Marcvs
-
Posts
1,589 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Marcvs
-
-
1 minute ago, Grungnisson said:
IDK... The way I'm reading his rampage right now, it seems to read 'up to 36 mortal damage' on a monster.
Yes, same rule he has already
-
25 minutes ago, Tonhel said:
Yeah, for such a mighty sculpt the Lord-vigilant does feel a bit weak. That beautiful greataxe could have used a couple of abilities.
yeah, the statline is OK (at least it's not 5/3+/3+/-1/2 right?) but it's a bit sad that he's basically a (albeit powerful) once per game command that you buy with points.
-
4 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:
I am not sure about basic infantry having 2 attacks each. That does feel like we're getting too much dice rolling in 4e.
Same feeling. While necessary due to the limitations of a d6 system, rolling 35 dice (20+10+5) to do 2.5 damage to a 4+ save unit doesn't feel like a great use of anyone's time.
That being said, I am also happy and relieved to see the elves and dwarves still there and the cross-race orders
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Gitzdee said:
I just love how clear the warscrolls are. Its easier know when to use an ability. Before i had to read everything a lot to know when to use something.
Unless it's Yndrasta's double damage thing 😅 (not that's it's a huge thing but I still se discussions about it, same for All out Attack)
-
51 minutes ago, Gailon said:
That’s fair. But they also have to balance the game. And it is a matter of perspective. Stabbas controlling objectives from 9” has been amazing for me in 3rd. In one sense it’s not something cool. But in another sense it’s cool to have a bunch of grots swarming and taking the battlefield.
like Lady O just flies in and terrifies everyone so she takes the objectives.
similar discussion to be had with the carnosaur. Which has damage dramatically reduced per the leaks (or previews?), but word is it ha an ability to add d6 OC to itself and subtract d6 OC from one enemy. That could be an incredible ability. And it doesn’t take much imagination to see it roaring over the battlefield and terrifying the enemy such that I score the points with it.
Yes I think this identifies very well the problem, and it's IMHO not one of power level. Basically, a subset of players (not making any assumption on the size) doesn't find it compelling when the role of their big dyno is to capture objectives by a process of sums and subtractions: they are playing a wargame and they would rather see stuff fight and die (while making Jurassic Park noises)
-
6
-
-
8 hours ago, Ejecutor said:
They won't. They are different games.
You mentioned this argument already before and I find it puzzling/I find it lets GW off the hook a bit too easily: Spearhead is not a different game (as in Warcry, Underworlds) it's just a different game mode of the game Age of Sigmar (as in Matched Play, Path to Glory).
In the article about stuff leaving the range they never mentioned a different support across game modes, never even mentioned the concept of "Matched Play". So, sure, BoC might not get Spearhead rules but I think this should be received as GW (partially) going back on their promise of temporary but full support for the models.
This applies in particular to BoC, since Sacrosanct and BS are part of larger factions.
-
1
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, Enoby said:
- Overall, how did you find AoS 3?
My experience was heavily impacted by changes in my own situation (my daughter was born the day after Dominion launched
), so I generally had (much) less time and I found AoS not very adapted to this new situation. Again, it's just me but basically I found AoS 3 in casual setting to take too much time (a lot of rules, a lot of decision points and analysis paralysis) while I did not have enough time myself to keep playing it well enough to enjoy the competitive setting.
50 minutes ago, Enoby said:- Do you think AoS became more or less popular in your area during 3rd edition? Any reasons why?
It was very popular in my club at some point, notably around the end of the first GHB. Then the 6-months GHBs were very badly received, people dropped out and the pace of changes meant that getting back in was not easy even for those who had played before. Then came the run-up to the new edition and most people played other stuff (mostly TOW, and the omnipresent 40k) while waiting.
54 minutes ago, Enoby said:- For those who played in 3rd edition, did you find most players in your group were new or experienced?
Mostly "experienced" meaning they had played AoS before.
55 minutes ago, Enoby said:- What rules did you like? Which did you not like?
Of course it is easier to remember what I didn't like: battle tactics and, in descending order, redeploy, heroic actions, and monster actions. Not necessarily for their impact on winning/losing the game but because of all the interruptions in the flow of the game which made it feel very clunky (and just time consuming). The amount of times you have to go "stop, I have to do X" is (for me) too high.
1 hour ago, Enoby said:- What do you think 3e did well, and what could it have done better?
Updating all factions BTs and balance in competitive setting. What would have been better would be updating said BTs faster in free online digital format and achieving competitive balance by changing the rules of the armies and not by providing easier/harder ways to score points.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
Comparing a full BT with an index is not a fair comparison. We should delay this discussion until the new CoS BT have arrived. Then we can see if the flavour has been removed or not.
Yes but: 1) we might be delaying this discussing until ~6 months before AoS 5th edition and 2) the flavour has (or, since we haven't seen the index yet, might have) been removed in the meantime
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Beliman said:
The Quick Reference sheet says that Passive abilities are always active unless they have a condition
Double checking the Quick Reference, the All out attack is not even listed under the fight phase (but mentioned as an "attacking ability") so I am more and more convinced that Yndrasta ability also works on shooting
-
4
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Mcthew said:
But what will be telling is the points cost. Even though she's hitting 31 damage (not 35, my bad), I expect her points to be pretty high for a beat-stick like that.
the other thing she has going for her now is the 3d6 charge, which means she can reliably be deployed from reserve and successfully charge (with FLY and a small base), becoming a very effective assassin for small characters/small and medium monsters
-
4
-
-
20 minutes ago, Acrozatarim said:
I like the Knight Arcanum's talents being very focused around manifestations - that's neat.
At the same time, without even a warscroll spell, the warscroll feels really empty
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Arzalyn said:
the admiral had a -2 rend 3 damage hammer
Aka the current profile 😅
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, CommissarRotke said:
The old Veritant comes with a gryph, unless you proxied yours
I think (eyeballing) the new one comes on a smaller (32mm vs 40mm) base, as did the one of the Lord Imperatant
-
6 minutes ago, Chikout said:
I'm all but certain each battletome will have more than one spell lore to choose from even if the indexes only have one.
I think indexes might even have two (just so that you have to pick), which will contain copy&pated-ish spells from existing battletomes (squinting a bit, two of the three SCE spells shown are identical to existing ones)
-
1 minute ago, Ejecutor said:
Veritant came with doggo always
different base size
Veritant is OG doggos (40mm) new one looks like Imperitant doggo-size (32mm)
1 minute ago, Ejecutor said:Even the Vigilant can be proxied with the Lord Arcanum on Grhyp Charger.
100% but I put it in the kitbashable category as I would at least swap the staff for an axe
-
I am happy that 90% of the Stormcast side is eminently proxy-able using the squatted stuff either straight out of the box (Libs, Prosectors, Lord Veritant after he steals the Imperitant doggo) or with a minimum of kitbash (Reclusians, Lord Crow, Lord Axe). Only for the grandsons I'll need something new, but I have already built two using Frostgrave stuff. so the "continuity" of the range is not a negative point from my perspective.
One thing I noticed is that objectives are actually printed on the Spearhead boards, which seems like a weird choice. It adds to the feeling that the "one box and done" selling point of Spearhead is a bit misleading considering how much additional non-mini stuff you'll need (twist and tactics cards decks, custom boards).
EDIT: in addition, having the objectives printed on Spearhead boards greatly reduce their usability outside of that specific format, as you can't use them to build up to a full (or half) table for AoS-main.
-
1
-
-
new Knight (or Lord) Incantor (or other wizard) to round up the three heroes in the box
-
2 hours ago, Sarouan said:
This is stupid to say that, because such a "legal entity" would have no meaning in the real world : it can't produce anything without humans. Thankfully, we're still not at the state where robots completely replace mankind intervention.
It's nice for ideological arguments going your way, but when you resort to them, you just prove you're out of the reality and you do it solely to prove you're right. Not a good sign, if I may say so.man, wow: "stupid to say", "of of the reality" and "not a good sign" for pointing out a pretty basic legal fact. Good day to you sir.
-
7
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Sarouan said:
GW is made of humans
This is just false. GW is a legal entity: it could fire all its employees tomorrow and it would still exist as GW with all its IPs and properties. Notice how the post you are responding to mentioned "GW" and never attacked any actual human being working there.
It's easy to humanise a company a forget what is behind: shareholders, which, for the largest part, are just looking for the highest return on their investment and for which it matters not whether the company they invest in sells plastic toy soldiers, lifesaving medicines, or pet food. Assessing the choices of a company based on their search for higher or, at least, constant profits is the rational thing to do.
As an aside, I think your point about GW being "made of humans" is not helped by GW itself wanting to erase humans as much as possible (not crediting artists, only mentioning first names, showing only hands in painting tutorials).
-
6
-
-
17 hours ago, Sarouan said:
If you want to pay your employees fair and generous salaries, you have to give them a rise each year because of inflation : that increases the costs and will unavoidably get on the product prices as well
That would sound much better if wages (from everything we know from former employees) were anywhere in the ballpark of "generous" and (more importantly for the present discussion) GW was giving their employees pay rises in line with inflation. They are not, tbf just like most other employers, but still: prices are increasing faster than GW wages.
17 hours ago, Sarouan said:really don't see how actually a miniature producer can't increase their prices constantly in this world, unless they want to be in the red or earn less.
And that's your answer to why people (in your view, naively) are unhappy with these decisions: given that GW is very profitable, the price increases are not meant to ensure their survival, they are meant to make more money at the expenses of their customers. Whether or not you you think the price hike is "normal" or "natural", I think it should be easy to understand how anger and frustration are also "normal" or "natural" reactions to a egoistical behaviour.
-
5
-
-
9 minutes ago, Acrozatarim said:
Ahh, do they? I assumed that the fact they'd called the ability out in the article meant it was something new!
yup!
anyway, I was hoping to see the whole warscroll or at least the statline. With rend -2 the statement about rend being reduced in the new edition sounds pretty fun (I know, it's a sniper rifle), I am curious to see if the same is true about range -if they kept range 30" we're exactly where we left.
-
2 minutes ago, Acrozatarim said:
semi-return of Move-Or-Fire style rules for them,
more like semi-continuation: they have the same rule already
-
9 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
I think they will start showing them this week. Otherwise we won't have them all before the preorder announcement and the expected indexes release date.
they can still do 2 per day if needed, I don't think Faction Focuses are such a massive draw for the new edition anyway -as always, I think most people don't care much about the rules and rules don't drive sales so much
-
4 minutes ago, Jagged Red Lines said:
They've run out of stuff to talk about already. Not even a mention of faction focus articles.
I think the idea is that they have covered the rules and these will be fully revealed on the 18th. Then they will start covering the factions I suppose
-
3
-
), so I generally had (much) less time and I found AoS not very adapted to this new situation. Again, it's just me but basically I found AoS 3 in casual setting to take too much time (a lot of rules, a lot of decision points and analysis paralysis) while I did not have enough time myself to keep playing it well enough to enjoy the competitive setting.
Veritant is OG doggos (40mm) new one looks like Imperitant doggo-size (32mm)
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
anecdotal (as every one else participating in the conversation) but all the casual players at my club are happy with everything they are seeing for AoS4 (mostly because they feel it's simpler), whereas all the competitive players groups I am in are complaining about the loss of flavour, the barren warscrolls and the bland allegiance abilities.