Marcvs
-
Posts
1,577 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Marcvs
-
-
39 minutes ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:
They've said they'll update the rules as often as needed as long as this new edition lasts.
Ultimately, though, it comes down to the question of how long it's reasonable to keep supporting rules for models that are no longer produced. And that's a bit of a moot point.
That is why I think the "separate rules for old models" system is a bad way to handle this. My favourite way would be a system of official equivalences for new/still existing models, where you can use your old ones for broadly similar ones in GW Stores/GW Events (which of course propagates to all other communities). It doesn't even need to have the same base size, as rebasing (especially for bigger bases, which is in general the movement) is a reasonable ask. This would ensure updated rules and avoid the risk where an OOP model somehow get rules which are too good. Of course, this is harder where an entire faction with a specific look and playstyle is cut (BoC).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tonhel said:
If you don't have a 3d printer or have an old collection it is almost impossible to start a TOW army.
Tbf, a) other miniature manufacturers exist (and TOW factions being fairly generic helps) and b) you don't need a 3d printer to buy 3d printed miniatures.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:
I think it also works in favour of the 3D printing business. Allowing more kinds of minis to be used.
Yes in general it's a big plus for using 3d prints/alternative ranges/proxies. Most of my tournament community allows for this as long as you respect WYSIWYG and this is certainly making it easier. I still find it a bit sad and it gives a "wrong kind of simplification" feeling
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
The other way around. Now you can customise it as much as you want without being penalised.
Tbf, you could already do that unless you played into (a subset of) tournaments -WYSIWYG is not really a thing in casual play. What this does is to take away some depth for the players who enjoyed that part without actually giving anything for casual play
-
25 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I agree with you and everyone else who likes the idea of having different weapons and loadouts in the rules also reflected on the models. It is cool, in theory.
In my experience, it almost always runs up against different barriers in reality, though. People build and paint models one way and then just tell you "these guys have swords but I'm using the spears warscroll, actually". Maybe it's because of a rules change, maybe it's because they built 2 min size squads but now want to try running reinforced, maybe swords just look cooler. And I think everyone agrees that it's unreasonable to expect people to buy, build and paint another unit just for a +1 to hit.
Personally, I am more glad that I will get the skip the 15 minute "loadout talk" in future games than I am sad about the loss of fidelity.
My problem is less with WYSIWYG (never cared about it, just tell me what they do) but more with the loss of meaningful choices in list building. I am all for streamlining the playing experience, but I believe there's not much need for it in the "pre game part" (i.e. list building)
-
2
-
-
It seems that liberators have the same weapon profile with two hammers or hammer and shield. Great for modelling and rule of cool, but it feels a bit extreme in terms of simplification
-
4
-
-
3 minutes ago, Jeremierty said:
It's not really deleted if it comes back with an updated miniature ( and if you can still proxy your old mini for the new shiny one) but of course it would have been wiser from GW to explain which miniatures will be redone and which are truly going away
From the Stormcast point of view, all would have been completely different if this was stated in the article (you will be able to use X, Y, Z for new stuff that is coming). The reassurance in a facebook answer by a community account is surely nice but it means nothing -as we have seen with the precedent of the LVO Q&A. I can already imagine the posts on this forum when, a year from now, GW proper contradicts the facebook reply "eh, it happens in a big company"
-
2 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:
I think this is a case of one department not talking to another. I doubt very much that the Head of Global events would say that if they knew as it would make them look silly when it happened. If you knew, you wouldn't say that and would stick with non comital phrases.
2 minutes ago, GloomkingWortwazi said:Not intending to defend them, it blows chunks. But objectively speaking this kind of thing happens in business comms all the time across every industry.
Yes, I agree with this reading, but the comment was not mentioned in order to say "it's their fault", it is more to say from the perspective of the customers the writing was very much not on the wall. To me, it seems fair to say that customers are entitled to have a legitimate expectation that, when somebody from the company makes such a precise public statement, they know what they are talking about.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, AquaRegis said:
All i said is that the writing was on the wall for these factions.
This is very ironic when multiple people on this forum (so, generally, very involved in the hobby news cycle) where pushing back against the very idea. For reference, here's also a reddit thread after The Honest Wargamer started talking about the possibility of BoC going away with like 100% of initial reactions saying he was wrong (or worse): https://www.reddit.com/r/ageofsigmar/comments/195jk3n/where_does_the_rumor_that_beasts_of_chaos_are/
and I quote from the most upvoted comment:
"It pretty much exclusively comes from the YouTube/twitch personality theHonestWargamer's opinion almost no one else thinks it's going to happen"
-
6 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
Maybe you mean the Mortal Realms magazine? Stormbringer one doesn't have any trimmed-down model.
Yes it must be that! I have never bought them myself so I don't know the denomination of the magazines. It's the one which gave you lots of souls wars stuff basically
-
4 hours ago, Hollow said:
Probably gonna get some blow back from this but I smell a whole lot of faux outrage online. I bet 90% of the people screaming to the high rafters don't even own a single of these kits or play them.
Yes, we're actually paid actors.
What I find sad about your comment is that it basically tells me you find incomprehensible that people would be upset by this, so you must find another explanation (they must have an ulterior motive).
I have spent the evening reassuring the two new AoS players of our club in our discord. They both have a stormcast army built via the stormbringer (EDIT: no, it's Mortal Realms) magazine (so, mostly if not all Sacrosanct if I understand correctly). I told them that nobody at the club would have a problem playing them, that they will be able to proxy their minis for other/new stuff, and that even our tournament community is likely to be fine with it. They were still shaken and sad at the end, so, while I am able to rationalize all this, it's still a bad day and it has drained a lot of my energy and enthusiasm for the game.
-
11
-
-
8 hours ago, Nozdormu said:
I have to share that I predicted three years ago that the new and old SCE models will be separated (for two battletomes) but people laughed at it
Lol, fair
-
20 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:
I already have in mind some counts as ideas, things like running dracolines as dracothian guard, foot evos as annihilators, I think there'll be a place for most of it.
yes, I'd say the only ones which seems difficult to "proxy" are 1) the ballista, and 2) the tauralon (although, he's the same base size as Inous, just saying).
All the others should have an easy way to "count as", sometimes some kitbashing will be required if WYSIWYG is a requirement.
it still bad of course to see models which aren't even 6 years old gone.
-
1 minute ago, Gotz said:
I think dracolines and dracoths share the same base size, so proxing them is no prob. (same as with the sequicators).
Tauralon could work with Celestant Prime or Ionus... but maybe they re-release thunderstrike Aventis...
The problem with this is that, at least in my anecdotal experience (and speaking of tournaments, because outside of that everything is always possible), there are two ways in which tournaments handle this:
- GW official miniatures only
or
- 3d prints and alternative ranges/proxying is allowed but (since you have to draw a line somewhere) some form of WYSIWYG is required. Evocators (on foot and on dracoline) have a weapon loadout which is not similar to other existing units, so that's the reason of my reply.
-
2 minutes ago, Gotz said:
most of sacrosanct can easily be used as proxies for the stuff that's remaining.
bit of a sweeping statement, what about:
celestar ballista
tauralon
and, without kitbashing (because if you count kitbashing, every stormcast is any stormcast):
evocators on dracoline
evocators
arcanum on gryph
-
1
-
-
Ok, this at least goes in the right direction. It's still only from the socials team, but it's a start
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Hollow said:
after selling and supporting said models for 10/15/20+ years!
or 6-ish, for the Sacrosanct Chamber
-
5 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
Pretty bad timing for the article. We know some of those removed units would get a replacement. GW should have shown those replacements, as well, to clearly know which ones are "staying" and which ones aren't. It would have helped to calm the waters a bit.
What would have helped to "calm the waters" would have been to say that, for example (as we have seen them already) "you will be able to use your old liberators as new liberators in GW stores and events" (since you know, same loadout, same base size, 100% GW), instead they seem to be suggesting that they will not allow this.
-
aand that's 7030 pts (at pre-last-battlescroll points) of my SCE gone
luckily I play in a community which has been so far very open to 3d prints and alternative ranges, so it shouldn't be that bad. Maybe. I hope.
-
3
-
-
44 minutes ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:
rules changes because some ultra-competitive clowns were exploiting (or abusing) things for the sake of winning a game.
AKA people were playing within the ruleset that a very big succesful game company gave them. I also hate it when those ultra-competitive people build hotels on Park Place!
-
2
-
1
-
-
I am all for the talk of merging Stormcast warscrolls, but before discussing judicators/vigilors/hunters I'd say there's both lower hanging fruits (single warscroll for the 3 paladin variants, 3 melee dracothian guards, prosecutors) and a much more pressing need to reduce the number of Leaders
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Luperci said:
Gonna be honest I much prefer a "hero tax" to any kind of troop tax, so much less effort to get painted and table ready.
also practical that foot heroes are the most overpriced miniatures of the catalogue
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, Sarouan said:
Can you play AoS with tokens instead of miniatures, with a drawing determining where the terrain are ? Of course !
"Uhm actually" moment: not really, at least not with the core rules (real line of sight is in there)
-
I am probably in a (tiny) minority, and it's a matter of tastes anyway, but I don't really vibe with the new design. I wasn't very happy with the idea of the resculpt anyway (a lot of other armies need that attention) and this feels quite underwhelming: nothing more than a scaled up knight with hammer and shield.
On the plus side, they are only a post-diet version of old Liberators, so using the old ones would be perfectly fine (if I need standard bearers, I have plenty of those from the Vindictors or even the multiple knight vexillors).
-
3
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by Marcvs
love it, but also a bit concerning for the duration of a game. Have they ever stated that we're still playing 5 rounds in the articles so far?
or even just 1 (basically, if you have 1 you might as well go full auxiliary). Also: if having auxiliary units is so (negatively) impactful, it reinforces the mandatory inclusion of heroes -and the actual flexibility of list building (sure, you can do whatever you want, but you'll be at massive disadvantage for it.