in a decent place.
I'm a bit rusty on win/loss rate analysis but if I remember correctly, the Ninth Age data analysts considered anything consistently below 45% or above 55% (with solid sampling data) to be problematic. Factions hitting <40% or >60% win rates consistently was unheard of. If it happened it could justify immediate intervention.
However AOS data has some pretty severe issues. You have cross faction units like Archaon, Gotrek, and Mega Gargants that can can push entire factions up a tier.
While I still consider our sampling data to be a bit too small, I def think there are some obvious outliers. SOB, LRL and DOK rose to the top pretty quickly and have stayed on top. While BOC, NH, and GG have been at the bottom all along.
-
2
-
-
GW's history with Apps is pretty terrible and given their neglect of 3rd edition as a whole I don't forsee the AOS app being any different. Ya'll remember when the GHB and LRL codex hit and Azyr didn't update for like 2 months?
I personally still intend on getting it simply because I currently use the 40k app and wish to maintain access to it. (and the cost difference between 40k app and WH+ is negligible)
That being said, if you ONLY play AOS then you should listen to the OP. GW is very likely to miss the AOS app launch date by several months given recent trends. No need to give them money until you can use the product.
-
3
-
-
I have attended 3 third edition events so far with 2.5 hours rounds. I have finished 43/45 of my turns, using Sylvaneth and Nighthaunt armies. Third is not slower than second. In fact, there are about 15% less models on the field and the table is smaller. So in a vacuum, games *should* go faster than in 2nd. My club mate has finished 45/45 of his turns using Ogors. We have also played multiple practice games and finished them all handily within 3 hours.
Its a new edition, and people just take time to learn it. I am seeing some delays and "analysis paralysis" with battle tactics and command abilities. Most notably "redeploy" and "unleash hell" where the inactive opponent will often ask for a second to think. Also there are 18 new battleplans to learn. All of these delays will go away as people get games under their belt.
The players/armies who aren't going to finish games in 3rd, are the same ones who didn't finish games in 2nd. The key difference with third, at least in my experience, is that most games are decided on turn 4-5. So an incomplete game is more of an injustice because so many points are scored in later turns.
-
3
-
1
-
-
On 8/9/2021 at 9:58 AM, baiardo said:
Can I still play a kraken-eater in a GSGarmy even if in warscroll builder exceeds the allies point limit?
Yes, the Mega Gargant "Mercenary" rules specifically provide an exemption to the points limit for allies. You just can't bring any other allies besides the Mega.
-
1
-
-
I think GW is always looking for an excuse to sell people more books. I imagine we will get a new monstrous arcanum released in the next year or so. Or, at worse, a white dwarf will provide a supplement.
I wouldn't personally buy any more FW AOS models until they do though. I imagine there are quite a few Dread Saurian owners sweating bullets right now
-
2 hours ago, BaylorCorvette said:
As far as I can tell, an army can still take a Mega-Gargant Mercenary in Matched Play in 3.0 correct? What I am unsure about is, can they be given a universal enhancement such as an artefact? I see that they are technically not a named character even though each of the Grand Alliances have a name for the Mega-Gargant Mercs.
Yes. The mercenary rules for Mega Gargants were updated with an FAQ to the SOB battletome. It costs you 1 CP in your first hero phase. Otherwise the Mega Gargants are treated just like allies. So they are exempt from receiving enhancements of any kind.
As a reminder, the mercenary versions are slightly different since they each gain a special ability for being a mercenary. For example the Gatebreaker gains "Grevious Halitosis"
-
16 minutes ago, Arzalyn said:
I wouldn't say you MUST as setting them as 3 separated Trees don't count them as one faction terrain, but 3 individual terrain features. From the rules in the FAQ:
If you set them up more than 3" from each other, they form 3 small Awakened Wyldwoods that are separate faction terrain features.
As they are 3 separated terrain features, been unable to place 1 of them it shouldn't stop you from placing the remaining ones.
It needs an FAQ, but it says "setup 3" not "setup up to 3". So I am just trying to interpret it based on similar pre-existing situations, which is how I imagine TO's will rule it on the spot.
And if I don't have to set up all the models I summon then it opens up a lot of weird doors that i don't want to deal with lol.
-
4 hours ago, Aeryenn said:
Played three games so far with Sylvaneth in 3.0. Against Fyreslayers, Beasts of Chaos (ironically this was the toughest fight) and Kharadrons (in this fight we decided to resign from double turn. I recommend it to everyone). All won.
I'm running Alarielle (summon Scythes), Durthu, Treelord, Archrev, dryads, 2x tree rev, Scythes, gladewyrm. It's just a casual list but I've played Sylvaneth a lot and thus I am capable of winning against armies considered stronger. Most important changes from my perspective are new rules for Wyldwoods. Ability to summon 3 independent Wyldwoods in one move is huge. It gives a lot of flexibility to teleport across the map. Secondly Alarielle is a real beast when you can easily make her save 2+ and all sorts of healing (skill, spell, gladewyrm). New Metamorphosis is also a killer. It can easily deal 7+ mortal rules (I managed to score 11 MW against BoS). Alarielle and Durthu both benefit from Heroic Actions and Mystic shield making them 2+. I still think that units costs were increased too much compared to other armies. Alarielle is cool but I'm sure that running Warsong, Drycha and something more in her place will be more effective. Kurnoths should be around Annihilators cost.
I need a clarification on Wyldwoods. What's the consensus about summoning trees out of initial scenery set up? Are we allowed to summon 1,2 or three trees independently while using spell, artifact or TLA? Or just when setting up faction terrain?
My interpretation is that you MUST setup 3 trees. Though I use the 1" rule rather than the 3" rule for summoned wyldwoods, so I have never had a situation where I couldn't fit them somewhere. I only use the 3" rule on the initial pre game setups.
My logic behind this is that other factions aren't allowed to summon incomplete units of models. If they don't fit, they can't summon them. This is key because it lets you screen out an area based on a units foot print. If my opponent could summon 3 blue horrors rather than 10 then it makes screening them out pretty much impossible.
-
1
-
New FAQ Discussion Thread (27.08)
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Thats just it, it DID produce a balanced ruleset that was great. It was constantly monitored and adjusted by data analysts based on constantly evolving meta data.
The problem is that nobody really played it outside of a few niche circles. Creating the comp is just a small part of the problem. The real challenge is getting players and events to adopt the comp.
Its a matter of authority. If GW nerfs your big bad unit, then most people will begrudgingly accept it. But if some rando on the internet tries to nerf it, human nature kicks and and players of that faction tend to revolt.
Consider that T9A had a huge advantage here, because at the time a lot of events were already using the "Swedish Comp" system for tournaments. And so when that team got behind T9A, it really gave the project a sense of authority. You would need a major event coordinator or someone like Goonhammer/AOS Coach to back a comp project for it to have any chance nowadays.