Landohammer
-
Posts
810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Landohammer
-
-
4 minutes ago, Flippy said:
I always struggle to understand this. The chapter identity will be restored, sooner or later, and marines will not dissolve while they wait in the cabinet for a year or two. If someone is so attached to the lore of their army, why sell?
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.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Beliman said:
I think that war40k core mechanics and the rule's design are a lot better than people think. If there was more customization options, subfactions or "background flavour" to play around, people would have another perspective, even if the game still had the same mechanics.
AoS is in the other side of the coin, there is a lot of flavour, but the rules are a bit off. With a lot of layers of rules on top of other layers, and a meta-gaming based on stuff like how to acquire arbitrary Victory Points instead of what your models do or have.
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.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, RocketPropelledGrenade said:
A lot? Maybe. Depends on your definition. I don't think the vocal contingent you see online is any more representative and less anecdotal of a source than the extremely positive local reception I've been seeing. And for myself, this is the best edition 40k has ever had. That all has to do with the core rule changes, though. It made the indexes necessary, but the indexes themselves are of variable quality. I do think GW is moving in the right direction with fixes and updates to 10th, though.
With regards to AoS, I'm fine with indexes, but it will be a bit of a shame to ditch some of the amazing battletomes we've had in third by moving too far. 2023 imbalances aside, the battletomes this edition have largely been stellar IMO. I would honestly be fine with 3+ more years of 3e provided they fixed how they did seasons and made the on-ramp for new players easier.
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.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Luperci said:
I can say the only changes I think were good for 40k 10th were the reintroduction of USRs(although handled quite poorly) and the reduction of stratagems(honestly I wouldn't have minded them being completely cut)
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.
3 minutes ago, Peacaf said:Do you really want an index to come out and the army books to be useless after months or a little over a year?
It's normal that GW is more disgusting every day, if on top of that you give wings to this type of policies.
For my part, until I am sure that Bestias is not discontinued, I will not buy a miniature.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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ScionOfOssia said:
I hope if we get Indexhammer, it’s better balanced than what 40k got.
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.
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Jetlife said:
Definitely think BOC will get updated. Would be a bad look to have an army that’s been in the game for almost 10 years get completely wiped without an alternative.
I imagine it will be a cities type deal. Where a few kits will stay and the rest would be reimagined, revamped or redone.
Seeing how they handle the Skaven launch will probably give us a solid idea of what to expect.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
Yeah but it would be hard to justify a new edition for a few tweaks
Isn't that basically what they did from 2.0 to 3.0? The codexes were cross compatible.
-
14 minutes ago, Beliman said:
That and the psychic mechanic is what I don't like about nu-40k. I'm not a fan of missions either, but the main core rules are good and easy to work and fix if there are some problems (just change or remove keywords/values and the entire unit becomes something else).
The only thing that I miss is more customization (subfactions, artefacts, traits, etc...).
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, EonChao said:
I kind of hope we get a set of indexes for 4th, I get people don't want to buy the battle tomes again for everyone but to me that's what indexes let me do. Oh I'm not likely to play my Sylvaneth beyond casual games in the near future? Cool I don't need to buy the book and will just use the index until 5th ed.
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.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Sception said:
Honestly, neither do I. Cannons feel problematic at first glance, especially if we want big cool monster heroes to be viable. However, most factions don't have access to cannons, and even for the armies that have them they aren't exactly cheap to spam, and they're coming out of special points, so spamming cannons really limits what the rest of the army can be in a way that spammed glade guard for example really don't. So in practice, I could easily be worried over nothing.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Sception said:
Fair enough i guess, but I'm not sure I see how 6 units of glade guard in a 2000 point game is a bigger problem than 6 great cannons. Not a criticism of you and your group specifically, more of the current semi-official rule of 3 as it is currently worded.
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. 🤣
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Hollow said:
I believe this was all but debunked when various Youtubers jumped on the rumour only for GW and Amazon to release a statement just a few days later that completely contradicted it. The rumour was ridiculous anyway and didn't have any connection to how a PLC operates.
Thanks. Didn't know it had been debunked. I guess I just liked the narrative of executives being dumb 🤣
-
33 minutes ago, Tonhel said:
Yeah, I agree. I just checked and the FEC armybox is still available. A bit bizar, because if you want to start FEC than it is a much a better deal to buy the armybox instead of the new sets that are on pre-order.
I do hope that GW will balance production capacity a bit better in the future. Maybe a bit less capacity to AoS and a bit more to TOW. It's crazy that I still wasn't able to buy a single new mini for TOW. I only managed to order the forces of fantasy, ravening hordes and the two Arcane journals. I still can't buy the rulebook. Bought the pdf as backup, but want the hardcover rulebook too.
I am really curious what GW upper management is thinking about the succes of the TOW release and how they compare it with their other games.
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.
-
9 minutes ago, Sception said:
Are you applying 'rule of three' only for otherwise unlimited stuff, or are you also applying it to units that already have discrete limits but would allow more than three? eg, if something is '2 per 1000 points' would it be limited to 3 or to 4 in your group?
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.
-
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!
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sception said:
Characters in units of 5+ get look out sir of 2+ on hits against them in the shooting phase. Unless I'm missing something the waystalker mostly just functions to force lone heroes into units, once there they're as safe from her as they are from war machines.
She is very effective at sniping out unit champions, though. No look out sir there, and unlike standards and musicians other models in the unit don't replace them. Thankfully tomb kings can bring our champions back from the dead.
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.
-
5 hours ago, cyrus said:
In the last stream Valrak confirmed next pairings to be O&G vs Dwarfs
Followed by Empire vs Empire ( not 100% sure about this)
No mention to time release
I think it would be cool/funny if one of the "Empire" sides was Sylvania 🤣
-
14 hours ago, Noserenda said:
Quick answer before i break down "defensive" but the good v evil stupidity is a key symptom of it, i had written it off as yet another weird need to justify why they grouped forces like they did, becuase they could have just called them "Defenders and Invaders" and it wouldnt have gotten peoples backs up, but now theyve doubled down on their ****** weak reasoning for some reason in this article rather than moving on.
Like, the Bretonnians are vastly more evil than the tomb kings (who are lets remember all victims of Nagash, not skeletons by choice) in how they treat their people and the Wood elves slaughter almost anyone foolish enough to come near them, mess with the Bretonnians religion and sometimes just ride out to do a bunch of murders for lols.
And thats just the low hanging fruit! The Border Princes all build their castles on generations of corpses
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.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Sathrut said:
I've seen others who have interpreted it the same way as I have. and I think the bolded in the following two snippets are why myself and others are interpreting it this way:
"The aggrandisement of self through the grand statuary and hieroglyphic writings of Nehekhara – it’s so self-centred and so selfish and tells us so much about how little the rulers of Nehekhara cared about their subjects that it cannot be anything but evil."
"In the End Times, Settra opposed Chaos, because he was not going to yield to Chaos. He’s too insane, even in undeath. That’s where we think the idea of the Tomb Kings being ‘good’ came from, and where we think the shades of grey perhaps muddied things a little too much. Neither Chaos nor Settra will let the people of the Old World get on with their lives."
They seem to be operating under the belief that the shades of grey muddied the waters thanks to the End Times, and dislikek that people consider the Tomb Kings 'good', so those grey areas need to be minimised by drawing a clearer divide between Good and Evil, with the TK firmly in the latter camp.
As @Whitefang said, it's going to be interesting to see how they justify Wood Elves under Good, considering their history with Bretonnia alone would render them in the Evil camp, especially if they're going by the actions of
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.
-
2 hours ago, Sathrut said:
Yeah, I'm not particularly pleased with the direction they're taking Tomb Kings under this "good/evil" distinction. I rolled my eyes when I read these two parts:
"The aggrandisement of self through the grand statuary and hieroglyphic writings of Nehekhara – it’s so self-centred and so selfish and tells us so much about how little the rulers of Nehekhara cared about their subjects that it cannot be anything but evil."
"In the End Times, Settra opposed Chaos, because he was not going to yield to Chaos. He’s too insane, even in undeath. That’s where we think the idea of the Tomb Kings being ‘good’ came from, and where we think the shades of grey perhaps muddied things a little too much. Neither Chaos nor Settra will let the people of the Old World get on with their lives."
This seems like a woeful misunderstanding of the faction. Tomb Kings being 'good', has never been a thing, not even with the End Times. They've always been viewed as neutral, with various Kings/Princes/Queens ranging from 'evil', such as Settra, or 'good' such as Queen Khalida, King Phar, and everything in between.
I don't like either how they seem to be setting up the faction to focus soley on Settra/characters carrying out his orders.
I'll wait until I've read the new background, but so far it's left me feeling cold, when I should be excited, as Tomb Kings are my first and favourite army.
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! 👍
-
7
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Hollow said:
I think it is funny that you parrot this forum "knowledge" and state it as if it is a known fact. There have been exactly 0 official statements from Gamesworkshop regarding the production run of Dominion.
This tends to happen fairly frequently when it comes to Games Workshop. Somebody will make a post on a forum speculating that they think something is the case, several people will repeat it and then it just becomes an accepted truth even though there has actually been 0 official confirmation either way.
Pretty sure the boxes going for $120 on secondary markets and the stacks of them at every FLGS are strong indications of overproduction. The lack of GW commentary on sales numbers doesn't really mean anything bc they rarely give meaningful insight into that kind of data publicly.
Compare Dominion to other starter boxes like Age of Darkness, Indomitus, and Leviathan which are holding their value (or in Indomitus's case appreciating). Its crystal clear Dominion is an outlier.
-
I just wanted to share just how insanely effective my command corp was in a game last night.
I was playing vs FEC and had 3 terrorgeists make charges on turn 1. I was in trouble. Here is how the command corp helped.
-I used the counter charge order with cavaliers, and the +1 to charge bonus helped me get there
-The whisperblade denied his Feeding Frenzy which basically saved my cavaliers from getting wiped
-My screening steelhelms borked their battleshock but the flute guy rescued half of them
Then in my turn
-The sawbones then healed a horse, rezzed a horse, and brought back more steelhelms.
-The whisperblade denied ANOTHER feeding frenzy. And the flag helped me get a more favorable charge on a zombiedragon.
-I used my flag guy to retake an objective and get an easy battle tactic
That is how the whole game proceeded. The sawbones probably brought back 18+ wounds all game and the whisperblade alone probably saved me the game. The arch Knight even finished off a formidable hero in combat later on.
I was hesitant at first to bring such an expensive support unit but the Sawbones and Whisperblade are so effective they will be auto-takes for me from now on.
-
7
-
1
-
-
On 11/25/2023 at 12:25 PM, The Lost Sigmarite said:
What do you feel are the best endless spells to include in a Cities list ? I have made a list using the army box as a basis, but I have 80 pts to spare, and I have endless spells around to fill the gap. Personally, I would go with Swords, but that's purely because of flair with the Warforger. But is there some better alternative out there ?
Ravenaks Gnashing Jaws is my go to endless spell regardless of faction. It can delete slow units and can often be a "stop at all costs" kind of spell for some opponents. But honestly if you have 80pts then a Gyrocopter would be better. They are a sleeper unit in the book and excel at grabbing battle tactics or even screening.
-
@JackStreicher Looks like my "you are gonna get bodied off the table in melee" prediction proved only half true! Nice game!
How does it feel to be the first person on the planet to successfully pull off Tahlia's special rally. 🤣
-
1
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
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.