Phasteon
-
Posts
486 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Phasteon
-
-
37 minutes ago, wayniac said:
This is largely a GW game problem. 40k suffers from the same in most cases. But I agree completely, the idea of building around a list is usually an anathema to people who play an army for playing an army, not because it's whatever is the best. I have legit talked to people who have said unequivocally that they don't care anything about the lore, or the models, or anything really other than "is this good". They will play an army they have no attraction to, even dislike, if it gives a better chance of winning events. They really don't even care about the game; they only play AOS/40k because it's popular, not because they like anything about it. I cannot fathom that mindset.
I think the underlying issue has always been that, for whatever reason, it seems to be a binary choice in Warhammer where you can either have an army that fits the background or has a specific theme and does badly, or throw all that out the window and only play what's good. There are a few outliers of course where you can do both, but they are generally rare. And after 30ish years this problem still has not been realized by GW or, possibly worse, it has been realized and ignored while they speak out of both sides of their mouth and say it's important while making it less important.
Really? There are people spending that much time and money just to be competitive at a game they don‘t like and nobody outside the hobby cares about?
And even within the hobby most people dont care about tournaments (or tournament winners in particular).
Strange folks.
-
49 minutes ago, Ragest said:
Well, i can't see the "we are getting more and more powercreep", Evocators, Hearthguard, attack Eels and Terrorgheist were there two or more years ago.
But each of those units was/is kinda dominating.
Also powercreep imo does not mean „something that was never there before“ but „bigger better faster stronger“.
Best example for powercreep are the LRL. So many rules, so many things other armies already do but better.
Not hating them, but they really got a lot of stuff/rules.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, leadfoot352 said:
I see the updated post now. Thank you for the feedback. It's there anything you specifically don't like, rather than them just not being impactful? What about the change do you specifically not like? I am working on a homebrew mod for aos that includes a lot of this stuff, and so I'd love concrete feedback!
Sure,
It sounds like a lot of „keeping track of“ rather than just removing models.
If I kill 20 grots i want the other 20 to run not just cower in fear or sth.
Infantry is the best unit type at the moment because they have the most wounds/ bodycount / attacks / buffs impact them the most too - their main drawback - battleshock- can be offset by spending 1 CP or often just being within range X of sth.
This needs to change.
Your battleshock would still not remove those 60 grots from my objective but make them fight worse (huzzaa!!)
Also the spread out rule seems like a good idea at first glance but only really relevant on larger units of 30+ models and I dont know how practical those rules were on them.
Its not that I dislike your idea in general, I just dont think it tackles one of the main balance issues the game has enough.
We dont have a „units spread out too much“ problem (which is kinda fixed by that wholly within buff thing) , we have a infantry never runs if played correctly problem.
-
1 minute ago, leadfoot352 said:
I'm very confused as to how you came to this conclusion. My battle shock system doesn't use bravery and doesn't remove models.
My cohesion system allows units with more bravery to be further spread out from each other, and if they are unable to be placed within that space they are lost, but this happens at the end of any given movent. This means that for you to lose models you would need to be further spread out than 10 inches, and then move, and then still be further spread.
Please elaborate on how you came to your conclusion, because it's literally not how the rule interacts.
i already clarified.
strange ruling though that does not sound very fun (or even remotely impactful) to me.
-
On 4/2/2021 at 9:09 PM, leadfoot352 said:
Firstly, a revamp to the protection characters have against being targeted by shooting attacks. It's an easy fix: "Look out sir!: Missile weapon attacks targeting models with the hero keyword, and that lack the monster keyword, automatically miss if the hero is within 3 inches of a unit with 5 or more models." The reason I have it function like this is that it still allows players to use abilities that don't use the attack sequence or that happen in the shooting phase but are not shooting attacks to still target heroes. This raises the power of those effects, and lends them a unique niche.
Secondly, a revamp to all scenarios. This change is also very simple. Scoring always happens at the end of the battle round. Double turn remains, and still is a very important part of the game. But if you take it, you need to consider where you're going to be not just at the end of your turn, but also at the end of your opponent's turn. This makes the double more about trying to blunt your opponent, and to zone their movement, rather than simply trying to table them.
Thirdly, a revamp to terrain. Keep it simple, a handful of abilities, printed on the warscroll for the terrain. Make a small number of warscrolls for "unusual terrain" and put them online, akin to what is in the current hard cover rulebook. Most terrain blocks LoS. Drastically reduce the power of true line of sight, while keeping it in place. Basically anything other than an obstacle should block LoS. The rewrite needs simply be added to the attack sequence. "Determine Range and Line of Sight to the target: Measure the weapons range between the attacking model and the target model, then determine if the model can see the target, by taking an eye level view of the model. If the shortest possible line between the attacking model and the target model is within range, you may attack. If this line passes over any scenery features, the targeted model has the benefit of Cover." Then you add a little fly out box that says "Cover: A model with cover adds +1 to its saving throws, unless it charged this turn." This makes cover much easier to get, and makes playing around terrain much more valuable.
Fourth, a revamp to list building and battlefield roles. As it stands, army writing is very easy, and I'd like to keep that. That said, the game would benefit from adding in a few more limiters on certain unit types. I'd like to see a 0 limit on "Unique" models at 2000 points, and then a 0-2 at 2500. This will encourage players to play larger games, which GW always wants, and it will push several of the more abusive models out of the tournament meta. I would also like to see many heroes lose their "leader" battlefield role. Any model that lacks a command ability, or isn't a military commander in their lore should lose the "leader" battlefield role. A player should be required to bring a general who is a general, not who is a support piece. I would also like to see a rotating "restricted" unit type for matched play. This would have a limit of 0-1 or 0-2 in a 2000 point game, and would rotate each year. This doesn't overwrite their other battlefield roles, but it would allow problem units to be restricted every GHB. Suddenly every problem unit that is spammed will be solvable without needing to have their points skyrocket or needing a new warscroll.
Fifth, a revamp to monsters. 40k does large models much more justice by having the brackets on a monster not start until far later in their wounds. This would require an entire rewrite of every monster warscroll, which I know won't happen, but I'd like a new design philosophy going forward of "every new monster printed doesn't bracket until half," along with "no monster loses movement as it brackets."
Sixth, a revamp to Battleshock. Battleshock is largely ignored in AoS. So many models simply ignore it, and other units are simply so small in size it never matters to them. Change Battleshock to not be part of Bravery any longer, but a totally separate mechanic. "Battleshock: At the start of the Battleshock phase, roll a dice for every unit that was allocated wounds which were not negated this turn. Add one to the roll for every 5 wounds allocated and not negated after the initial. If the result is a 6, the unit is suffering from Battleshock. While a unit suffers from Battleshock it has -1 to hit, wound, save, run, charge, casting, unbinding, and dispelling rolls the unit makes until the end of the next Battleshock phase." This is a very simple mechanic, that is worded to more represent a unit suffering steady loses and penalties but keeping fighting. You no longer see your fearless stormcast flee the fight because they're not brave, but instead they're nursing their wounds, and fighting at lower efficiency because they're injured. This also allows Battleshock to apply to heroes. Every ability that currently reduces bravery will instead add X to the roll on the Battleshock test, changed via an errata.
Seventh, a revamp to unit cohesion. With my above proposed idea, Bravery suddenly doesn't have a role. My concept will change Bravery to instead of being based on how likely you are to flee from a fight, it's instead how stoically you will face a tide of foes alone. Change the section on unit coherency to read "At the end of any move, all models in the unit must be within a number of inches of all other models in the unit equal to that unit's Bravery characteristic. Any models that are unable to be placed in this manor are slain, as they flee the battle for safer havens." This change is simple, it forces units to be clumped together, and limited stringing units to screen the entire board, making things more cinematic. A unit will still add bravery for being in a larger unit, meaning that your blocks of goblins will still be able to remain within range of each other, and this bonus will probably be increased to +1 per 5 instead of +1 per 10, but that would require further testing.
Finally, a revamp to objective control. All scenarios should change objective control from "within" to "wholly within," and a "model" no longer controls an objective, but a "unit" does. So a hero or monster by themselves can control an objective, but if a unit wants to, the entire unit must be wholly within range of the objective. Also, rework determining control to be the number of wounds remaining, instead of the number of models. A unit of 10 unwounded chaos warriors would count as 20 wounds for control. 20 goblins would also count as 20. An unwounded Gothizzar harvester would count as 10. Etc.
Those are my thoughts for 3.0. I think any one of these changes would benefit the game, and all of them together would make for a very fun experience.
edit: nvm i misread it
I dont know about that though, I like the rules as they are - they just need to fix battleshock immunity across the board and basically LRL sentinels MW hero sniping - in other cases look out sir works out.
Scoring is also pretty much fine for the most part.
Infantry should maybe go up in points to make cavalry/ monsters more relevant but i dont think we need a complete rules overhaul.
Except „ignore battleshock“ its fine if a single army like OBR got this as a shtick but grots that are immune because their brave commander tells them? nonono!
-
to be fair: End Times Nagash went exactly like that - Nagash achieving every single goal in his rise to godhood, no matter if dwarfs, skaven, humans, elves or tomb kings stood against him - everyone was razed with ease by Nagash and his Mortarchs.
I‘ve read it as both - Nagash/Arkhan and Tomb Kings/Settra fan and the book felt bland too, though there were cool moments as well.
I expect BR Teclis to be pretty much the same in regards of predictable outcome - the main problem is that the book is pretty expensive for so little content.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:
To add on what I said before, mortal wounds should NEVER trigger from Missile weapons. If that one thing went away I’d be at least a little bit more ok with mortal wounds in general
Now that I think about it - even dealing them on wound rolls would solve the problem as you first need to hit.
Take sentinels as best example, their MW output on long range Heroes would go from ~7 MWs to like what? 2?3?
Because they would need 5s to hit most of the time or use their quartz to actually hit stuff instead of +1 save which would leave them open for retaliation = more drawback.
-
1
-
-
I‘d go with the rest here and say MWs in general are fine, but rend is underused imo.
+damage/rend/MWs on hit should go away as they slow down the game by seperate rolling, but everything dealing MWs on 6s should instead increase the wound roll/rend/damage.
You would have so many variations.
example given:
„6s to wound have a rend of -3“ to represent precision strikes
“6s to wound deal double damage“ your generic critical hit - imagine that on sth like retributors
“6s to wound have -1 rend and deal 1 additional damage“ beheading strike of executioners 3+/3+/- blade for example
Giving LRL weapons an additional rend or even -2 would be enough for sunmetal weapons, especially on 5+ to wound (buffed) - would also fix the frustration problem as archers would now have to deal with -hit (eg look out sir).
-
2
-
-
What good lich leaves his home without a phylactery to conserve his soul??
I did not read BR:Teclis myself and I highly doubt its as poorly written as people say – but I doubt even more that Arkhan is gone for good, as much as Nagash won‘t be gone forever.
Gravelords are coming (ofc lords. can‘t wait for new Fyreslayers aka Magmic Battlelords) so they needed to do sth with the story regarding death. so that vampires can now have their time to shine – which they can‘t when Nagash holds the leash. (Or Arkhan as his Lt.)
After some bloodbathing and blooddrinking including a big hangover Nagash + Arkhan will be back like „WTF did you do to my home!?!? Oh you little blooddrinking sh*ts will clean up that mess or else“
Just my prediction though.
If not, Arkhan will (un)live on in my heart and lists <3
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, woolf said:
the lumineth ability only adds to the modifier when you make battleshock test, it does not force battleshock. so yes you are completely safe from that with OBR
thx for the clarification, also I completely misread the rule! I get the feeling that OBR are in general a strong pick against LRL
-
Guys, how do the rules of the LRL and OBR regarding battleshock interact?
OBR rules state we dont take battleshock, Cathallar makes us take battleshock.
Can I confidently say „****** you long ear!“ or do I lose Arkhan to a forced -10 battleshock?
-
New OBR units:
- Mortek Archers (battleline)
- Killy Construct (Monster)
- Casket of Souls 2.0 (Artillery / Magic buffer, MW output)
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Deadrixc said:
Hail mighty Hekatos' (Hekatos's? Hekatosi? Hekatos?) Im fairly new to AOS and plan to get a full 2,000 points army in may. Ive done a bit of research on obr (lore,meta etc.) and fell in love with their cav! After seeing how slow and Mortek Gaurd heavy the meta is ive wanted to take my army in a very aggressive and cav focused direction. Im gonna post my list here and would love any advice you have to help shape my army in the proper direction. I should also mention that I dont intend for this list to be in any way competitive, but id like it to give another "standard" AOS player's army a run for their money
Legion: Stelliarch lords
Liege-Kavalos
General
CT: Twisted Challenge
Art: Nadir-bound mount
Arch-Kavalos Zandtos
Mortisan bone-shaper
Art: Artisans Key
Lore: Empowered Nadarite Weapons
Mortisan Soulrender
Lore: Reinforce Battle-shields
10 man unit of Kavalos Deathriders (x2)
10 man unit of Mortek guard (Swords)
6 man unit of Necropolis stalkers
Battalion: Kavalos Lance
The idea behind this army is fairly obvious. Buff the hell out of and make my Deathriders mop the floor. The first thing ill talk about is bringing Zandtos and a Liege. I personally love Zandtos' model and hes def a pet pick but losing the trait and the really good artifact by making him my general and not bringing the generic is too much of a loss imo. The boneshaper is to keep all the Deathriders in shape (haha) While the stalkers have the ability to (somewhat) keep up with the Deathriders and they provide the rend the Deathriders lack. The soulrender and Mortek Gaurd are just what I had to do with my leftover points, maybe they can go get obj's and the lore on the render is nice to throw on a Deathrider unit but not make or break if it goes off. With my generous helping of 7 Disciplene points per turn I should be able to throw all of my liege's CA's at the Deathriders and maybe sprinkle some on the Stalkers here and there.Just a few points you should consider:
1. Zandtos is Mortis Praetorians, he cant buff your Stalliarch Lords with his „still their breath“ CA.
2. The Stalliarch Lords Trait + Artifact are really bad, like of the worst kind AOS has to offer - no real benifit by having them.
3. The Boneshaper will never ever be able to effectively hold together your army. Too slow, just 1 heal. Probably out of range forever after turn 1.
4. I‘d personally leave Zandtos the Boneshaper and the Soulreaper out and take Arkhan and maybe 10 more Mortek Guards instead.
Better magic, better healing, can actually keep up with your stuff.
Still not an optimal list, but less things „working against each other“ - that being said if you really want stalliarch lords and want to include Zandtos go ahead - just dont expect the list to perform very well as your points are spent very inefficient.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Kimbo said:
Okey, thanks. Would you rate this list as competitive? Im new to this faction
Very solid list, I‘d 100% go for Zandtos though. -3 rend on 3-4 attacks is A LOT less impactful than potentially full wound reroll (against chaos).
You really want that rr on your mortek crawlers! Otherwise they are so unreliable for their cost.
-
10 hours ago, Btimmy said:
Gonna need a second release of units for anything like this to change. I imagine eventually OBR will get the LRL treatment and have a series of new units added, probably with another battletome. If not, yeah looks like its going to be Katakros + MP + Double Crawler for the foreseeable future.
What would be nice additions to OBR anyway?
- Archers. We‘ve seen the model in the new Underworlds Warband and its pretty obvious what a unit like that would look like ruleswise.
Would really help with range pressure.
- What about a unit of „half skeletal - half shadow“ assassin/skirmishers with some kind of teleport outside 9“ mechanic to threaten backline targets / weak characters / grab unprotected objectives.
- Chariots were mentioned and could also fill a nice role of „beefier monstrous cavalry“. Probably sth around 6-8 wounds, lots of different attacke between mounts and charioteers and some nice special rules.
- A unit of „lesser Mortisan acolytes“ that can rebuild models/ cast spells/ and maybe have some range missiles.
- More missile attacks in general. EVERY named wizard has some kind of ranged attack. Let Arkhan please throw some kind of Dark Energy bolt to weaken targets.
- Rework the Spell Lore. Most of the time the spells feel so useless.. yeah reinforce weapons / shields need to always be up but lets be real here... shields effectively gives +1 to the deathless save against MW only and weapons does sth every LRL unit can get by design... using 2 spellcasts on our expensive mages feels a bit too taxing.. there are some nice shenanigans you can pull off with protection of Nagash - no hate on that.
But Arcane Command, Mortal Contract and Drain Vitality just feel so lacking.
I think regarding our weaknesses in general „low range threat / no shenanigans, very straightforward gameplay“ our spell lore is a big reason for that.
In general I still rate the battletome as pretty well designed but there are definately many things that could be improved in the future.
One last note:
Morghasts.
I dont know what, but they need some sort of help.. They also feel very lacking.
-
4 hours ago, SilverJelly said:
From the leaks I have seen, that's all we are getting. Sorry for the potato image but thats how it was given to me.
This wouldnt be so bad as the stalliarch rules are pretty good actually and make big deathrider units and stalkers VERY fast and dangerous - getting a benefit from the command ability to potentially save some RDP is ok - BUT - hooooly moly are the command trait and artifact bad - worse ones in the whole tome by far and probably in whole Aos.
+D3 chances to deal a MW on a 6, so basically additional 0,5 MWs ?? I mean... why not just deal MWs on a 5+ instead.. its an artifact and the liege would still only cause about 2-3 MWs on the charge.
Sad
-
1 hour ago, Btimmy said:
Run and charge in one legion, movement 7 for the guard at the cost of limited resources that we also need to ensure the guard don't fall over in combat. My opinion is from someone who plays in and with tournament players. The army functions because of Crawlers. Without them the gameplan of march up and try to fight is not going to work against anyone who knows what to do.
Dont get me wrong, I also feel the army is lacking in the „pressure“ department without crawlers but to be fair, dont the objectives force the enemy towards our army anyway?
But I think crawlers are more of a „psychological“ weapon, because the average dmg output of the crawler against 4+ Save is between 0-5 points of damage ..
I think 200 points for that is a bit steep.
I have to admit though, I dont play at tournaments / against tournament players so I cant really judge the „true“ competitiveness of a unit - just compared to my „local meta“ where we max out our lists at the moment, but also try weird things more often than not.
What I wanted to say anyway, I‘d really like Mortek Archers, not just for the aesthetics but also for some reliable range threat a la Auralon Sentinels..
I‘d imagine the bows being like 2 shots, 18-24“ range, 3+/4+ maybe -1 rend, 1 damage and the nadirite rule (20 guys pumping out 40 shots with exploding 5s (buffed) would be awesome)
160-180 points for 10
Edit: Oh, and of course some fancy OBR style command ability like ignore cover or look out, sir..
And about the shots, maybe 4+/4+ to start as between shrieker, katakros and endless duty things could get out of hand pretty quickly with that unit 😄
-
10 hours ago, Btimmy said:
What are the easier ways for OBR? Crawlers are literally essential for the army to function because they are a long range big damage threat that forces the enemy to engage our extremely slow, no trick army.
Are they slow though? We can move +3“ on demand and potentially run and charge..
And even the other legions - i have no problem getting 10-11“ movement with my mortek guard t1 - my deathriders just recently won a game by killing a unit in the right corner of the enemy side then zooming to the left side of MY side killing another unit of gtabbing another objective within 2 turns. They can potentially move 22“ !!
I wouldnt call OBR a fast army, but no way are they slow compared to most armies of the game that completely rely on their base move.
I prefer Harbingers to Crawlers as they can assassinate weak buff characters hiding thx to fly, and they are pretty fast too especially with 3d6 charge
-
On 3/20/2021 at 11:23 PM, KK9T said:
I hope we get an archer unit down the line.
That would be awesome, i‘m a bit disappointed by the Mortek Crawlers because of how unreliable their damage is - would have preferred more rend, less damage - degrading rend.
Whats your opinion on them? I know that can win a game by good rolling, but chances are high they do nothing all game and to be fair, there are easier ways of taking out units with bad saves...
-
On 2/27/2021 at 6:10 AM, KK9T said:
Would the Barak-Nar Skyfleet Battleforce box be a good starting point for a competitive KO army?
If you use Brokk as Endrinmaster, yes.
Love the model and the rules arent bad either, but I wouldnt call him competitive.
-
On 2/22/2021 at 8:17 AM, Beliman said:
I love his title too! I'm afraid that he will not have any Admiral, Endrinmaster, Navigator nor Aetherkhemist keyword. Hope to be wrong, but it seems that we are going to rely on subfaccions and realm artefacts to give him a bit of customization.
Why would you think you can customize him? He is probalby a unique character, no?
-
10 hours ago, Garamond said:
Technically, the flying transport rule states you cannot GAIN control of an objective while garrisonned. But if he already has control, and the scenario specific rules states "the leader unit must be killed or move more than 3" away to lose control." So wouldn't he still control it if he is on a ship parked on the objective?
I mean, if there was a building nearby, a hero could capture the objective and then garrison the building all while maintaining control of the objective, right?
It's definitely a grey area. Also, my reading of it is that a set up move is not a movement, so disembarking might not count towards capturing the objective.
You might actually be right on this one.
I‘m pretty sure though on the disembarking part as it „counts as their movement“ - but I‘d really like a FAQ about that, because I can see how its the grey area you mentioned.
-
2 hours ago, Garamond said:
Ok. That makes sense. The second part is the real meat though... Can he embark on a ship parked on the objective after gaining control and keep control? The scenario rules say the only way to lose control is to move away or be killed. But most people I've spoken to seem to think that embarking will lose control.
Yes, as the rules state that you dont count towards holding objectives from inside the ship.
You NEED to stay outside the ship to hold.
-
8 hours ago, Lord Panther said:
I just wanted to add this here as I’m stoked I finally finished the my Ironclad that I picked up when the army first came out.
holy moly that looks clean af, nice job man!
-
2
-
Discussing balance in AoS
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Well, I‘m very conflicted because I really like to run strong, competitive lists but I hate armies that don‘t match the lore.
So I always tend to really like the army I play but not be 100% happy about how it performs.
There are always workarounds but its kind of exhausting sometimes.
Especially when you then face someone who just takes those 4 archregents and his lackey, the general (because of trait or sth), and tryhards his way to victory.
I really know that feel, I tend to dodge those games most of the time though.
Regarding the topic:
I think balance in general is fine, most games are really fun and close - also I play like 4-5 armies and always perform pretty well, so it can‘t just be because „I play the best army“
It‘s about how good you know the armies/rules in general and how you play into it.