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

TheCovenLord

Members
  • Content Count

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

114 Celestant-Prime

About TheCovenLord

  • Rank
    Decimator

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I know. The way those buffs and multipliers are currently implemented though enhance volume over quality. Which I find disturbing and unsatisfying. As for routing. I would prefer GW Sh*t or get off the pot and either make bravery meaningful or discard it in the name of streamlining anyway. I would prefer battleshock and routing/rallying become something meaningful but I seriously doubt it with the current direction of the game.
  2. I want to weigh in on this. I am firmly in the camp of a S & T, or similar system, would definitely help flesh out the fantasy and make the simulation more fulfilling (this is opinion as is everyone else opinion in this thread it is not objective fact). I don't mind hopeless fights. Chaff already exists in AoS and basically represent hopeless fights. Its just against a buffstar rather than a big dragon. Warscrolls being poorly designed or buff stacking units to crazy levels also leads to hopeless fights and were knee deep in that now. I DO think they could avoid the need for S/T if they figure out how to reduce special rules bloat and buff stacking. But it seems more like they went all in on it with the 2.0 tomes so I feel it is a lost cause for the moment. Basically every faction has a way to buff stack a murder blob at this point. How effective they are varies based on faction rules (which I think sub-factions should be point costed but that's a discussion for another thread). I find asking for a toughness to be no different than "what's the rend on that" or "what is their save value" before I allocate or my opponent allocates attacks which I already do. As many have mentioned non-hero monsters and elite units (which really the only reason hero monsters are effective is because of their command abilities) are pathetic. Poo-pooing the problem away by saying "just add more wounds" with the current system would be ridiculous. Monsters would need baseline 3+ saves an invuln of some sort and 30+ wounds to realistically survive long enough to represent the fantasy due to the damage output of hordes at the moment. The fact that the khorne dragon sporting 30 wounds can die or be degraded to uselessness in a single round of combat to some naked aelves (just using them as an example they aren't even cream of the crop anymore statshammer shows ~47 damage after saves with their usual buffs and ~25 damage if only half the unit makes contact) should really ram that home . GW seems reluctant to dump out better than a 4++ save on anything (usually only heroes, or tied to artifacts), have taken away ward save stacking (I personally like this change and hope it spurs a change in hero design) and other methods of representing a "tough" unit. Really when I think of "tough" all that comes to mind are hearthguard beserkers (a horde with a good invuln save) and gotrek & Morathi (special abilities). Not even mortrek anymore (RIP petrifax) Reduce points? It becomes a race to the bottom. How many more points can you knock off a Cygor before someone will actually run it? I can tell you just based on its scroll and my friends mediocre performance from it I wouldn't even run it for 80 points. If they went any lower I would take them just as extremely cheap chaff as they have become bargain basement level ridiculous in their own way. Not because they are effective on the table. Just effective cost wise. Only solution I can see for monsters without some sort of Toughness rule or S&T is to bump the damage output of elites and monsters to naturally compete with buffed hordes without needing their own cheerleaders. The way I see it. Hordes are basically 20+ wound monsters (usually higher depending on the model count) with huge numbers of attacks that can be amplified in a compound manner (ex: adding one attack per model x 20 vs 1 attack for a single profile on a monster) and a profile that doesn't really degrade until more than half the unit is dead (once you start having to pull models from base to base). When you compare them in this manner to ACTUAL monster warscrolls it becomes hilariously obvious why they will never be popular as combat units in AoS without some sort of change. Everything in AoS dies. They die quickly and die generally as soon as a unit swings in AoS they die. In a way its satisfying and prevents annoying tarpits for the most part but its also a real fantasy killer for me in certain situations (which I think a simple S/T system OR special rule similar to morathi which could embody the "tankiness" of the monster). Seeing a friends bloodthirster charge plague rats kill 8 and die instantly is pathetic. Seeing a ghorgon/Cygor hit the table just makes me laugh at this point. They aren't monsters. They aren't tanky or tough or scary. They don't really do damage. Can't effectively hold objectives. They're pathetic pieces that fail miserably to live up to the fantasy in the face of buffed stacked hordes of goblins/witch elves/ mortrek/saurus/beserkers etc. its at the point where people I know have left the game because of the miserable performances of their favorite centerpiece.
  3. I believe battleline should stay in some form. Maybe expand existing army lines to offer more battleline options. However, I do think they should stay. Armies are spammy enough with the restriction. If certain armies could choose to ignore battleline restrictions it would result in many armies looking like a clone factory of the best unit in the army regardless of how ridiculous it would look (Granted this still happens particularly when the best unit IS the battleline or the battleline unit is viewed as a "tax"). Edit: you know what an army of Sea Turtles actually sounds awesome I change my mind. I also realize that I acknowledged and contradicted myself in that the spam is already loose in AOS. I stand by my final point though. Make more scenarios hinge on unit classifications for capture/holding/etc. to give them more weight.
  4. I always disclose the rules that my army possess. Depending on the type of match (more competitive or less competitive) I will either disclose HOW I make use of the rules or not. In a more competitive environment I will be less forthcoming with exactly HOW I will use the rules I disclose. I am not speaking of gotcha moments but more of overall strategy. If my units can teleport I will tell you. They teleport with X restrictions in X phase. What you make of that and how I might use that is on you to figure out. This is particularly relevant in a competitive setting (weekend tournies). If it is less competitive. I will be more chatty and often warn opponents if I see a major blunder or offer a gentle reminder if they seem to have forgotten key rules of my force so they can potentially avoid bad feeling moments. Its a spectrum for me. But I always disclose the exact wording of the rules and at the very least I ask if the opponent wants to know what my armies rules are. If they decline that's also on them and I respect the decision.
  5. Megaboss on Maw-Krusha is definitely one of the tops. Bloodthirsters of all flavors look fantastic and the new Keeper strikes fear.
  6. Please this. BoC, Skaven, Cities, DoK and a few other factions really need actual miniatures refresh. Stormcast have an immense lineup they almost need to be pruned and just get scroll rewrites as I feel they have a pretty bloated miniature line. I hope for new boxes that are more destruction vs chaos, death vs chaos sets.
  7. I don't believe there is any official restriction other than it requires the parts to be GW in origin for some tournaments. Conversions are usually allowed as long as they are recognizable as the model they represent. For me the silhouette by the proper weapon arms/weapons really sets the verminlords apart rather than the heads so in our group I would easily allow it. Any former TO's that can weigh in maybe?
  8. I know its not a rumor. But I agree with your first sentence. I want malerion elves as much as the next. But the pace of army releases is leading me to fatigue both financially and excitement-wise. it also makes me a bit wary of the support of those factions where they have been left with very few kits for so many years (fyreslayers, ironjawz, deepkin I am sure there are more) yet they keep adding entire new armies. That being said the new factions have a large number and variety of kits which is very nice (bonedaddies and looking like lumineth had very full ranges on release). I would like to see some revisited support for the smaller factions and some do-overs for the struggling factions (stormcast, Beasts, KO, Khorne etc,).
  9. Honestly with the volume of special rules and interactions I have to deal with personally in my army. I rarely want or remember to use realm rules even if we do roll for them. Even terrain rules frequently get forgotten. Not because of any crazy complexity just sheer volume of interactions in AoS. Especially when you get down to the nitty gritty of buff duration, placement, measuring. Our group could easily do without but several tournament players insist on utilizing them on occasion as some of the tournaments they play in apparently make use of certain of them.
  10. Awesome! I need to find if theres any reps on this list! finally a reason to bust out the 3 dragons
  11. Do you have a link to the lists? I would absolutely love to up my game, especially if I can add in a nice looking model for better reasons.
  12. I hear you. I have 3 sorceresses on BD's at this point. I have only ever used all 3 once in a fluff match. I was really hoping she would be significantly stronger when Cities dropped and she only got a little better but her points jacked up an unreasonable amount. Sad to be honest love the minis.
  13. Sucks. But I sure am glad I purchased those 6 boxes of blackguard before the closure. Something to hobby on in the coming weeks.
  14. Yea a friend of mine picked up on the interaction before the FAQ when malign first came out. We played it as they ended up writing it after some discussion deciding that the infinity geminids were not fun or likely intended. It was funny seeing it come up here again many many months later.
  15. They addressed this in the faq on malign sorcery. "If a predatory endless spell finishes a move within 6" of an Umbral Spellportal model, remove it from the battlefield and set it up again anywhere within 6" of the other Umbral Spellportal model from this endless spell. After an endless spell finishes a move within 6" of an Umbral Spellportal and is set up again, it cannot move again in that phase, and you cannot use the Arcane Passage ability again for that Umbral Spellportal in that phase.’"
×
×
  • Create New...