Jump to content

NinthMusketeer

Members
  • Posts

    823
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by NinthMusketeer

  1. Hm, the warscrolls you have produce tanky support heroes who don't deal much damage. So as a concept I'm not sure it works, but I'm also not sure what you are aiming for.
  2. Well finally was able to go through the whole book in-detail. Others have covered the a lot same criticisms I have of the mechanical design, though I want to particularly call out a couple things; -The chart of once-per-game command abilities taken as enhancements is a poor replacement for losing warscroll command abilities entirely. -While bloat has been addressed quite well in some places (see below), that was not extended to warscrolls. The three basic paladin units (retributors, protectors, devestators), the dracothian guard, and the annihilators just need to be one warscroll each with different weapon options. The options are well balanced with one another (credit to GW for this) and it would simply streamline things. Once a tome gets above 50 warscrolls or so having more is a BAD thing, not something to be proud of. And for that matter Neave, Astria, and Gavriel don't need their own warscrolls. Gavriel specifically would be fantastic as another weapon option for the Lord-Celestant on foot and GW would sell more that way. -The Path to Glory content is a straight power upgrade where SCE get to be better because they got a battletome update. That isn't fun. It is hampering Crusade in 40k, it will be a drag on PtG. It also just dumps on the named stormhosts, with the build-your-own option being far superior unless one wants named characters. That out of the way, on to things I like! -While I miss the extra details for units covered in previous tomes, I understand the nature of needing to fit fluff for more units into a similar amount of space. And what has been included is good; it's well written and the traditional style of making an army seem super-potent shines because SCE actually are embodiments of that. I feel like all the major stormhosts were covered well and every unit got a brief on what it is and what it does. The extra emphasis on force organization with how different chambers and conclaves work is excellent, and the implementation of fluff for the new armour is just perfect. Great work and I loved it. -There has been a lot of consolidation and bloat-cutting that I see as a good thing. Instead of wading through a half dozen inferior artifacts/traits for every one worth taking I can tell effort was made to just have a handful of options but make them all viable. Not always successful, but it is what it is. I would say this element was actually taken too far and inclusion of some more quirky, flavorful options would have been nice. In regards to warscrolls, I love the consolidation & standardization of weapon profiles; it just makes the game easier to play on a practical level. -I initially recoiled at the slimmed-down subfactions, but having thought through I like it. Sub-factions were becoming too much where they were like entirely different armies within the army, where specific unit choices could be overpowered within one faction while being inferior everywhere else. It was a situation impossible to balance properly and we see that with only 1-3 subfactions per 2nd edition battletome being seen as viable on the tabletop. It would be nice to see each stormhost get it's own enhancement option, be it a command trait, artifact, etc. But overall I like the new implementation and I like the level of power the bonuses provide. -The new version of stormkeeps is great in both theme and design. I feel it is well-balanced with its counterpart so that players can go either route without concern of handicapping themselves. It is an extra layer of customization that I will certainly enjoy.
  3. Well before the community had free warscrolls, and GW was providing free warscrolls on their site. Now the community has free warscrolls, and GW is not providing free warscrolls on their site. Those financial gains are so intense they make it look like bloodthirsters skip upper body day.
  4. Lumineth have a TON of intricate rules that really showcase the 'skillful' aspect the army has in fluff and theme. There is a learning curve to these abilities (both playing with and against) but in the end it does a great job creating an army about finesse and tacti- What's that? Just spam the battleline that does brainless MWs? Oh nevermind then.
  5. A big part is that so much of what is being introduced to new PtG is stuff RtR already has. Both hero and unit progression are already covered by rewards, though I will definitely be looking to adapt selections from battletomes into RtR where appropriate. What will probably happen is that the 'reward based on allegiance' result will be rolled into 'reward based on keyword' then as new battletomes come out they will each get their own customized reward table. In RtR the have/have-not effect will be largely mitigated since everyone's units and heroes already have access to the five generic reward tables (rather than PtG3rd's single table for units and nothing for heroes). Quests, like battalions, will be considered on an individual basis. Some are non-applicable to the context of RtR or would be too imbalanced to include. Each warband table will have a list of which quests from it's battletome are available in RtR. Territories... I'm not sure yet. The generic territories are all about increasing the limits on types of units that can be taken, non-applicable to RtR which does not use that mechanic. The main question I will need to evaluate is if the territories are interesting; will adding a territory mechanism make the system more fun, and will that fun be enough to justify the increase in content? Dealing with GW I'm sure we all know that options can be pushed to the point of being too much of a good thing, turning into bloat where the total is less than the sum of its parts.
  6. I am now working on an overall update coming alongside the SCE and Orruk battletomes. I will be going through the warband tables again now that I have a solid base of play experience to draw from. If you have any feedback please let me know! In particular thoughts on units that are too strong or too weak would be greatly appreciated, as well as if any rules are confusing to read/understand.
  7. I would personally prefer GW, or anyone, run a free open beta, as that will help them fix problems for the full launch. Having a real hard time seeing how one would logically conclude it is a bad thing. Like, even if the app was going to be free this open beta would be the same.
  8. No matter the odds, if someone hits the table with a full Bonesplittaz army, a completely reckless strategy, and an unreasonable amount of blind confidence... they just might win.
  9. It is an idea that seems great on paper. Unfortunately, it causes some knock-off issues. Simply put a significant portion of wargamers won't buy them; they aren't invested enough in the lore to buy/keep separate books that are only fluff. BUT if said fluff is already included in the book for rules then they will read it because it's right there and they already paid for it. This creates a positive feedback loop (provided the lore is good) where people who might not normally have looked into the lore at all become interested in it and talk about it, feeding further interest by the community. The reality is that people these days are tired. And with good reason; the 21st century has been a stream of ****** hitting the fan so much that a metaphorical poo-rain is standard living (to say the least). The energy to go out and initiate engagement in a tangential factor is not present in the same manner it was 30 years ago. But if that initiation is bundled in with the rules so people just have just basic lore in front of them without any extra effort? There is a lot more interest.
  10. May have to deploy the Sacrosanct Chamber because that's a bit non-sequitor.
  11. While it remains too early to say for sure, the new battletomes are quite promising in how much bloat they have cut out. Like instead of giving 18 options of which 4 are relevant they just give the 4.
  12. I'm saying the reversal of the community-positive trends is a reversal of what brought them huge success and is a bad business move no one benefits from. Though it isn't all bad. For starters we are still night-and-day better than Kirby era. And at least on the AoS side the prices on new releases are more reasonable than not. A few outliers, but definitely not a trend towards higher prices in general (yet). Though I cannot speak for 40k.
  13. Oh sure there are some niche builds that can squeeze better performance from the other options, I'm certainly not denying that. But if a weapon option is only viable with one unit, in a specific dammed legion, with a specific artifact, with a specific spell, I don't feel that qualifies as that weapon having a purpose. Weapon options having a purpose is like when infantry units have a spear option that is a worse profile but longer range, so better for larger units while the regular hand weapon is better on small units. Or an option that deals less damage against light armor but has better rend to counter heavy armor. And so on.
  14. The first half of the 2010s has two notable factors for GW; the most extreme of Kirby era policies and shrinking sales. 2016 GW changed, putting a ton of effort (and no doubt money) into community outreach, more intensive rules development, the launch of the Start Collecting boxes, and even outright price decreases (significant ones) on a large number of new releases. Games Workshop was the best performing stock on the UK market in 2016.
  15. Right now there isn't one, the daemon weapons are just better.
  16. I don't believe you! This move came out of nowhere, unable to be observed due to the extreme subtlety employed up to the moment of attack. Like a Mega-Gargant.
  17. Oh absolutely. But it's sprinting during an endurance race; the short term gains work out to a net loss in the long term. And there are always people who are blinded by the short term. It goes back to the behavior; if it was a net gain (or even zero loss) to always act this way people would never do anything else.
  18. 2016 definitively showed that yes, community-friendly moves do have a positive impact on the business for GW. Though broadly speaking we already knew that because if fostering communities wasn't good for business companies wouldn't do it. But they do, a lot. They sink untold amounts of money into it. Because it works.
  19. Oh this isn't the end of free warscrolls--the warscrolls are and will remain free online. GW just chose to stop being the source that provides them.
  20. I think StD's in the future will keep their basic 4+ for chaos armor, units with shields will have a 3+ save since that is the direction shields are going in for 3rd edition (about time), and heroes will have their 3+ by default for being heroes. As for offensive stats tbh just increasing the rend of everything by 1 would go the majority of the way to fixing things. TBF to the SCE chariot, it is 3 attacks per gryph-charger, and the stat line is the same they always had on palladors except they lost MWs on 6s to hit (good riddance). But as compared to Varanguard... well the Varanguard weapon options are a mess. Three choices of which one is obviously superior coupled with impotent attacks on mounts that look like they should fight at least as well as a low-grade hero on their own.
  21. Eh, a SCE chariot should be more badass than an StD one. Blessed by the gods they may be (well, one of the riders) but an StD chariot is still something constructed and crewed by mortals. The SCE chariot is not only constructed in divine forges, but the individuals riding it are the elites of an already elite order of warrior-immortals. A thunderstrike SCE is as much to a basic Chaos Warrior as said warrior is to a Marauder. But that leads back to my first sentence. It is OK for the SCE version to be more badass, but the StD version isn't even any amount of badass to start with and that's the problem across the army. Hell without the extra wound warriors would be worth less than marauders, and even that is only because marauders have a ludicrously overpowered charge ability rather than decent stats.
  22. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/09/10/metawatch-which-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-armies-contested-the-top-tables-at-the-warhammer-open/ A quite honest and reasonably useful article from metawatch, specifically going into several top lists and what makes them work.
  23. This demonstrates the lack of comprehension I am speaking of. The idea that customers are buying the product because they see it as having a legitimate value worth the expense does not even occur. Think about that. The above reasoning baseline assumes that no one would actually purchase GW product unless manipulated into doing so. The perception of reality is so distorted that the very idea that people have different subjective values of products isn't even considered.
  24. Not a strong mentality of self-balancing I take it 😥
×
×
  • Create New...