Zappgrot
-
Posts
216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Zappgrot
-
-
On 8/24/2021 at 8:56 AM, AaronWilson said:
They are ruling rally the same as the other "return slain model" mechanics. So you can only Rally once you're below your starting unit size, in the instance if you have 1 brim and you rally, I've not questioned this but I believe you roll 49 dice and any 6s can return pinks.
Well the maximum unit size for that unit is 5, so the same applies.
The warscroll changed completely whit the FAQ. Horror's are no longer wizards, The standard does not bring back models. You can no longer give wounds to brims before blues. You need to replace models intermediately when they are slain (instead afther all the wounds are aplied) This pretty much makes bringing back pink back impossible until the moment your running out of brims. Altough i gues rally is going to be really good for them in that case.
-
58 minutes ago, Overread said:
Thing is you don't have to shout to make your voice heard; you just have to speak clearly.
Remember whilst a company is a faceless entity, its comprised of real people just doing their jobs. If you attack them for things they do, chances are they'll just ignore you. Think about yourself, would you listen too or respect a person shouting, screaming and insulting you for doing your job?
Probably not, even if they have a valid point.
Constructive feedback isn't about shouting, screaming or insulting. It's about saying that you don't like something. Explaining why you don't like it and perhaps offering alternative options. It's perhaps about bringing to light things that the company and individuals within, might have overlooked. Eg some have pointed out that the loss of digital media impacts those who have more limited vision. If you can gather together many people and deliver a clear message in a constructive and polite fashion you've FAR FAR more chance of getting an open reception to your idea. The company still might not agree or make changes, but they have a vastly greater chance of doing so (even if it might take weeks/months to make such changes happen).
I personally don't think the decision making process in big companies is verry much emotion based. I doubt gw's CEO is going to be like. OHYEA these fans where rude to me online. I'll show em. Works the other way around to of course. We will also never see him be like. OMG they are screaming at me online, quick change the strategies. As long as it's doesn't lead to bad optics or impacting sales everything we do or don't do is meaningless.
-
I expect I won't be getting WH + it just does not seem worth it. There are only 4 episodes worth of shows. No AOS app and the archive is issues i already own. Also I don't like subscriptions to "services"to begin whit. If I am spending money on something i expect to get something in return and not just access. Or at least if it is an access service I expect to get overwhelming amount of content. WH+ really doesn't deliver on anything IMHO. The only change it has is for me to get inrested in the Ork models since it is cool and I might just take the subscription to get him and then spend the 10 bucks on something so that is basicly just bought a cool model for 40 pounds but even that seems a bit pricey
-
26 minutes ago, Lucyferiusz said:
Sorry for double post, I have to idea how to edit my previous comment.
One more thing I wanted to say about arrowboyz ability in Bonegrinz (+1A). If we get this instead of additional attack for 15+ models that would allow for some MSU play with Bonesplitterz. Right now I have a big problem with only 4 reinforcement points in 2k game.
Yea bonesplitters seems like an army that was desigened to be played whit big units. So it's a problem that you can't make those anny more.
-
1 hour ago, jeanfluflu said:
Having 2+ on a unit is very good but not game breaking, they only have access to all out defense and any rend 2 or MW will tear throught them.
Characters, and especially high wounds character can have access to easy 5+ ward, healing each hero phase, all out defense AND finest hour the same turn.
I don't think we'll see big monster character getting that much power, in the current state of the game that thing will be near indestructible.That really really depends on what your faceing. Lets say your fighing Lumineth. Then haveing a 2+ save is pretty bad for you. Since most dammage will be MW and will ignore your save but you paid for it. On the other hand when facing like say bonesplitters a 2+ save will keep you alive for ever. GW introducing armies that push mw as on of their biggest sources of dammage really did a number on the game. Cause it leads to a state of play where saves are either to powerfull against most armies if they are cheap. Or to weak against mw armies if they are priced higher. IMHO mw spamm armies should not exist.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, NauticalSoup said:
It's always surreal seeing people attribute human behaviours like 'caring' to a corporation that is by all reports driven completely by profit motive.
I know our collective memories are extremely short, especially here on TGA, but the game Age of Sigmar only exists because GW explicitly doesn't care about the community, and has no qualms about obliterating your hobby if they believe it would serve their interests.
It's just... I don't think that's even harsh, or unfair. That's literally the point. Publicly traded companies report to the shareholders, and only to the shareholders. Customers are just the market from which they extract value.
Word. Companies are about makeing money. That's the beginning and the end of it. Expecting moral behaviour from a company is the height of folly.
-
1
-
-
On 7/19/2021 at 11:10 AM, TenshiHammer said:
I know we have a new book coming and that it could change "everything". But I see myself playing a lot against the LRL, even before the book comes, and I'm a little lost on how to play against them.
Mostly is the big units of Sentinels that can shoot you even without LoS doing Mortals on 6s (or 5+ if they cast the spell).
I wonder about this to. The sense i get form dominion is that stormcast are going more tough more elite higher armour more ways to bring back models. But mortal wound spamm just laughs in the face of that. I think LRL will always be a tough fight since they kind of counter elites pretty hard.
-
14 hours ago, grimgold said:
So I've been watching a lot of bat reps involving LRL and seraphon. It occurred to me that if you don't bring a top level mage like Lord Croak or Teclis, you stand very little chance of getting anything useful from your wizards, because you'll just get countered and be a waste of points. In a competitive scene both of those guys are pretty common, so is the correct answer just to skip wizards? All of the top mages pay alot for the ability to shut down opponents magic, and if you don't have any those points are wasted. They will of course have free reign with their magic, but lets face it, unless you have an S rank caster they were going to have free reign anyway.
Am I off base here or are the top casters so oppressively good at magic that you might as well not bother unless you have one yourself?
Like you said only if you can bring over whelming amounts otherwise it's pointless. Magic is one of the game systems that directly counters it's self.
-
3 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:
I suspected using ghouls as walls and using redeploy to bring Flayers into Unleash Hell range was going to be a decent strategy. *Clarifying using Redeploy on the ghouls*
Do you think the output on unridden Terrorghists is suffecient for the points spend?
To be honest. No. Now that the warscroll battalion that heals them is no longer a thing they feel kind of weaker. Altough beeing a monster is nice. I don't think useing redeploy on the ghouls is worth it btw. I mean the opponent is going to know that the flayers are in range before he charges no matter if you redeploy them or just put them behind the screen in the first place. It can be a decent gotya i gues but ppl get wise to that stuff pretty fast.
-
Lets see. I really don't have manny dragons either. They tent to look down on destruction armies i gues. I did have a few in fanatsy tough but they kind of fell appart by bad storage. ( i was pretty stupid as a teen ager. I do have 2 mawcrushers tough. Sort of dragons if you ask me. For the future i kinda wanna get a stardrake and i am hopeing the kruelboys get soem sort of wyvren whit their range
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
Interesting. What about everything not being a monster though?
Well they just stand around and claim ******. Some of them may die. But that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. A ghoul horde isn't so great atm but that's was already bad in 2.0 since the rise of shooting since ppl just kill the buff characters. Flayers and big monsters is what has been working for me lately.
-
2
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
Well, so the FeC playe wastes all his heroic actions on heals? Good for you I guess he could've received more CP ^^
Apart form that: FeC really aren't that strong on paper in the new edition. What made them strong was feeding frenzy which is now limited to one use per phase.I lover your optimism. But FEC worked great for me in 3 edition. Healing strong monster hero's and having a shooting attack that does not roll to hit whit unleash hell worked great so far.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Well even Icons need some well deserved rest.
-
4 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
It's not really that "things" are too tanky in 3.0, it's that very specific things - monstrous heroes with a 3+ base save and a ward save or other MW protection - are not even too tanky per se, but that they have too much sustain. It'd be ok if they were this tanky but once you wore them down they stayed worn down, but they don't, they just heal right back up using mechanics that the opponent has no real way to stop. And it doesn't feel at the moment like a lot of these models have points costs that reflect how much more sustain they gained in 3.0.
IMO allowing monstrous heroes to use heroic recovery was a mistake, that should have been limited to non-monstrous heroes, to balance out their squishiness by giving them sustain instead. That'd create actual choices and tradeoffs, rather than just sending you to the monstrous version 99 times out of 100 because it's just better.
In every game I've played so far, there's come a point - typically around the breakpoint between T2 and T3 - where my Anointed just had free reign over the table because there wasn't enough of my opponent's army left that he could ever realistically kill it when you factor in its ability to stack saves and then heal itself. And when the opponent had a similar model, a similar thing happened for them. Models that are theoretically killable by the opponent's entire 2000 point army quickly become unkillable once armies are whittled down. You have a very small window in which you might be able to go all in to remove the model - usually T1 to T2 if you can get the double - and then the window closes, and if you didn't take your chance early, you have virtually no chance to kill these models in the later game. This seems like the opposite of how things really ought to work, battles ought to build to a crescendo, not start out with gods dying on T1-T2 or not at all.
Yea i agree whit this in the few games i had up until now i quickly found out that hero's are the real problem. Things like frostlords, ghoulkings on terror gheist and the new stormcast character turn out to be really hard to kill. All out defence really helps when you have a good save and lots of woudns. And the heroic healing every single hero phase also helps out. The terrogheist is the worst of all. It healing 3d3 every battle round ( 2 heroic heals and it's royal blood really makes it impossible to take down unless you have somthing big and strong of your own or mortal wound spam. This realisation really hurts my enthusiasm for 3.0 It seem that the really strong options are turning out to be monsters, hero's (preferably both at the same time) and mortal wound shooting. All things i dislike. Give me good old infantry on infantry combat over that anny day.
-
2
-
-
On 6/4/2021 at 6:26 PM, jeanfluflu said:
Yes i agree on that, problem is that my friends are severly biased against me because of how many loss they got (once again i'm not a very good player) so they got this idea that somehow stormcasts armies are OP and the new edition of the gamme will probably not change that as well :D.
we'll wait for the new edition to start the campaign i think, they told us that path to glory would be changed and i hope with this fresh eye we can get some funny games together.Well it's sort of true. SCE have really good eeh power density (for lack of a better word) That means their individual units/ models are really good stat wise. So in small games where everything acts on a unit vs unit basis SCE are really powerful. How ever as the battle gets bigger and the board grows and there is now a need to be everywhere at once. One of two things tend to happen. 1) The sce needs to splitt up to cover all the objectives. And one part of the army gets to face a part of the opponents force that is vastly inferior while the rest faces the bulk of the opponents army. This is bad for the SCE player since he losses way more in this unbalance then the opponent. The other thing that can happen is that you keep your forces all together. Smash the opponents main line only to lose on objectives. That beeing sad it's really hard to play a balanced game against ppl that are biased against your army since their bias usually prevents them from seeing how they could beat your army. And explaining it to them will only make them feel talked down to. Sometimes for the sake of keeping a campaign going it's a good idea to toss a game ( no matter what the new player code might say)
-
21 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:
Well I do for one lol. But, we all do it's part how we assess warscrolls it's why we can have a discussion about how to value Mv9 against Mv3d6. But, you are only taking the point half way. Fewer dice are highly variable in specific outcomes, which is a negative when failure results in removed models, generally speaking.
Because the benefit of All Out Defence is being applied to a pool more at risk to variance you are paying the same price for a less consistent ability to recieve said benefit. The next step is the opportunity cost.
CP usage is an investment decision, which means context and absolute benefit are important margins for decision making. These are the sort of margin calls that are going to determine the outcomes of people's games. AoS 3 is much more similar to economy games like Porta Rico now.
On table when making your decision the question to be answered is does All Out Defence keep more of my models on the table. Determine the answer to that is way more specific than it improves my save by x%; therefore, yes. Especially in face of CMD abilities like Inspiring Presence and Rally.
No you don't no body not even you would argue that improving your save from - to 6+ is as valuable as improving from 3+ to 2+ The absolute probability increase of success is the same. But for the evaluation of the outcome that is irrelevant.
-
11 hours ago, whispersofblood said:
Which is why my expanded explaination of the position included the increased impact of additional rules.
But fundamentally the underlying issue of cost becomes relevant. 1 CP to create situation which decreases the detriments of variance in large pools, while retaining the benefit of variance vs. 1 CP for improved success rate + variance across a small pool(something like 45% of the original pool of a 3+/3+ profile).
This also explains why boosting a 3+ to a 2+ is "better value" than a 4+ to a 3+ while the straight probable gains for spend remains the same, the room for variance in the actual performance undermines the particular gains from the 1 CP spend. Think of it this way; you roll 12 dice on a 4+ and roll 6 success, but when you check your '3' you would have only gained 1 additional success because the majority of the failures (of which there were a statistically average amount) were '1's, and '2's. The benefit you would have gained is small for your spend, despite appearing average in the instant.
The value isn't in the particular gains (+1 to hit, -1 SV) it's in the relative difference in the effect of the spend. This relative difference matters in game, because dice rolls are instantaneous and not statistical averages. This generally isn't relevant because we haven't run into magnitude of failure dice rolls, so we haven't needed to consider them. As such averages have been a suffeciently deep consideration. Now we have an on demand ability to turn marginal failure into success, which means we have to consider how the variation of specific values before we can acertain the value of the ability/spend.
There will be situations where even attacking second you will net a larger advantage by going All out Attack yourself rather than All out Defence based on the deeper probabilities.
Wait until we start having conversations about the fluxuation on the value of a on CP across phases and factions.
What? Who the hell looks at absolute probability gains when calculating something to begin whit? Doubling your money from 1 dollar to to 2 is not the same impact wise as from 1.000.000 to 2.000.000 ? For all the impact certain buffs can have on the spread of possible results ( is this what you mean by relative impact? ). Most buffs have such high impact on the expected outcome that the spread becomes less relevant. That being said the larger the poll of dice the less the spread of the outcome. So if you want a big chance for a result that difference greatly from the statistical average less dice is where it is at. So your whole point makes absolutly no ****** sense to me. But maybe that's just me
-
11 hours ago, Andrew G said:
Recounting my 3.0 games from the perspective of a fairly competitive Big Waaagh! player (I win ~75% of the 15-25 local events, score in the top 25% at least at GTs). Writing this for fun, rather than any serious, reasoned criticism of the new edition as I'm sure some salt will seep through.
Caveats:- All my experience in 2.0 was Mawcrusherless, board/objective control style, Big Waaggh! I wanted to try out a Mawcrusher Build in IJ for my first 3.0 games
- I'm rusty from the pandemic + playing other table top games
- I know the warclans book is coming out soon.
Game 1 vs. Lumineth
Played against a 1-drop Teclis+30 Archers+Cathallar+stuff to stand in front of the before mentioned things.
Lumineth T1: Shoots all my warchanters off the board and buffs his army (very hard to hide with shortened board + no-LOS restrictions).
IJ T1: Sacrifice a unit 5'ardboyz to unleashed hell. Mawcrusher and a unit of goregruntas get engaged. Net result, 10 spears dead and 0 archers (Archers took 0 damage from 3 goregruntas).
Lumineth T2: I ignored a few of the spell directed at Mawcrusher, but "reroll shooting against target" spell attacks goes through. Archers delete mawcrusher in one turn (this is the defensive build - Ironclad, 5+ Ward, ignore spell on 4+), teclis and spears deal with engaged gore gruntas.
IJ T2: Sacrifice another 5'ardboyz to unleash hell, goregruntas+ a different unit of 'ardboyz sneak around screens and hit archers. I actually kill 6 this time.
IJ T3: All I had left was a unit of Brutes, a larger unit of 'ardboyz engaged with his archers, and a couple 5 man units and wizards. I was ahead on objective points, so figured I'd play it out. I end up not doing much.Lumineth T3: Pretty much tables me.
Take-aways: I have no idea how archers slipped through cracks this edition. They were already good, and just got better with the introduction of unleashed hell, shortened board, more levers to pull to increase defensiveness. Scenario played a big role, as he was able to castle and remain in protection of Teclis with his entire army while contesting half the objectives.
Game 2 vs. Slaves to Darkness: coming once I get some more spare time at work.
I have no idea what gw was thinking whit sentinals either. This 30 inch range ingore los ignor opponets armour to mortal wounds bs Is jus the mother of all anti fun designs. It's just impossible to make a fun and competative unit out of them now. Since there is no counterplay. Gw could make them to cheap (as in as they are now) and it's no fun for the opponent. Or they could make them to expensive and then it would be no fun for the Lumineth player. It's just the mother of all bad ideas to make something strong ignor los and long range at the same time.
-
1
-
On 7/6/2021 at 3:57 PM, CaptainSoup said:
As a Nighthaunt player I completely forgot about Priests and our lack there of. I was hoping they would give at least one of our characters in the FAQ the keyword but alas. I truly don't understand why GW went and added all these features into the game when entire factions don't have access to them and the ones that do most likely didn't need them to begin with. I know GW is better than this, it shows in the way they support 40k, it just baffles me with some of the decisions they made in regards to some factions. It's almost as if they didn't care about some of the factions.
Then there was the WarCom article yesterday talking about how to hunt monsters, all of which my army can't achieve like shooting them or using faction terrain as "bait." Thanks for the tips, GW...
My FLGS wants to try and kick off AoS and get people to participate to grow the community which is great and I will support them, but me and my army will be the proverbial beat stick faction that will get smashed by others except on the extremely rare occasions when the dice favor me, and anyone who has played these games long enough knows that is no way to strategize. Part of me is not looking forward to it.
What nonsense. There have always been and always will be factions that do not have acces to everything in the game. Hell in 40K there is a whole faction whit no Psychers and no melee troops.
-
Bretonnians, Much of my darkelves , Tomb kings. And most of my normal orc boys and normal goblins. (man i whish a wolfrider army was still a thing)
-
14 hours ago, PiotrW said:
It's true that the production quality of wargaming / RPG books gets fancier and fancier... and that so much information is being put into them that the font ends up being small. It still can be done without making the books illegible... GW's rulebooks and battletomes weren't easy on the eyes, but I could use them. But GH2021 is some sort of insanity. This is the kind of font that's used for information booklets that come with medical products. Not something one uses for books!
It'd be more palatable, if there was a digital version of this book... but there isn't. Also, GW seems intent on tying their future digital books with the apps... which is a problem, because I can't use the apps, either. Again, the font! It's too small for me, at least when I run the apps on my phone (which isn't that small). And the last I checked, the font doesn't get rescaled on tablets... Personally, I'd be happy to pay for Warhammer+ subscription, if it came with apps I could use and a way to read the digital books comfortably. Not sure if they do anything about it, though.
Right now? I'm locked out of GH2021. I can't read it in a physical form and there's no digital version. So what I'm supposed to do? Does GW realize that they are practically inviting me to look for a pirated digital copy? I don't want to, but a pirated PDF of this book seems like the only way I'll be able to actually read it...
Really, I don't understand why so many creators / publishers / designers have trouble grasping a basic fact that some people can have trouble reading small print. Last year, I really took the Corvus Belli people to the task about it (thankfully, some of their staff is actually accessible on the official forum) and kept telling them: "Guys, I love your game, but I can't read the N4 book at all. Release the PDF version, I'll happily sell the physical book and pay you for the PDF"... Nope, they just didn't want to do this for some reason. And GW is going the same way. "Your eyes aren't good enough to read the text in the books or in the app? Sorry, we can't do anything about it...". Because implementing a scalable font in an app or releasing a PDF of a book is too much trouble, apparently!
I've noticed the same thing in computer gaming, too. I mean... I absolutely love Stellaris, but I'm constantly frustrated by the font size. I actually had to mod the game on my own to be able to play it!
Coming back to GH2021: I think I'll be actually returning the book to the shop... if they take it back. As for the contents, I guess I'll miss out... This is really, really annoying.
Yea i have to admit this irritates me to no end. Why the hell companies choose shiny pages for things they expect ppl to read is beyond me. I mean shiny pages make sense for the national geographic. Not for the freaking rule book. Beeing unable to read the rules cause there is to much background light is an absurd situation to be in
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Kodos der Henker said:
you give evil GW way too much credits here, they don't even try to get that far when writing rules
the same way as new models are always better than old ones (they are not) to sell more, while in reality they just are not able to do better even if they trythe idea behind was an "emergency balance batch" in 40k because the Legion that no one really played except those that liked the fluff, got really overpowered rules, play tester told this GW and were ignored, people told them after release and were ignored, and instead of trying to fix the problem (and admit that mistakes were made), their solution was that only people who use the right colours are allowed to play with the OP faction
that people are supposed to buy more would be a side effect, their main goal is that everyone stops playing the OP stuff so they don't need to admit that they were wrong and the problem is solved
that we see now the same here is more a hint that they messed up something with the Subfaction rules and are not going to fix it anytime soon and not to try to increase sales intentionally (from their point of view, everyone already buys their stuff because they like the models, not because there are special rules that make some modes/factions better than others)
What do you mean evil? Gw isn't evil. If GW is evil then capitalisme is evil. Cause Gw is just a company. They are there to make money and all their actions are focused on makeing money. Wheter or not they always suceed is not importent.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Kodos der Henker said:
the idea behind is a very simple one, GW wants you to take the army because of the background and not because of the rules
so you don't care about how good or bad that specific sub faction is because you play it anyway or different reasons
there was also once hints in the FAQ that if GW made one sub faction stronger, you should not be "that guy" and play it (hard time for those who played it before the change because of the fluff, and sometimes resulting in people put the old army on the shelf to avoid the hate in the stores)
this is the reason why we see ot again, people might have started an Anvil army because it was strong and painted it that way, to avoid now that everyone starts to play something else that is now strong, they put the "don't be that guy and play to win" in the FAQ
Oh come on. GW wants you to buy their stuff. Stop dreaming up reasons beyond that point. And if there is one kind of player gw loves. It is that guy. Cause that guy buys a lot of ****** to stay on top. Gw loves that Guy. Gw wants you to be that guy. They just want to make sure that , that guy needs to buy more stuff.
-
1
-
-
On 7/3/2021 at 4:48 PM, Warfiend said:
This is incorrect.
The way it's described means you can use unleash hell multiple times in a single turn (since the rules state you can only issue the command once, and the warscroll states it doesn't count as being issued as well as costing no CP). But you can't use it twice on the same unit because a unit can only receive it once a turn.If you have two units or sisters standing next to each other with another ranged unit behind them within 9". And an enemy unit ends their charge within range 3" of both sister units and within 9" of the third ranged unit it means you can use a free Unleash hell on both the sisters without spending any CP and choose to spend one CP to issue Unleash Hell on the third unit for a grand total of 3x Unleash hell in a single phase.
The angy orruks in this example would be absolutely destroyed if they would attempt this charge:
TLDR:
1 - Yes, Yes
2 - NoNo no. The problem is that you can only USE an command ability once (6.1) And then we thank gw for not clearing up what using means. !
-
1
-
New FAQ Discussion Thread (27.08)
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Not really beeing slain and not counting as beeing slain are a bit different in the rules most of the time. And to not count as slain and split. The model needs to be slain in the first place so that will trigger the next wound to be allocated.