NinthMusketeer

But you didn't respond to what I wrote--you took a specific piece out of context in order to respond to a sentiment I wasn't making. And you are still doing so here, even after I said that was what's happening. The entire argument you are opposing is one I never made.

Fair point.

I think it is OK to have unique abilities tied to named characters, if anything I think that is much of what they are for; showcasing eccentric abilities that shouldn't be generic for mechanical and/or narrative reasons. Skumdrekk is a great example. Yndrasta's bracket-based monster debuff is another decent one. Abilities that enhance the effect of a certain sub-faction are also something I'd like to see. What I don't like is powerful generic abilities on named characters that aren't appropriately tailored. Yndrasta's model revival is a great example of this; it is an extremely potent evolution of Rally, so much so that it eclipses the character's identity and turns her into more of a support piece than monster hunter. Gardus' 5+ ward is a massive defensive buff that isn't specialized enough to reflect the specific character. Gardus didn't hide in the back while 5+ ward dragons ate his enemies. And something I outright abhor is GW's rabid insistence on making named characters always come from the poster boy faction. Stormcast have it the worst, every stormhost-tied character is Hammers of Sigmar save Gardus. This is doubled down on by a good chunk of them being pointless and having no more fluff or relevance than a generic unit entry. Solbright should just be a generic Lord-Arcanum on Dracoline for people who want one individually/a different sculpt than the kit. Gavriel would have sold/be selling far better as an alternate equipment option for the Lord-Celestant. Bastian should have been a generic Lord-Commander. (With a head option to run Lord-Commander Vandus featuring a new promotion.)

I would like them to move that information over to the Citadel Colour app, as in my eyes it was what rendered those back-of-the-box guides obsolete. Fortunately I can confirm that the most recent battletomes, Idoneth & Fyreslayers, still have the full painting guides in them for each subfaction plus a good number of extra tips & bits.

Well you looked at my post, distilled it down to a basic 'GW white knight' concept, and made a generic response without consideration for nuance. GW looked at the tourney statistics, distilled it down to the top warscrolls, and made a generic balance update without consideration for nuance. Karma's a ******.

Both of you have me quoted, but I can't really defend the points you are criticizing since they are not my own and I don't agree with them. Perhaps these is a different post in this thread you could quote, that expresses the views you are responding to? There are a lot of valid points, they just aren't addressing what I said.

I encountered a number of people lamenting how their recently purchased books were having pieces invalidated by that update, that's what I was referring to. This one doesn't actually change anything in the GHB, it simply adds extra. It is a subtle but important difference in that all of the text on the page remains valid. Personally I would rather only see point updates twice a year anyways, quarterly is just more paperwork than I want to deal with. Let alone people who only play a game or two a month. Do a GHB a year, a 6-month point update, and two quarterly 'band-aid' updates between those. Band-aid updates being used to address items that are heavily disruptive and need something done immediately. This I see as an attempt to do that--I won't claim as to the quality of the attempt but I am glad it is being made. The issue is if GW moves in the right direction and the only response is complaining about it, that sends a message that the customer base would have preferred nothing. When the community reduces communication to hyperbolic exclamations, it should really be no surprise we so often get pendulum-esque fixes back. I suppose at the end of the day I just can't get mad at this update no matter how flawed it may be, because I don't really feel like the community overall deserves better.

That's how we know they aren't doing the bare minimum; we can all agree that while faulty at least AoS isn't on the same track as 40k!

Some people's perspectives rely on a degree of assumed malice I don't think is very rational, or helpful for anyone. The rules designers aren't evil; they aren't part of corporate leadership. Instead they are a classic human mix of very smart and very dumb; obviously they are savvy to designing rules on paper and possess a great deal of creativity in doing so. But equally obviously they miss what should be obvious levels of tabletop potency/impotency those mechanics create. This is not some sinister manipulation of community attitudes--this is the devs seeing that people don't like it when the printed material they paid money for is invalidated within 3 months. They have reached the conclusion that not every balance update should change rules, and maybe they can find a way to work around that. It may not work. They may realize this approach isn't a good idea. But they are trying to do better and a failure to recognize that is actively working against improving AoS. By all means criticize the mechanic for not doing enough, or for failing to properly address issues, but focus those points on the rules themselves. Neil Arthur above does a great job of that. The people writing the rules have no control over how those rules are distributed, and may even hate the pay-only model as much as we do. Ideally, we will get to a point where point updates are released for free online. This is a hell of a lot closer to that than we got this time last year; nothing.

So the suggestion is... GW knows these units are going to go up in points in three months hence, decides to nerf them in the meantime but without invalidating existing printed material... and that is bad?

I strongly suspect feedback from that is what motivated this. At any rate, they could have just not created so many issues in the first place. It's more about what they would have done, and we didn't get this in the first quarter of 2021.

I think people are seeing this as a replacement for point adjustments or warscroll updates--it isn't. Those are still coming. This is in addition to those; it is a band-aid to tie us over until then without acrewing with any printed material. This isn't an alternative to previous measures, it is an alternative to nothing, which is what we would normally have been getting. Again: so long as this doesn't make the game worse, it is an improvement over what we had before. Because it is them being willing to try something new and even if it doesn't help as much as it should they'll learn from it. Now there is still plenty of room for criticism and I think the OP does have some good points (I wish there was a 'mixed opinion' response option). But faulting this update for not being something it was never intended to be just muddies the water and makes it harder to see what faults lie in the design. I do agree with the sentiment that labeling underdog armies as 'Prime Hunters' is a bit backhanded. We all know what they are, call them underdogs (or something to that effect) instead of trying to sugar-coat it.

So the other day I was thinking, while GW still makes the normal share of mind-bogglingly 'interesting' design choices with every release, they have really been making a good faith effort to do better in AoS. And it's paid off; the amount of mechanics in AoS that just work well is way higher than it used to be, while the intensity of outright broken ones has reduced. Almost all of the problems I have had with 3rd edition rules have been with specific options, X unit or Y artifact, etc. Those are much easier to fix and GW has been more responsive about doing so. Obviously GW still has a long way to go but it has been really encouraging to see the increase of rules quality for AoS over time. Also makes me really glad my main game isn't 40k.

Ok seriously dude, cherry picking kits that are decades old to criticize is just the sort of pointless negativity we have the entire rest of the internet for. Take it to another thread.

Yup. You also roll when enemy models are slain in that range as well. (Just remember that it only harvests Goths, no Vandals, Huns, or emos.)

Version 2.4 is up! This time I have a proper changelog: -Fyreslayers and Idoneth Deepkin updated with their new battletomes! -Inverted the availability for battletome endless spells, invocations, and battalions; all battletome-specific options in these categories are now available by default unless the warband table says otherwise. -Moved the exception for terrain features to the core rules on summoning rather than listing them individually on warband tables. -Expand and Contract scenario objective renamed to Consolidation, secondary objective removal moved to round 5 (from round 4) -Improved the Savage Warmasters reward, added an allegiance reward for Idoneth Deepkin (it had previously been lost to the tides) Warband Table Changes -A large number of Cities of Sigmar warlords received additional starting followers, Freeguild General was removed from the Hero retinue chart to balance against his command ability. -Added Grundstock Thunderers to the last cell on the Kharadron Overlords retinue table -In light of their improved allegiance, Beasts of Chaos warlords have had their starting followers reduced back to normal -Bloodthirster of Insensate Rage reduced to 2 starting followers (down from 3) -Slaughterpriest added to the last cell of Khorne Bloodbound Hero Follower chart -Lord of Blights & Harbinger of Decay returned to normal warlord status (from grand warlord) -Unmounted Terrorgheists & Zombie Dragons brought down in cost -FEC retinues adjusted to boost Crypt Ghouls and Horrors -Tweaked the structure of the SGL tables to hopefully be more user friendly

Stormdrake guard will make almost anything look bad by comparison.

TBF I would say the AoS range is newer on average, with many old kits cut from the range during the transition from WHFB. Though in the big picture, while there is ample room to criticize price and certain design elements at the end of the day GW makes really nice miniatures. As for negativity, it is human nature to focus on the problems. This has been a great strength, as it directs attention towards things that need fixing. But particularly in the context of modern society and the internet that trait can become maladaptive. So it is important to keep things in context 🙂

It is so strange to me to see NH being labelled as bad when they did so well in my local community.

Anyways, not debating the effectiveness of Fyreslayers overall (I don't have an opinion yet) but I do want to put out some hopefully helpful bits. By my measure, Vulkites have three main uses: -10 man double axe squads for offensive chaff, Vostarg could use them for dedicated offense and in larger squads -10 man shield squads for screening & objective camping -30 man shield squads + battlesmith for an anvil. This is also where the battlesmith shines, giving such a massive blob of wounds a 6+ or situational 5+ ward. The rally is useful, because you can retreat on your turn then rally in their subsequent hero phase. They weren't there to do damage anyways, so the loss of a combat phase is no big deal. Also, as a totem that is an 18" range on the rally; excellent for hiding him in a forest against shooting armies. A 4+ ward is statistically equivalent to double the wounds count. The buffs offered by the new hero do require models to die... but they are really powerful buffs. +1 damage straight doubles the output of vulkites, or a 50% increase to HGB with axes. That is a lot more potent than a measly 6s hit twice buff! For people who want to make vulkites shine, this guy is a big asset. Also, unless GW errata's it, they stack. Two guys behind the same unit can charge up off the same 5 casualties, then give out +2 damage. IMO the movement debuff on AHG is a big deal. As a random example, imagine a 10 man unit 15" away from a mega, they give it -3 movement and now what would have been a 4" essentially guaranteed charge becomes 7" that is still likely but can fail. Failing a charge like that can easily swing games. Lofnir 'droth spam is real, yo. Idoneth are a hard counter to Fyreslayers, that matchup will always make them look good and fiery beardy bois look bad.

If he's useless why is the enemy shooting him first? Though ironically that is itself a use. In fact, I would go so far as to say all of these statements are untrue. Maybe dial back the hyperbole? @Ser_namron tbf I am seeing a number of errors in that game; -Can't burn objectives on your side of the board -King's +1 hit aura is 9" and doesn't affect namarti -He triggers the king's fight first ability at the end of the charge phase, BEFORE you decide to use the strike first fyreslayers ability -The king only gets the bonus attacks from that trait while he is under the affect of high tide, so he would not have had the +6 attacks -Statistically it would take 43 thrall attacks to kill 8 hearthguard, assuming they have +1 to hit and are hitting twice on 6s. A 10-man unit puts out 21 attacks, so I am pretty sure something went wrong there. Were the hearthguard not getting their 4+ ward?

In an effort to drum up some activity in this section of the forum, the Warcry miscellaneous discussion thread! Talk about what models you're working on, how your last game went, share pictures of a cool board you played on, or ask for advice on making custom terrain, or anything else really 🙂

I get it! A -blast- 😆

Thats fantastic XD winning as a result of blowing yourself up is the second most Skryre way to win a battle!

They are on point with that; fulminators are a problem while the others are not.