Jump to content

NinthMusketeer

Members
  • Posts

    1,181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by NinthMusketeer

  1. Daughters of Khaine (just replace every instance of the word "pain" with "Khaine" XD);
  2. Even the metal weapon teams aren't the worst; they at least cost less than $1 per point -.-
  3. While the recent campaign book shows off updated Triumph & Treachery rules the core setup of that system has been around for years, unfortunately one me and my friends found to be not all that much fun. This prompted a rewrite that doesn't orbit around the 'choose a single enemy' concept. That, in turn, prompted alternate-by-phase rules as a response to individual players spending long segments waiting during larger FFA matches. We've used these for several years now in my local community, benefiting from refinements along the way including most recently rules for integrating the Ploys from Dawnbringers IV. They are not a perfect replication of normal AoS dynamics, but we definitely have enjoyed them! Worth noting that while associated with Road to Renown the FFA and Alternate by Phase rules are written to be system-neutral (as is the scenario generator, for the most part); FFA and AbP rules: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6m25vzk4ylhjlwtjt55w5/FFA-and-Alternate-by-Phase-Rules-v3.1.0-print-friendly.docx?rlkey=gw2qqhnvey1976z7qyh5fn0qw&dl=0 Scenario Generator (Matched is relatively restrained, Narrative gets into more eccentric stuff): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g0b9sgtm920st0fm5uai6/7-Scenarios-v3.0.2-print-friendly.docx?dl=0&web_open_id=web_open_id-f1bbbcdbe7179d95
  4. Agreed, though I would caveat that (IMO) Josh Reynolds' version of Nagash is a far superior character to what we have gotten since he left GW. Reynolds' Nagash has a great deal of nuance whereas GWs Nagash seems to be not a whole lot more than 'competent Skeletor'.
  5. To add a couple critical points to the Ghyran-side spoilers from page 1; -Some of the Crusaders do survive to leave Summercourt, after Gormayne calls a truce and says that for their aid in purging the Nulahmian agents legal precedent gives them leniency (albeit limited). Additionally only a small portion of the overall Crusade went in originally, and some of those who didn't also survive. -While certainly not sane Ushoran is far more self-aware than other characters realized; in addition to intentionally playing the fool to Sekhar's manipulations he *allows* himself to be shot and acts as if the wound is more significant than it really is for the purpose of his followers. This is elaborated on with the recent short story on WarCom, heavily implying that he is also aware Gormayne was a conspirator. -As a sidenote to the above, at least one of his personalities seems to believe he is in control of the delusion ("I control this" the only line where he refers to himself as "I" instead of "we") though how much control remains to be seen. Speaking on the Aqshy side; -Zenestra was sketchy from the start, but that is pushed to a new order of magnitude in this book. It is all but explicitly stated that she has power outside of Sigmar ("Eyes aglow with amethyst flame, Zenestra rumbled intonations that had never darkened an Azyrheim cathedral; they were akin to a funeral chant, symbolically reversed as if to reverse the aqualith's macabre polarity in turn.") Personal theory atm is that she is a former death god that escaped absolute destruction by Nagash, though that's speculation on my part. On epilogue notes; -Khul is called out as a threat but not much detail is given other than wanting a showdown with Vandus. -In attempting to loot knowledge from Arkhan's holdings while the liche is gone, Mannfred encounters signs of Skaven though like the above it doesn't get into details. -Katakros has "sensed something and chose not to share" and issued an empire-wide commandment that the Ossiarchs are to halt all advance and shore up defenses.
  6. The FFA and Alternate-By-Phase document has now been updated to add Triumph & Treachery integration (essentially rules for adding ploys, since most of the base T&T is already superseded). Direct link to that document: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6m25vzk4ylhjlwtjt55w5/FFA-and-Alternate-by-Phase-Rules-v3.1.0-print-friendly.docx?rlkey=gw2qqhnvey1976z7qyh5fn0qw&dl=0
  7. I'm sure the handful of people who actually use this outside my local community will be excited to hear the latest update is now up on the Dropbox! Changelog: -Added a rule for selecting quest terrain when no pieces meet the criteria (opponent selects a piece anywhere on the battlefield instead) -Rewards; clarified wording for Stalking units (Kruleboyz and Eshin rewards) -Quests; added Galletian Veterans and Wizard-Finders of Andtor to the available battalions -Updated for the new Flesh Eater Courts battletome -Some changes to Cities of Sigmar warband tables based on feedback; ‘trap’ options removed from retinue, irondrakes moved to elite, basic hurricanum & luminark moved to exalted, 1-per-army restriction removed from Warforgers, expanded selection for gyrocopter & bomber -Small adjustments to the Soulblight retinue table for balance and to enable the Scions of Nulahmia army of renown; Zombies reduced to 10 and swapped rows with Skeletons, Black Knights reduced to 3 and swapped rows with Fell Bats. -All terrorgheist entries have been removed; The Gaping Maw ability is too prone to cause negative play experiences. -Scenarios; for tiebreaking results with even VP models are now counted as if contesting an objective, the Blood Fields objective had the rule regarding battleshock removed -Scenarios and FFA/AbP; General cleanup of typos and wording to increase clarity. -Still being worked on: The FFA/AbP document has not yet been updated, as I am still finishing the integration of the new Triumph and Treachery rules.
  8. All I want to toss out there is a hope the clanrats kit stays the same. I feel of GWs whole line it is one of the only kits I would say is perfect; if it had more detail, options, or multi-pose that would add to both the price and the effort needed to assemble them; for a unit that lives and dies in such great numbers that would be a big downside.
  9. Its always fun to take those paragraph-long lore snippets and build the army from them, excited to see what you come up with!
  10. A good question. Several reasons I would say. One is consistency; the max sizes before seemed very arbitrary with little to no correlation to the mechanics of the unit in question, which both caused problems when layered with other factors and made that part of the game *look* arbitrary and chaotic to newcomers. This may seem superficial but first impressions matter and we wargamers absolutely love to get hung up on details! Another reason is listbuilding, or rather, newcomers planning out armies. I would see people looking at their tome and asking if they should be planning to field things like 20-man blightking units or 30-man tree revenants (in an era where these were a terrible idea). There were a lot of sizes that amounted to completely non-viable choices that simply should not be in the game without some purpose to serve. Finally, there is an element of narrative and overall look & feel of armies on the tabletop. Being able to bulk put battleline units more than specialists makes I intuitive sense and has done wonders for AoS armies looking like an army from a fantasy setting more than an army from a board game, if that makes sense.
  11. TBF it got several excellent expansions in White Dwarf. Then the Thonida supplement happened. The Anvil of Apotheosis contained within was, in my eyes, a betrayal of what it was. Not only did it not contain (good) updates to its core mechanics from the WD articles but the changes it made were actually regressive and made the whole thing worse than the original. IMO that book has value, but all the rules pages could be torn out without reducing said value (the lore is fantastic, though!).
  12. Let's be honest the biggest obstacle to new players building effective lists has, for *decades*, been the truly awful balance that Warhammer has. It says so much that AoS' current balance is regarded as good/improved, when some half the options in the game are solidly in always or never take status, for example. EDIT: To add important context; the balance HAS improved, tremendously so, and I laud the past & continued efforts of the dev team to do better on this front. It is simply a very large pit to fill, so to speak!
  13. I like almost all of the concepts introduced with 3rd, like many most of my issues are with specific instances where they were executed poorly. Amulet of Destiny, Unleash Hell, and Heroic Recovery were all causing issues at launch and have been modified since, I'm pretty happy with where they've ended up. Unleash Hell may be a bit strong but I am OK with that since the utility of shooting was nerfed with the change to Look Put Sir (and I really like that change). Arcane Tome and Rally became burdens to gameplay but have also been moved to a pretty good place IMO. The initial year of GHB content was a bit of a crapshow in my eyes, especially the era when Bounty Hunters made the units that were supposed to be the focus of the season a liability (that most had to take anyways). 6 month seasons were a bad idea and fortunately GW picked up on that pretty quickly. I feel the general idea of making a subset of the game a focus via thematic bonuses while also providing extra counter-play is a great concept when executed competantly, with the experience of the team increasingly showing over time. I enjoy battle tactics, but I can also see why others don't. Personally I feel there is a bit of an over-focus on the part of players (the scenario itself pretty much always provides greater VP sums after all) but that may just be my local community. The biggest place where I see battle tactics falling apart is when an army gets to essentially skip that part of the game via extremely easy ones from allegiance (LOOKING AT YOU TZEENTCH). Grand Strategies I don't see as having been realized to their full potential, I'd like to see more weight towards them over BTs with an incremental element added. Core Battalions I liked better at launch, before the FAQ that the free command ones didn't allow one to double-up. I've barely seen those used at all since then, with the entire Core Battalion system mostly reduced to a measure of how much a player favors extra enhancements over low deployment drops. Enhancements though, fantastic development there. Going from the freeform style of 2nd to having a defined structure was a big improvement to me and has remained such through the edition. A concept I have not liked at all is the reinforcement limits. The standardized unit sizes are great and were absolutely needed in my eyes, but the reinforcement limits I see as being there to counteract the max unit discount which 3rd (wisely) got rid of. It leaves certain armies out to dry while barely affecting others and I think the game would be better for dropping them entirely. But the biggest disappointment for me was the revamped Path to Glory. I've gone into detail elsewhere but suffice it to say I find it incredibly unfun and uninteresting compared to 40k's Crusade. The more recent narrative-but-matched-compatible content from Regiments & Armies of Renown is a vastly superior way to execute that idea IMO. I could go on and on, so to keep this concise I'll cut myself off here XD. Final verdict from me is that I was among those rolling their eyes when 3rd launched to claims of 'best edition ever!' And dev claims of 'we are going to do better' but looking back now? It is, and they did.
  14. Just finished with a broad but relatively minor update (Aelf, Chaos, Death, and Destruction warband docs were only changed with an updated core quest, the tables remain the same). Changelog: -Glory renamed to Campaign Victory Points, both to reduce the number of terms and for being more intuitive -Armies of Renown from the Dawnbringers III campaign book added -Castellant and Veritant added to Stormcast hero followers, Imperitant added to exalted followers along with some small adjustments -The Defined Enhancement quest has seen a small rework, focusing more on the questing unit -Tiebreaker rules expanded to better cover possible game results -Updates to several scenario generator options; Edge Points minimum distance between deployment points reduced to 24”, Artillery Drop simplified by removing the second move of deployment points, Consolidation had its placement & removal timing of objectives altered slightly, Destructive Fonts units no longer need to remain on objectives to keep control, Scatter adjusted objective movement -Alternate by Phase rules; changed how the designation is done for combat & battleshock phases as friendly or enemy
  15. Meeting engagements flopped hard, so could be a useful resource for what NOT to do.
  16. Small update to Order, Death, & Destruction wb tables! Changelog: -Stormstrike chariot availability adjusted slightly -Lumineth given some options for larger starting units -Royal Beastflayers somehow slipped through the cracks previously and have now been added, apologies! -Various new units from Warcry/Campaign Book releases have been added -Aside from new units the content from Dawnbringers 3 has not yet been added (delayed shipment at my local store)
  17. In regards to clawlord, I feel his basic stats only need rend -2 then he's fine. Still -1 to hit him from allegiance, which combined with a 'bodyguard' rule (I agree it should be on his warscroll, and allow him to pass wounds off to clanrats or stormvermin on a 3+*) gives him appropriately Skaven-ey durability whereas a 3+ armor feels inappropriate and does nothing against all the MWs bouncing around these days anyways. Though speaking of allegiance, I think the Mighty Warlords rule should be buffed. It was hardly game breaking in the last battletome when Clawlords simply got free command traits and it wouldn't be now either--they shouldn't have to use a heroic action to get the benefit. Just give one clawlord a free command trait, or all of them if there are 3 or more in the army. *2+ just becomes a 'this hero can't die until this unit is killed first' situation which isn't fun gameplay IMO I do not feel that Gnash-Gnaw should become a non-command ability buff; command abilities were changed to to be 1-per-phase-per-unit specifically to prevent the kind of buff stacking that would create. Considering the numbers (average against a 4+ save); 10 Stormvermin unbuffed: 6.22 with Gnash-Gnaw Their Bones: 9.19 (~48% increase) with Tyrant of Battle: 9.72 (~56% increase) with Gnash AND Tyrant: 14.35 (~131% increase) The compounding effect is tremendous, before even considering they have a good chance of being stacked with Death Frenzy (plus potentially Hoarfrost, for that matter). While it is definitely fun to have a mob of rats put out insane damage numbers I feel it is the same type of fun that comes using cheat codes in a video game; there is an initial thrill of getting to 'break the rules' that quickly burns out and loses its luster when done repeatedly. That brings me to the Cornered Fury ability. It's nice, but I'm not a fan of it because it's so... boring. A simple attack buff for being wounded? That would be great in plenty of armies but this is SKAVEN! The army that is a haven for rules seen nowhere else! And I think GW had it right way back at the launch of AoS with the Chieftain warscroll, who had a rule called Treacherous Progression... "If your general is a Skaven and has only 1 wound remaining, a Skaven Chieftain can stab-stab him in the back if he is within 1" of [your general] at the start of your hero phase. If he does so, your general is slain; this model then becomes your general and gains any command abilities known by his former master." I think that rule could be adapted to the modern Clawlord quite easily. Would it be extremely niche? You bet. But it would also be one of the Skaveniest rules in the game and could add a surprising degree of tactical depth, something to the effect of... If a friendly Clawlord has 3 or more wounds allocated and is within 3" of any other friendly Clawlords at the start of your hero phase, you may have one of them stab him in the back and claim leadership. The Clawlord claiming leadership gains any command traits and/or artifacts possessed by the stabbed model, which is immediately slain. If the slain model was your general, the Clawlord claiming leadership becomes your general.
  18. As promised, the 3.2 update is here! As always all the documents can be found at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kx6abv0am12rx9k/AADIA301VDdAigp7AkvNbTN6a?dl=0 Changelog: -Ironjawz updated with the content from their supplement -Cities of Sigmar updated with the new battletome -The Destruction armies of Renown from Harbingers II have been added in, the Kharadron one was not -Neutral Endless Spells table updated (adding some previously unavailable options) -Slight change to the Defined Enhancement quest, expanding the movement restrictions from Searching to last the whole turn (instead of just the phase). -One of the Cities rewards was swapped out for a new one to take advantage of their new allegiance -Stormcast Spell table reduced to three cells (down from 6) to help their wizards in face of power creep
  19. Hello, RtR fans!* Just wanted to touch on the developments lately with the sort-of release of new Cities and the supplement for Ironjawz. Those are being worked on/completed in good time, I am holding off until the release of the next Harbingers book to see if I will need to do anything to account for the Armies of Renown and then will put up all of those updates together. If you have any feedback, now is the time! *All three of you!
  20. I made a scenario generator as part of Road to Renown that serves perfectly well outside of it, maybe something to draw inspiration from? Link below--scenario generator is in document 7. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kx6abv0am12rx9k/AADIA301VDdAigp7AkvNbTN6a?dl=0
  21. I gave up on 3rd PtG but have maintained my continuation of a 'fixed' 1st/2nd edition PtG. Link below, maybe it can provide what you're looking for?
  22. Hm, I'm still not sure I understand but at this point pretty sure it's on me for that XD I wish you luck, hopefully others will get it where I did not!
  23. So the question is 'which unit would win each fight speaking only in terms of lore'?
  24. I feel as though a slightly larger context of taking into account warscroll & allegiance abilities would be more true-to-tabletop. For example, if the vulkites are charged they will likely pop their 1/game fight-on-death ability that turn. Whereas unless the grots get a good round in to nail em with battleshock, clanrats will win that fight every time by virtue of getting d3 models back per turn. Annihilators should always be considered as the more likely chargers because they are only ever used to charge out of deep strike (with a reroll no less). Mortek guard are almost certainly going to win by attrition thanks to the OBR command to heal themselves.
×
×
  • Create New...