Heijoshin
-
Posts
152 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Heijoshin
-
-
4 hours ago, novakai said:
[4.1.7 The recipient undertakes to GW that it shall not at any time during the Term, do or say anything which may be harmful to the reputation of GW.]
hmm, doesn't sound like they are demanding positive coverage, you can probably still critised something you don't like about a product in a constructive manner.
just don't say they are selling and marketing their expensive products to children is exploiting them (cough Outer circle cough)
or they are Capitalistic pigs that are incompetent with technology and rules writing (cough The Honest Wargamer)
Sure, but the point isn't necessarily that you can't criticise GW at all, and if you do GW will throw the lawyers at you. That is never the point of these sorts of things. The point of these sorts of clauses is about the cases that are in-between these two extremes (saying "im not a fan of this model" vs "GW is literally worse than *insert your own hyperbole*).
This isn't a reason to bring up the whole Cursed City debacle, but where would this incident fall under? Under fair criticism? or would GW try and shut you down? I think many YTbers and personalities were commentating on how uncool it was that GW were being so silent on the matter, some went further. Some that really loved GW were saying how bad this whole situation was. Is this not "reputation damaging"?
My point isn't necessarily any specific incident or possibility, but that in between the extremes are very real possibilities and if you have signed this NDA, the only judge of what is acceptable is GW. If an incident like Cursed City happens again and you've signed this NDA, you can bet there will be people who at the very least would question how much sass or criticism they're gonna put in their video. That in and of itself is bad enough. In the end it's not the whether GW will stifle all fair criticism, or criticism that is at the benefit of the consumer, it's that they can (attempt to at least).
Or, people can just not sign it and make 100% honest reviews.-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Ar-Pharazôn said:
50? I checked a currency converter and it said £30 is around $41 or so. If that is GW prices before third party discount, wouldn't you only be paying 36 or so?
The presumption being here that GW take on a direct currency conversion as you have done. GW just don't do that unfortunately. A 9th Edition codex from GW currently costs $50.
-
1
-
-
On 8/28/2021 at 7:30 PM, Goddin said:
It could be 1 drop but I really like the idea of using the helm of the ordained plus bludgeon plus endless duty on a unit of 10 Deathriders, maybe 2 in the same combat phase.
The legality of the list seems fine, but note that you won't be able to Bludgeon and Endless Duty the same Deathrider unit. The FAQ didn't change anything about the same unit giving / receiving multiple command abilities. Only that a command ability that uses RDP can be used multiple times, only if it is given to and received by different units.
Hope that makes sense. -
14 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:
It’s also a complete farce to put them in a white dwarf where I guess they will be dripped out over the next 2 years creating another avenue of haves and have-nots.
Don't worry mate, when they inevitably bring out "Totally even more Broken Realms: *insert character*", they will conveniently put them all together for you for the bargain price of 49.99. And be valid for like 3 months? If you're lucky.
-
6
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Sarouan said:
And James did say he was finally able to renegociate his contract to be paid 20k for working 4 days at the end, with friday being paid overtime.
No, he said he suggested to renegotiate it. They turned that suggestion down. 6 months later he had left.
-
1 minute ago, baiardo said:
Yeah, I agree totally with you 100%!
And I agree with you that we need a new book. I just want GW to fix what is currently broken until we get it and my worry is that we won't get that. GW like to leave things a little broken, so when the next book comes out, people are even more eager to get it, thinking it will solve all our problems. Maybe a bit on the conspiracy theory side of thinking, but I imagine there is a least a smidgen of truth to it.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, baiardo said:
Even the YTchannel face hammer has interpreted it like the @Shirtripper's group.
They can't provide itself their own CA.
Yeah we need a new battletome.
I'm not questioning the validity of the RAW interpretation. I too also agree it is interpreted that way. It's a question of whether the RAW interpretation should take precedence when it clearly goes against the spirit of what they intended with OBR. There are many instances where GW have changed something that allows something crazy, but people have been reasonable in judging that it wasn't intended that way, and have thus ruled they won't follow it. This is one of those instances.
I saw the same vid btw, and they also said that this will probably get FAQ'd in the next round. Which I also expect.
-
2 hours ago, Shirtripper said:
Where is mentioned that the Hekatos keyword grants the ability to issue commands?
The only times I see Hekatos mentioned as being able to issue commands is the pre-FAQ wording on Unstoppable Advance and on Deathless Warriors. The Hekatos keyword is never referenced in regards to issuing commands so far as I can tell. The designer's commentary calls out that commands are issued by the unit leaders which is still true in 3.0, but in 2.0 the Stalkers could issue commands to themselves because that's what their warscroll said.
Stalkers/Immortis don't have unit leaders, and the FAQ did not clarify beyond that. RAW, they wouldn't be able to issue their command is how my local group have been interpreting it unless there's something critical I'm overlooking?
This is clearly an oversight.
The fact that your group has interpreted it as RAW is worrisome, regardless of whether it is technically correct or not right now. -
10 minutes ago, Btimmy said:
List is 5 points over
Actually it's bang on 2000, as warscroll builder still has Morghast Harbingers at 190 and not the 185 they actually are.
-
40 minutes ago, Obeisance said:
Not terrible for us, right?
Mortis Praetorians (2000pts even)
- Battle Regiment (Unified Drop)
Katacross
20 Morteks: Sword
20 Morteks: Sword
10 Morteks: Sword
Harvester: Bludgeons- Grand Battery (One free Unleash Hell)
Leige Kavalos (-3 Rend Praetor relic)
Crawler
Crawler7+8D6 RDP
I like it!
This will depend on whether an FAQ will allow us to use these generic command abilities, but if so, this will mean that one per game both crawlers can shoot into someone charging your screen because of the Battle Regiment ability not technically being issued and a point not being spent. Noice.
If we can't use Unleash Hell, then I guess this is very situational. -
The Good:
- Lieges down
- Katakros down (Special K stonks!)
- Stalkers same
- Harbingers down (only 5 but now counting as 2 on objectives is sweet)
- Arkan the same is nice.
The Bad:
- Crawler: Kinda expected but with mystic shield changes and all the other +1 stuff flying around, I don't think it needed going up
- Mortek: again, expected but still stings a little and max 30 is also not the greatest
- Deathriders: Unnecessary increase I think
The Lol:
- Vokmortian: Seirously, just stop GW. Make him 100 and then maybe I will think about taking him (That's a lie...I won't).
The "But why???":
- Immortis guard: +10? But why??
The ????:
-
Endless spells: Bye bye filling up those last 20-40 points with these, and hello possible triumph!
- Also Soulstealer Carrion went up by 325%! You poor poor bird
- Sure, I get because of the whole bound thing its good for us, but because of the new endless spell rules and endless spell max, its not gonna change anything for us to justify these increases. Would rather have lost the bound ability than these changes.
The Oh God, my nerf senses are tingling:
-
Lieges and Katakros dropping makes me feel that the FAQ may change up our RPD generation to mean liege keyword heroes do not give an extra RDP
- Could be good or bad, who knows, but GW often giveth and taketh away and given we got reductions for these units kinda unexpectedly, I do suspect we may see some nerf in some other way.
-
1
-
Is it conceivable that GW, as part of a rough and dirty FAQ, just say "OBR can now use generic command abilities with command points, and RDP is spent on RDP abilities" - and they simply blanket rename all warscroll command abilities, and batteltome command abilities to "RD abilities"? - Or something to that affect.
Would mean that we get access to both and that is our "thing" and retain our overabundance of points to spend on things. Would probably a bit too strong to get 2 buffs, but then again, we still dont have any shenanigans.... -
2 minutes ago, Scurvydog said:
It's like this company just does not want to sell their own product sometimes...
Preorder day expectations is mostly just a lot of frustration and disappointment at this point, although I would love to be proven wrong.
Something something, definition of insanity, something something
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, zamerion said:
Poor Wario!
-
1
-
-
Those Nagash points though...
Well, at least i'm already half way through a 2k point Gravelords army!
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Sception said:
I'd like to see some boost to us if others get this, but I'm not too bothered one way or the other. Mostly because I don't think we'll have that long to wait until we get a new book, even though our faction is relatively new. Just a feeling I have. Could be wrong.
Same. I have a feeling that Nagash and Arkhan will get new scrolls too. If Mystic Shield gets changed to +1 save like the rumours suggest, with those two boney b*stards being able to cast it as many times as they want AND GW wanting to avoid mass +1 save (RIP petrifex) AND the fact...
Spoilerthey got royally messed up in BR: Teclis
Then I see them getting new scrolls and an update to OBR.
Also there was an image going around of all the factions and number of models. Slaanesh, Lumineth and OBR were "recent" factions with only 15ish units and the first two not long after got updates. -
6 hours ago, Btimmy said:
The pessimist in me says that with the command point generating system being pretty much the same as RDP, OBR will just be left with a shittier version as we cannot use any of the fancy new charge reaction stuff they put in. It would require actual effort for GW to introduce something to make OBR unique, and I don't really see that happening. I hope I am wrong, but thats where my expectations are at.
My guess is that for the tie over until the next battletome, OBR will have an errata akin to that of what Tau had when 9th Edition 40k released.
Basically in 8th, everyone could overwatch. 9th came along and made it so you had to pay a CP to use it (and only one unit can do it per phase). But Tau can do it for free because shooting is their thing and suck in any melee.
Im expecting something similar where we get something extra. Perhaps we get more points and can use the charge reaction stuff as a means to make up for everyone now having one of our signature mechanics.
Edit: I should probably say that I not only guess this, but pray we at least get something like this (or some kind of errata). Otherwise boo hoo. -
10 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:
Something like Strength and Toughness. That's really it.
The current system has all the same amount of dice rolls as a S/T system so it doesn't make the game much more streamlined. However the flattening of defensive profiles and removal of stats like this causes a few issues for the game; namely that it becomes harder and harder to differentiate and portray different kinds of units and their resilience and it contributes to the spam problem that AOS can suffer from. There's little need to diversify unit choices when because of static wound rolls that can be easily buffed an ordinary battleline unit can be anti-anything it pleases. Similarly something with low numbers of attacks but high damage turns into a horde-blender because of damage overspill.
Now, obviously a S/T style system isn't the only way to address that problem but it's the most obvious one. Another way to do it would be to limit hit/wound roll modifiers to +1/-1 like 9th ed 40k, while also removing damage overspill as a mechanic. You then start to encourage different unit types to be used to deal with different threats while also making more units feel a little different.
I get what you are saying, and generally I agree, but GW need to be careful if they do import this feature over. With the S/T system in 40k, the actual S/T values are only one part of the equation. The multiple weapon options and special weapons available in a unit that actually affect those S/T values are the other part. Having a simple S/T stat calculation, whilst a step in the right direction, is not going to solve issues of explosive damage and insta wiping units. It will help, but not to the extent people want or expect. Then we have to ask, if we want to have these multiple weapon options which affect stats in the game?
-
Sure, at the end of the day, warscrolls are free. But those 20€ warscroll cards are now incomplete after only 2 months. I know plenty of people that use these cards and have them laid out during the game. For them, that's part of the experience.
Let's not forget that for many people, planning and budgeting their army is necessary. I can imagine there are plenty of people that are like "Well, if I had known this was coming, I wouldn't have bought this other model".
So many answers to GWs mishaps are always "Yeah but COVID / Brexit / Boat stuck in canal", like these issue completely tie GW's hands and there is literally no other alternative. At the end of the day, despite what happened with Brexit and Covid, GW still CHOSE to split their Lumineth release. They still CHOSE to delete all mentions of Cursed City being permanent, then go MIA on the topic. Sure, I get it. Plans change, but when the choice of plan B is "what's best for the customer and slightly less better for GW" and "what's best for GW but definitely not cool for at least some customers", they've chosen themselves every. single. time. And I know what you are gonna say: "Yeah, but they are a company! They need to make money!". Yeah, you're right, but a) they're a multi-milllion pound company and had their best year ever last year, so i'm sure they will survive making a little bit less than expected for once. Let's be honest, would GW REALLY have made any less money if they had moved the HoS battletome back a few months to coincide with this model release? Again, delaying would have been fine, but GW CHOSE not to, to the detriment of some people I imagine b) despite the fact that people admit that GW is a company, there's always a very vocal group that really go out of their way to try and humanise them and give them a pass as if they are some poor helpless indie that just has to do these sort of things to get by.
Things like this new model are less outright damaging, but I just can't help but sigh and think "But why???". Why do you keep doing this? Lumineth, Cursed City, this (admittedly less damaging, but still in the same spirit). It really boggles my mind that such simple, honest and human communication is completely beyond them, but would go SUCH a long way to helping us empathise with them.
Oh and lastly, are we expected to believe that it will only be this model? What about a new batallion? or a new sub-faction / spell lore etc? It is coming a long with BR: Kragnos afterall and HoS haven't been touched yet.-
4
-
2
-
1
-
-
Hey Everyone,
Sorry if this has been asked before, but can I use multiple destiny dice for multiple rolls?
I ask because in 40k, Sisters of Battle have a similar dice changing mechanic. As rolls are "supposed" to be done 1 by one according to the rules, and there is a restriction of only one "act of faith" (dice change) allowed per phase, I can only change one hit / wound or save roll, despite having loads of dice to use.
Is this the same in AoS? Say I have 3 4s, can I change 3 hit wound or save rolls to those 4s?
Sorry if that doesn't make sense. All of this Tzeentchian trickery makes my simple Death non existent brain hurt. -
35 minutes ago, Tiranoc said:
Ello guys and gals,
I was confronted with a weird situation the other day during a battle that has not come up before. I was playing Lumineth vs Ossiarchs. Sevireth was in combat with 9 remaining mortek guards and reduced them down to 2 models. My opponent removed all the models closest to sevireth effectively placing them 4 inches apart. In his next turn he moved them away. The question is, surely they are still engaged in combat? Just because casualties have been removed closest to the enemy doesn't mean the fight is over. Especially based on the new rules with Huraken being able to pile in 6 inches in some situations.
I do apolagize if this has come up before but I was unable to find anything about this specific case.
Many thanks in advance.
That is a perfectly legal move.
The 6" pile in is for YOU to do but does not change the fact that a unit outside of 3" of another is not "in combat" and can move & shoot & charge as normal. It's actually a common tactic to do if you want to ensure that you can move and charge something else.
Check the core rules page 4, specifically the "ENEMY UNITS AND RETREATS" section.-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, PraetorDragoon said:
You can.
Music. To. My. Ears.
-
Guys and gals, can you take the"Ruler of the Spirit hosts" Command trait in Reikenor's Condemned, As technically the subfaction does not have an associated command trait you are forced to take?
-
3 hours ago, Scurvydog said:
I still cant get over that the battalion in broken realms is made of the exact same models as a Kavalos lance battalion.
The Liege must have both the terrible stalliarch lords artifact (worst artifact in the entire game possibly) and trait. He is named but gains nothing else, so unique rules despite all these limitations.
The only effect is to regain 1 RDP on a 4+ when doing the stalliarch command...
Why ever take that, the Kavalos lance is more flexible, has the same units and it gives 1 free use of the deathrider wedge once per turn and also gives retreat and charge for free within 12" of the Liege. For any subfaction too. Even without the last part, I think I'd rather just have 1 free wedge ability for sure, than the 50/50 chance when doing a retreat move.
The FeC battalion is also equally terrible. I guess the write really likes their aelves and hates death...
Right with you mate. It's such a disappointing batallion that its not even worth the paper its printed on.
Let's do some math:
-
Regular Deathrider lance in Stalliarch Lords
- Liege probably the general to make use of the trait (as it doesnt really fit anyone else)
- The ****** artefact doesnt have to be used at all (per the wording)
- Gives 1RPD per the batallion
- 1 free use of the wedge ability (So 1 RDP free basically)
- Don't need to spend RDP to retreat and charge
- "slight" restriction because you need to be near the liege. No biggie though
- All in all +1 / 2 RDP per round depending on if you are going to be using the free death rider wedge each turn.
-
New Lance battallion:
- Still gets the command trait if the general
- Has to be the first liege to get an artefact (seems you can still not give him any artefact - which defeats the purpose of him being named then.....)
- 1 RDP per round per the batallion
- No free use of the wedge ability
-
Need to spend 3 RDP for all three to retreat and charge
-
Let's be generous and say you get 2 RDP back from the 4+
- So -1 RDP in total so far
-
Let's be generous and say you get 2 RDP back from the 4+
- No restriction on the use of the ability: All three units can use it anywhere
- all in you are at -2 - +1 RDP per round, if all three units use the rally back ability and depending on how well you roll those 4s
They could have at least added some unique ability or artefact for this guy. Even having 2D3 for the Artefact ability or something. Just something else.
-
1
-
Regular Deathrider lance in Stalliarch Lords
New Games Workshop NDA for influencers UPDATE 2: The document appears to be real.
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by Heijoshin
Just to add: It is purposefully made to be interpreted as ridiculously as possible, so GW are the ones to decide what is in violation and what is not. Cast the net as wide as possible, you you can decide what you want to enforce and what not.