Zeblasky
-
Posts
295 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Zeblasky
-
-
29 minutes ago, The Red King said:
2 mount traits (gryphon lord can heal d3 and teleport instead of dying on a 2+ once a game and one that makes the black dragons breath on a 5+ instead of a 6)
A useless grand strategy that's just predators domain except enemy faction terrain is worth 3.
A battle tactic that you score by putting banner bearers near objectives that arent in your terrain (even if if you dont control it) and a battle tactic that can literally only be done by flaggelants.
That's it for matched play. 10 dollars for an FAQ and not a good one.
Oh yes, this is what I really wanted from Black dragon breath attack all this time. It's not a warcroll change, but still. Gryphon buff is just bunkers though, a free get out of jail card.
You can just take one of those mount traits for free in any city btw, correct? And only one without additional enhancements?I also would not call this grand strategy useless. Specific, sure, but that's a potential 0-9 EXTRA points from your grand strategy. Against certain factions it could win you some tight games.
Also, are there any warscroll or point changes? Anything else at all?
-
16 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
So the CoS update has been leaked (matched play and parts of open play).
long story short: Don‘t bother. It‘s the very definition of sloppy, uninspired rules writing.
One good thing though: The gryphon mount trait is actually cool
I think the Path to Glory Section and the campaign could be really cool!
Could you please elaborate? Or at least PM the leak pretty please?
-
I'd say that Dragon is quite underestimated. Sure, he is not really tanky, but his damage, while somewhat random, is good on average and can be quite devastating. Just today my dragon charged in and under Titanic Duel finished off Killaboss on Vulcha general, who still had 7 (or 4?) wounds together with his last 6 Gutrippaz of his retinue ( Killaboss passed some of his wounds to them, they all died). Is it way above average for his rolls? Oh yea. But he still basically went through 19/16 3+ wounds. Somehow. Yea, may be my opponent forgot about Mystic Shield at this point and used 4+ save, but I doubt it, he remembered it for shooting attacks. And even then it would be quite impressive. And yes, +1 to hit on him really helps with his randomness and damage in general.
By the way, just now I've realised that Dreadlord is pretty good at dueling monsters. One Titanic Duel, one use of Dreadlord CA (can't be roared down, used at the start of Combat Phase) and he has +1 to hit and wound versus chosen Monster target. + 1 to wound is useless for his Jaws most of the time, but it's still good for his other attacks.
(Battle reports are soon to follow btw, probably in Living City thread).
-
1
-
-
I really like elves and I want way more of them in the game. Yep, let the Aelvetide sweep away the Stormcast.
But seriously, if aelves (as in 3-4 different factions) would take the flagship role from stormcast, this would be so much better for the game health.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, readercolin said:
You take the dreadlord on black dragon because you can't take the Knight-Draconis as your general, and you are limited by the 1/4 rule.
The dreadlord still has play over a unit of 2 Stormdrake Guard. He is a hero and therefore can benefit from heroic actions. He can carry an artefact, to either add additional tankiness, or some other utility. And he can be your general, to benefit from a command trait. Sadly for him, he only has the command trait bonus over the Knight-Draconis.
If we look at command traits that can make a notable difference, there are a few.
The first is Hammerhall, and "Blood of the Twelve", giving a 12" bubble of re-roll 1's to wound. Considering that the dreadlord can buff his wound rolls by 1 using his command ability (or a neighbor can), this can be a noticable improvement in damage because he would be wounding on a 2+ with every melee weapon except his sword. Combine this with the Twin Stones on somebody, and you can be buffed by +1 to hit, +1 to wound, and re-roll 1's to wound. Meanwhile, the Knight can be buffed by the +1 to hit and re-roll 1's to wound. Combining these, we can get Dreadlords that can expect to do 19.44 damage before saves, and 11.67 to a 3+ with lances compared to the Knight-Draconis getting 12.29 before saves and 9.34 to a 3+. If you are going this deep though, it is only really going to pay off if you are running 2-3 dreadlords.
In Anvilguard, there are no command traits that make a significant difference. However, you do have the drakeblood curses. Acidic Blood can give someone some caution when hitting him, though it will do a maximum of 14 wounds and an average of 7 unless you can get some healing on the dragon. Jutting Bones is probably better, as it effectively will let you "stomp" twice after charging.
In Tempest Eye, Swift as the Wind lets your dragon fight first, as well as run and charge. This is a drastic improvement, and can be well worth bringing. Also, I really, really wish that coalition units could be your general, because I really want to stick this trait on a stardrake.
Living City gets you Iron Oak Artisan, which lets you have your crossbow and still have a +1 to your save, as well as buffs your wound rolls, making your command trait irrelevant. Once again, I'm irritated by the ruling of coalition units not allowed to be your general.
Misthaven will let you deepstrike your dragon, and you can use your command trait to give it a 6+ ward, allowing you to use your amulet of destiny on a unit that is more useful (like the Knight-Draconis).
Excelsis can let your general retreat and charge.
So yeah, we have a few use cases where a dreadlord general can be slightly better than a Knight-Draconis. Most of the time though, the Knight-Draconis or a squad of 2-4 stormdrakes is going to serve you better. And any case where you are wanting to run a different general (to unlock battleline requirements, or to buff other parts of your army), the Knight-Draconis is basically always going to be better (except misthaven I guess...).
I completely agree, that Dreadlord can be better than Stormdrakes, I even said it my previous post. Mostly due to being a hero and Amulet of destiny, but still.
I did kinda forget that you can no longer make coalition heroes into a general, so yes, it does makes Dreadlord slightly better in CoS roster, while in SCE Dreadlord would be ultimately pointless. The funny thing here hoveewr is that most of those command traits buff chances to wound, which is both great and bad for a Black dragon, as Black Dragon Jaws get to a 3+ to would only on an second (third?) bracket, so otherwise this bonus is wasted most of the time on one of his most powerful attacks.
And yea, you can make Dreadlord your general only if you're set on taking CoS default battleline. And while we have a pretty good selection of unconditional battleline choices, it's not always a good choice.
-
Hell again, this is your friendly admirer of Sisters of the Watch and Dreadlord on the Black Dragon. Today I come to talk about the latter.
So, Dreadlord got some new draconic competition, and his name is Knigh-Drakonis. So, how do they fare against each other? Well, it's not looking great for Dreadlord.
First, basic stats and abilities. For the Dreadlord, we have:- 14 move instead of 12
- 14 wounds instead of 11
And that's literally it. While Knight-Drakonis has:
- NO DEGRADING PROFILE WAT
- 3+ base save (much better for save stacking) instead of 4+ or 4+ add 1 from shield.
- 12 range shooting attack, for which you do not have to lose +1 to save if you want to play in Living City
- 4+ spell shrug
- Once per battle free shooting in hero phase for him or other Stormdrakes
Yea, it's not looking that great. Dreadlord can be quite tankier with Amulet of Destiny and even without his shield thanks to 3 more wounds (and with wards it does add up), but other things, especially actually being balanced by degrading profire, drag him down so, so much here. But hey, let's look at the damage, shall we?
Save Knight-drake Black Dragon Drakes with Blades 2+ 5.48 5.02 5.48 3+ 7 7.03 7.63 4+ 8.52 9.03 9.78 5+ 9.11 11.04 11.93 6+ 9.11 11.88 12.89 - 9.11 12.04 12.89 Black Dragon is modelled with Crossbow and Lance on charge, as usual. Stormdrakes ranged attacks though are not included, it's only combat damage for them. And yea, I included unit of 2 Stormdrakes with Blades (285 points), just to show that if you need a monstrous unit with 18 wounds and 3+ save that also looks amazing, has 2 ranged MW attacks (that's extra 3-4 MW on average) and does a lot of damage in combat phase, look no further. The only reason I look at Hero monsters is because Strormdrakes can't take Amulet of Destiny, hah.
So yea, at first it looks like Black Dragon does more damage versus low armour, hurray. But then you remember that Knight has a shooting attack that causes 1.8 MW on average. But then you remember that Black dragon has a shooting attack that causes MWs as well, but it has much shorter range and can do anything between 0.17 and 6 mortal wounds on average, depending on a target, so much more situational. Knight however can also somewhat reliably remove 1-3 wound models from play, and you can even try your luck at destroying 5 wound heroes, so that also adds up to his damage (although in a weird and hard to calculate way as a pure damage). So... overall, Dreadlord has a much better time when clearing out from tarpits with a lot of cheap bodies due to his breath attack and less rend, but Knight just has a much easier time achieving his max potential, especially versus high save targets. It pains me to say it, but Knight mostly wins in a damage department. Or, in short, Dreadlord is better versus big blocks of low armoured chaff, Knight is better versus elites and middle ground.
And THEN, at the end of it all, you remember that Black Dragon is 290, while Knight-Drakonis is 255. Yeeep. Honestly, why pay 35 points more for slighlty better tankiness (if you're taking his shield) and situationally better damage (and against hordes of all things), when Knight-Drakonis has so much more going for him AND he is quite cheaper as well? I hope that someone could show me that I am wrong, but for now, if you want a mobile and heavy hitting dragon in your min-maxed Living City army, take Knigh-Drakonis
P.S. I would expect some point nerfs to Stormdrakes in the future though. I hope.-
2
-
5 hours ago, macrake said:
Could you point me to these other mysterious units that you think do impressive damage? Grandhammers with an imperatant required for 15% more dmg for one turn, with a 25% fail chance? Fulminators that do the same dmg as SDG if you include shooting, but require a translocation and then drop to half dmg when not charged?
(Lets also pretend that SDG dont do the million other things they do)
Outside of one or two support heroes and maybe 6 raptors for the doubletap, please tell me what you think is worth more than 2x or 4x SDG. I'm genuinely curious.
I was just about to write the same response. I personally still agree that Blades are generally better and more reliable if you can't get a charge every turn, but to call Stormdrakes damage lacking...
First of all, we were talking about combat damage only (and even it alone was quite impressive). We also have 1.83 MW on average from every Stormdrake model that shoots. Then you can reasonably add up 1-3 extra wounds removed with a single non negatable dice roll per every stormdrake unit (go on and make that Blood Knight fly). Oh, and you also potentially can use all of the Monstrous rampages every combat phase with 2x2 of them as well, which can indirectly cause or save you some wounds as well. Together that's A LOT of damage from a unit that costs just 285 points. My poor Black Dragon is literally green with jealousy (yea, he is painted as a Forest Dragon x) ). If they were a hero and could take Amulet of Destiny, they would be incredibly broken.
I am not that versed in SCE units current balance and prowess, and there for sure may be some units that are more point efficient damage and/or tankiness. But that still does not make Stormdrakes damage less impressive if you compare them across all the other faction units in the game. -
A bit late, but Stormdrake Lances are actually not as bad as some claim. But only IF you talk about min sized units of 2 or especially about a single Stormdrake (who can be a solo champion too for some reason). All that because a champion gets extra attack, and an extra attack with Lance is much more impactful than an extra attack with Blade. I do agree that Blades are still better, buuut if you really need to shatter something on a charge, Lances can be a decent option.
Below are damage for a unit of 2 Stormrakes on a charge without dragon Fang and Talons attacks.Save Drakes Swords Drakes lances 2+ 1.93 3.11 3+ 2.89 4.15 4+ 3.85 5.19 5+ 4.81 6.22 6+ 5.78 6.22 - 5.78 6.22 -
Honestly, yea, I kinda do not get why some people said that new app is much better. For rules - sure, it's easier to read them now, once you get used to a simplified version, that's a big plus. But warscrolls are less easier to read due to a new design (too oversimplified), and army builder seems like a pure downgrade if compared to the old one. Units are not organized by their roles, but in the order you take them, you can't see artefacts and spells they take in the main list... Even if this was completely free, I would still use Warscroll Builder or BattleScribe for listbuilding instead.
-
2
-
-
Hey, GW, could you may be modernize a bit further and post all the rule related information in a coherent and organized way for free on your site and apps, so it could be viewed and comprehensively updated at any time, thus benefiting both your customers and your game popularity? Such transparency would make getting new people into the game much... Oh... Instead you... OH...
Honestly, there are 2 reasons I personally can see for this desision. It's either a short sighted and short term greed (AoS is popular enough, let's milk it like 40k from now on) or GW is afraid that due to 3D printers they could become rules and content company in 15 years. Both reasons are not valid for such a desision right now, so if we want to have a slight change of GW changing this... Well, you know the drill, boycott, "constructive" riot and drama. It would probably not get us a desired effect, but hey, at least it's fun.
-
2
-
1
-
-
There was a russian player list with 5 Steam tanks that recently took 1 place in some TTS tournament, if I remember correctly, so that was pretty interesting.
-
Hey guys, quick quiestion - do I uderstand it correctly, that only new battletomes and a few new models will be on preoder 18-19 and not new dragon models?
I've never done a preorder yet from a GW directy, but I really want to get those dragons, so apologies in advance for this and other questions that will follow.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, novakai said:
TW is a videogame and just playing each other competitive is really the only ways while Warhammer has more social artistic and creative aspect then just a TT game. it just a different community overall too and I don’t think comparison are fair between digital media and physical hobbies.
Here's the funny thing. When in TW:W 1 and 2 Singleplayer people were occasionally attaking Multiplayer crowd for "ruining SP fun with their pointless balance changes and diverting resources from a main game mode for a pointless MP almost no one plays", MP crowd, besides other reasons, defended themself by an argument that WHFB was primarily a tabletop multiplayer game, and as such, TW:W should be focused on good multiplayer balance and support as well.
So yea, there are actually a lot of parallels here x)
-
17 minutes ago, Landohammer said:
The real challenge is getting players and events to adopt the comp.
Its a matter of authority. If GW nerfs your big bad unit, then most people will begrudgingly accept it. But if some rando on the internet tries to nerf it, human nature kicks and and players of that faction tend to revolt.
Consider that T9A had a huge advantage here, because at the time a lot of events were already using the "Swedish Comp" system for tournaments. And so when that team got behind T9A, it really gave the project a sense of authority. You would need a major event coordinator or someone like Goonhammer/AOS Coach to back a comp project for it to have any chance nowadays.
Of course. I do believe though that getting the backing of certain big figures/tournament organizers probably should not be too hard, provided you would have at least a decent ruleset for them - people generally like to promote some variety, and even if your ruleset won't become a new constant, it could still be viewed as playing the base game with a remaster mod for a slightly different kind of fun.
Getting most of the community to be on board with rebalance though would be... tough. It's not just nerfs and buffs that create problems. When you change the rules for a unit or a faction, and make them behave differently, you could alienate some people even when that unit becomes stronger than it was. But as I've said, I understand that this is not easy.1 hour ago, Reinholt said:Having worked in another field, the thing that slays me about this is that there is a solution to crowdsourcing comp: it's called a market.
A very simple proposal, given we have Honest Wargamer and equivalent places keeping score of event results:
- If a faction has < 45% win rate, add 5% of points they can bring each subsequent month until they get into the 45-55% range.
- If a faction has > 55% win rate, remove 5% of points they can bring each subsequent month until they get into the 45-55% range.
To that end, you just slowly bulk up the weak and pare back the strong until you get to balance. Maybe 1900 of Idoneth vs. 2200 of Sylvaneth turns out to be balanced.
What this wouldn't fix is critical failures like either ward stacking or if GW does something pants on head dumb like make a unit accidentally invulnerable or something, but some sort of gentle community mechanism that doesn't rely on specific changes to rules (barring true catastrophic situations) is the kind of method that could get general adoption if done based on aggregate results.
Interesting idea, but getting stable and deep statistics for such undertaking would be somewhat challenging.
-
25 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:
Let's not miss the forest for the trees here; people are willing to put up with Warhammer rules quality for a number of reasons and the quality itself is one of them. GW writes a lot of bad rules and really pushes the boundary for how mind-blastingly inane something can be, but they also write a lot of good rules and often push the bar on stuff that may not be the most balanced but is simply FUN. GW understands that competitive play is very visible but also a very small fraction of the game. A wargame can't run on competitive players alone; it lives and dies by its casual community.
Take the AoS hero & monster actions. While they can and are exploited to cause issues it is hard to deny that outside of those minorities (and even within them to some extent) they are a heck of a lot of fun to play with. More sane rules writers may never have produced such a crazy concept. Warhammer has always thrived on a certain level of madness.
And I feel the above leads into why a lot of fan comps fail; they are so focused on what Warhammer does poorly that they forget the point is to better highlight what Warhammer does well.
Oh, I absolutely agree here. GW can do both crazy good and crazy bad things in term of rules. And fun is one of the things you should never forget, even in a competitive environment. It's just people that are too focused on a heavily competitive things tend to dismiss fun things as they are usually hard to balance x) And, well, one men fun may be another men pain, but that's another story.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Sleboda said:
What happens when a player (who spent their cash of the official rules just like everyone else) decides he doesn't like the ruling of some Council of Basement Dudes and, rightly, expects the game to be played by, oh, the actual rules?
The same thing that happens when a player does not want to play by a ruiling of some Council of Games Workshop : P People like having freedom of choice. And when they spend cash for a FAQ for FAQ for FAQ... yea, that's not great. So having an option to play in a tournament run under one or the other rulesets would be pretty great.
2 hours ago, Sleboda said:Acting like "the community" is ever going to act like a cohesive, agreeable, insightful, intelligent whole? Never gonna happen.
Of course not. But community can create a few centres of gravity in terms of rules, and one of those could eventually become large enough to eclipse official rules. It would not be perfect, it would not make all of us rejoice in unison, it would still produce a lot of screaming and toxicity... yet it could still become better then what we have.
1 hour ago, Nizrah said:Because it not that easy? Look at the 9th age. Game made completly by "fans". Its totally unbalanced just like GW games. Also there is lack of major authority for Age of Sigmar communities. There was such thing for wfb, it was called "euro" rulespack and it was total cancer.
Of course it's not easy. Sure it does not always goes as planned. Yes, it needs time and dedication. But should that stop a community forever from trying it anyway? If it goes well, great, and if it fails, some good ideas will come from it anyway. The main thing here is NOT to have a single big rules project, but at least 3 smaller ones, which would both compete and learn/borrow ideas from each other. That's the best way in my opinion, as this allows for more creative thinking and better natural selection.
52 minutes ago, novakai said:i remember Warhammer weekly made a good point of why He oppose Comp because it would do the opposite and GW would not feel the need to improve or be responsible for their rule writing if the Community all of a sudden started their own.
At the end of the day GW is a model company and even though they sometimes look like they care about competitive play their rules are secondary to them. It like how CA focus on single player over multiplayer aspect of TW:W
I'm thinking that quite an opposite thing would happen - if home rulesets woud become dominant, that would lead to a noticeably less battletomes sales, and that leads to GW trying to fix it. If there is one language this company understands, it's money, and you've seen how hard they push for physical book sales in 40k, they need it.
And true, CA did focus on a SP over MP most of the time. But, thanks to the MP community, our tournaments, rulesets, feedback and even some mods, over the course of WH2, CA quickly realised how great a value can MP generate. So they started investing in it much heavily than in WH1: gradually created mostly great balance (if complared to WH1 it was night and day, first game was extremely unbalanced), started sponsoring grand promotional tournaments and implemented quite a few things from us into the core MP. It is however also true that CA generally listens to feedback much closer than GW, as (for one example) lead balance developer (great guy btw, we love him) was in our then small tournament discord from around 2017, then joined a much bigger Turin Discord, played very well in one tournament and from time to time he still freely talks to us about bugs and balance, including to yours truly. Yea, it was that good. Now just imagine talking to GW lead balance designer on a open Discord server about new battletome instead and you start to see, that GW needs to change some things around.13 minutes ago, Landohammer said:You just perfectly described The Ninth Age lol.
We learned a lot from the Ninth Age experiment, and I personally enjoyed playing it as a means to bridge the gap between the End Times and AOS 2.0. It definitely served a purpose. But it was a MASSIVE amount of work by a lot of talented/dedicated people that ultimately went nowhere.
People will always prefer officially supported games, even if the product is inferior.
Well, I know almost nothing about Ninth Age, so I cannot say anything about that. Still though, if a single project, based on an initially very ploblematic ruleset of WHFB, failed to produced something more balanced and good, does this mean WH community should never attempt this again? I still believe that if we would have not one, but a few rule projects working in parallel, it could eventually lead to a more stable and balanced ruleset, as competition in this field produces much better results. Or at least GW noticing this enough to invest more into quality control would be a satisfactory result.
-
14 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
It'll be fascinating to see whether this is a one-off, or whether it's opened pandora's box and we're going to see the community comping future broken things as well if GW is either unable or unwilling to fix balance things itself.
My guess that such things would still happen in the future, but pretty rarely.
But honestly, just recently I was wondering about this. Why community struggle with GW produced rules of quite a fluctuating quality for so, so long? Why not finally stop buying battletomes, say "no, this service is bad, we'll do it ourselfs" and produce a set or sets of partially or competely remade home rules for all factions and subfactions over time and then play by them at most tournaments? Honestly, coming from TW:W competitive scene, where all tournaments are played by their own rules and army caps (mostly by Shetland then Turin approved ruleset), this strikes me as extremely weird. Sure, it would be rough at first, you'll need a year or even two to rewrite and balance everything properly, but it would open doors wide for community feedback and creativity! Both 40k and AoS communities would be free from current sets of problems (most of imbalance, FAQ wait time, steep power creep, etc), rules would be widely available for everyone... And the best part, if this would eventually become mainstream enough, it would force GW as a corporation to invest in much better rules quality in the future. In other words, win-win.
The most obvious question though would be "and how would we organise such rule creation process?" The answer is quite simple - however you'd like! As long as there are a few sets of home rules in circulation, natural selection will choose the best one and the most popular for most tournaments, while still providing alternatives for some. The most logical way though is to get together a small group or interconnected groups of most experienced and well respected players and start from there, probably beggining from the core rules, trying to keep everything as laconically as possible.
I also do not believe that GW would try to legally stop such a thing (unless they want to make a really, REALLY bad and probably quite illegal PR move). It would not be a free distribution of their battletomes rules (and they are already in a free access on youtube and some other places anyway), but it would be just a free distribution of free home rules, may be somewhat remade from battletome basis, but remade nonetheless. As long as you'd play it with official models, you should be fine.
So, why not?
-
2
-
3
-
-
On 8/31/2021 at 12:24 AM, NinthMusketeer said:
Eh, sometimes it isn't a choice between stand & shoot or unleash hell; it's just stand & shoot or nothing. I agree that crossbows are better though, hangunners really relied on stacking hit buffs to be on par with them. The rend doesn't mean as much anymore either.
I agree it's less of a choice, and more of a "spend a CP for a twice as much (Sisters) or just more (Handgunners) powerful attack from a long distance while being safe" or "get a free complimentary attack for one unit when it's being compromised and when you have no chance to use long range UN in this phase anyway". And the simple fact is that you will rarely use "stand and shoot" not just because it's one per phase together with UH, but because if you have a chance to use a long range version of it, even on a second big unit, you will use a CA most of the time anyway.
This change transformed warscroll overwatch from an unconditional charge deterrence into a consolation prise of 1 CP for when you messed up. Not terrible in itself, but terrible for units that were priced around old functionality. Sisters would still be a great alternative to Irondrakes if they would have been priced at 160 as well (quite less tankiness, quite less buff potential as well, worse bravery, better default damage, more speed and range), while Handgunners need to go down to 95 points, probably even 90.
Also, I do not believe that hit stacking was the main reason for Handgunners success. By default Handgunners are better only versus 2+ save, while Crossbows give much better damage versus 5+ save or worse. And in the AoS 2.0 Crossbows gave better benefits from hit and wound stacking on them if compared to Handgunners with the same buffs (excluding 2+ save). You could aslo stack +2 to hit on Crossbows from outside sources instead of +1 on Handgunners, so Crossbows were and still are a prime target for a General on foot CA, and with 8 extra range as a stationary gunline position behind screens they were quite superior. But there were 3 things that made Handgunners slightly better - long rifle, mobility and overwatch. Long rifle was great with mass MSU Handgunners, and when moving, handgunners lost only +1 to hit instead of +1 to attack, which was a small price to pay for not standing still the whole game. And their overwatch gave them a great spike in damage, so they would usually do around the same damage as Crossbows during the game anyway.
But now Handguns were soft nerfed by hit and save stacking as well as getting their overwatch hard nerfed, while Crossbows got Unleash Hell instead. Sooo yea.
-
At the same time my fears have been made real and Warscroll overwatch is indeed made mostly useless. Now it's an ability that you rather never use both on Sisters of The Watch or on Handgunners. Instead you'd definetly want to spend a CP for a long range Unleash Hell to get double the damage on Sisters or to get a 4+ overwatch on Handgunners. Sister may yet survive this out of the nowhere nerf due to their versatility, but for Handgunners it's a death sentence. Due to their mediorce shooting damage they were balanced around always having a ready 4+ to hit overwatch, not once per phase per whole army 5+ one. Crossbows now are simply much superior.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Oh god this is both hillarious and sad. Still though, while stacking such things on frost phoenixes would be hillariously broken, it kinda feels like overkill most of the time. And you can still get killed by insta kill effects. Now, getting Phoenix and Black Dragon/Griffon with Amulet together, supported by Luminark right behind them... that would be quite good, haha.
Also, inbuild overwatch for Sisters of the Watch and Handgunners is treated the same way as using Unleash Hell CA (means only 1 overwatch of any kind per phase). So, yea... my bad on treating GW rule team as competent in this regard. Clearly, when you introduce overwatch for literally everyone, you need to make inbuild overwatch as bad as possible AND give units that were specialized around it a price hike, so it's like overwatch units are priced around warscroll overwatch that is no longer does much and in best case scenarious should not be used at all (yes, this made me juuust a tad salty).Sisters may yet survive this due to their good versatility and having a possibility to use a much stronger long range Unleash Hell. One CP for double the damage? Yes please! But for Handgunners it's a hammer to the face. Their viability was based both on their usual shooting and around their overwatch hitting on 4+, not 5+, and being ALWAYS available to them. Crossbows now are a much more superior choice.
-
1
-
2
-
-
57 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:
My main sticking point - aside from the total lack of content at launch - is that I cannot shake the sinking suspicion that I'd be basically paying them for the privilege of being advertised to.
Ahah, no, of course you're not paying for a sneaky inbuild newsletter, it's just more Warhammer, more often, all Warhammer news you could possibly want! x)
Jokes aside, even if you completely remove any direct or indirect GW advertisement there, this whole platform concept is basically one big advertisement/promotion and expansion of Warhammer universe/franchise anyway. And in longterm it is a very smart move, so in 20 years GW could both evolve and survive by constantly generating streamed content and using their franchise for shows, games, etc, while selling/giving freely 3D models for advanced 3D printers, not quite being a model company anymore, but a franchise company instead. The problem with this plan for now is that they do not have nowhere near close enough popularity in order to pull it off. And killing off fan animation support so early and so harshly made that task so much harder (and put it solely on GW), all for some very questionable short term profit.
-
Objectively speaking, speding money on WH+ is spending them quite well even now. For 60 bucks for a year you get 2 models, eventual access to 2 functioning apps, 10 free britain pounds on your next order and even some meh content to watch on top (hah).
But honestly, while assasin model does look great, I just want to show GW, that no matter how hard you push, you can't push things half baked, and some guys in upper managment will have to get acquainted with reality for mismanaging this whole mess. The way GW hit themselfs (and the whole WH community) in the knees with fan animation debacle also left a sour taste in my mouth, so... yea.
-
3
-
1
-
-
It kinda feels that GW can be either focused on AoS or 40k, they just can't keep the balance well enough between them. Or may be that's the point, to move the centre of hype between them.
-
I am quite tired that most corporations due to some idiotic managment ethics think that lies, deceit and disregard are mostly better than honesty and transparancy. No they are not, it only works for a time and only versus people that do initially do not give it much though. If you fail your promise, you can't really hide it, but you can lessen the blow by taking it on the chin, not by hiding under the table. Or better yet, be clear about your situation and warn people that you could fail beforehand. An innovative thought, is it not?
It's not that big of a thing for me personally, but such attitude sure feels... condesending.
-
4
-
Cities of Sigmar in AoS 3
in Cities of Sigmar
Posted
Oh well, I hoped for a real rule update, but I guess that's okay? It definetly should have been just a warscroll update, but those don't sell White Dwarfs as well.