AngryPanda
-
Posts
229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by AngryPanda
-
-
3 hours ago, Enoby said:
I'm not sure when the new magazine itself is dropping, but the update itself is already in the public - it's not great unfortunately
Rage incarnate: if a Khorne unit completes a charge that unit increases its damage and rend by one.
Leave none alive: if a Khorne unit destroys a unit in the combat phase that unit can immediately pile into another unit and fight again.
Blood for the blood god: whenever a Khorne model dies it can immediately fight again on a 4+
Would this be it? I’m not sure b/c I found it on Reddit, which is occasionally questionable.
Honestly, it looks ok. It’s going to make my Blood Warriors Dmg 2 -1 rend on the charge, with a Dmg 3 -2 rend goreglave. It’s not going to steam roll tournaments, but it at least gives an alright bonus if a unit charges. It’s most notable on infantry, and Bloodletters may be interesting with -2 rend and Dmg 2.
The pile in after killing a unit works in tangent with the Blood Tithe system (which needs a rewrite); it’s going to be very powerful on bloodthirster units, but not mortals. There’s also no limit on how many times you can do it, meaning if you destroy a unit, you can attack the next one, and if you destroy that one you’ll be able to attack another unit afterwards.
The attack after dying is ok, but it negates the Skullreapers and Bloodtithe rules that do the same. BoK really needs a rewrite, but knowing how incompetent GW is when it comes to writing rules, I have little faith.
-
Any news on when the Khorne White Dwarf update is dropping?
-
7 hours ago, Koala said:
So i did a thing...
How’d you do the leopard cloak? I’m considering doing one as well
-
1
-
-
On 2/25/2022 at 1:59 PM, AngryPanda said:
What happened to balancing battleline with heavy hitters? It’s similar to the mistake they made with Imperial Knights that dominated the 40k meta, where players spammed them at tournaments without repercussion. It removes the fun of building balanced lists with a strategy behind how their played, and instead guides players to building armies that are basic/simplistic without deeper thought. This sort of game design, to me at least, is really boring
3 hours ago, Kitsumy said:so seems my fears were true. we will be forced to only spam thralls..... it would be like a brettonian army without any cavalry. i dont get why everything got nerfed to not affect mounts.
This harkens back to what I was saying a couple days ago, with my fear being that there’s going to be a trend towards building point-and-click armies via unit spam that have little thought behind how they’re built. We’re either going to see monster spam, or thralls.-
2
-
-
On 3/2/2022 at 12:02 PM, Neverchosen said:
This will happen with every single army. Either everyone sees the previews and assumes the army is utterly broken based on a few rules or has been nerfed and is unplayable. Even after the release people are upset when the book is in hand. But once it is on the tabletop the opinions become more nuanced and based on actual experience.
Excluding Slaanesh players who got their cheeks clapped like a latex drum when their terrible battletome dropped. Now we have to wait for what is likely a very long time to hopefully get our broken book fixed. Or, maybe GW will wise up and actually drop the points on our overpriced units, but I doubt it.
-
5
-
1
-
2
-
-
I’ll be pretty excited if we get a Khorne release, my two main armies are both Khorne Bloodbound (Khorne mortals), and Hedonites of Slaanesh (also exclusively Mortal, aside from summoning). I’ve been meaning to shift my focus from painting/basing to more scenery building. If there’s a Khorne book coming along, would give me plenty of time this summer to build a a display table to have the God’s two rival mortal armies be pitted against one another.
-
6
-
-
2 hours ago, OkayestDM said:
I'd like to offer a counterpoint here.
Yes, the BoC buff from the Herdstone is very powerful, but it absolutely requires strategic planning.
Since all of the faction abilities are tied to a terrain piece, all it take is for 1 monster to slip into the BoC backlines and smash it to rubble, and suddenly the BoC player is in a world of hurt, because everything has just been turned off. All bullgors sounds great, but you gamble that you won't have the screening forces necessary to protect the Herdstone.
I'm not saying this is a mastercraft in design (competitivley I can see this being potentially problematic both ways) but I also don't think that this is BoC's final form. These are just the patch rules, whether they make it into the 3.0 book will depend on feedback.
I'll also say that making the Herdstone so central to the BoC is a marvelous case of . . . ludnarrative resonance? The rules compliment the lore here, as Herdstones are central to the BoC spreading raw Chaos, and their foes (even the other chaos factions) are incentivised to destroy them before they warp everything around them beyond repair.
But then you need to bring a monster, which means that if you don’t then you’re putting yourself at a huge disadvantage against BoC. It basically becomes a game of Cat/Mouse against a single terrain piece, which assume you bring the right unit for the right job. If you don’t, you’re being penalized against a very specific army which….I really don’t like the feeling of. It feels very narrowed, almost like the game is pushing you to take monstersC otherwise if you run up against a BoC player you’ll have no significant counters against the stone.
Against armies that utilize zero or two units of monsters, BoC are going to have a significant advantage, but against massed turtles or SoB, it’s going to be a big uphill battle if the herdstone is destroyed; this would force the player into an incredibly defensive play style. It makes the army feel very polarized against certain matchups.
When GW introduced point values to the game and army organization, I remember the army composition limiting the number of monsters and bro options you could take was introduced as a means of preventing players from abusing monstrous creature and hero spam. Now, it seems like they’re moving away from this.
Why introduce a limit on reinforcements, when instead you can take an army of single-entity monsters that are much more point-efficient, and don’t take up reinforcements-costs? There’s a reason why Seraphon have been dominating the meta as thunder lizards; you get to take a ton of super cheap skins to blindly hold objectives followed by large monsters to do most of the killing. In a way, it’s very similar to the issue that used to be very prevailing within 40k tournaments back when imperial soup was a thing: you had players take super cheap conscript units to hold objectives, followed by large imperial knights that destroyed everything they touched. The whole thing seems counter-intuitive to me, and personally I think it’s going to lead to balancing issues in the long run.
-
13 minutes ago, Ogregut said:
It gives people choice.
You don't have to spam magmadroths, turtles, dragons or any other type of spam list but you can if you wish.
I'll rather have a list that allows multiple builds than just one.
I love the direction AoS is going, it's simple, fun and exciting.
I'm going to an event in May and trying to settle on a army. I'm thinking of taking Nurgle and can't decide on a list, I've got 3 so far, each different and plays different.
I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the new battletomes.
I disagree about the choice element. For example, OBR gave you the choice between Petrifix Elite and Ivory Host. Why did (and still do not) nobody play Ivory Host, and everyone play Petrifix Elite? It’s because the rules are terrible for Ivory Host compared to the other subfactions.
Why field Namarti Thralls, which have a lower damage output and low survivability, when you could field an army of turtles with the new monster table special rules?
Why field Slaangors for 130 points, when instead I could invest those points into something that Is much more cost-effective?
The problem with “choice” that GW gives is that it really isn’t a choice, but rather it’s deciding on whether or not to handicap yourself when fielding an army. Most players are simply going to gravitate towards the stronger options in a battletome, while keeping away from the weaker options.
True choice is when you have the ability to choose between different subfactions, units, or lists, and having to make a balanced decision based on the way you want to play. The problem I’m starting to notice very clearly is that there are some obvious winning lists/units that are appearing, with other lists and units taking a very obvious weaker position.
I can tell you from experience that if I were playing either for fun or competitively, I would never take Slaangors because how awful they are.
That’s a bit more of an extreme example because of how terrible Slaangors are, but if I were ever playing Idoneth I would never take thralls off I were playing competitively; I would take turtles mixed with eels because it’s very clearly the stronger option. Or, if I was playing BoC I’d take Minotaurs mixed with some Ungor Raiders because they’re far superior to the other options; I may take a small unit of ungors to hold an objective, but that’s about it.
-
4
-
1
-
-
So, idk if anyone else feels the same way, but I personally don’t like the direction the game is going based on the recent rule releases. I’m a Slaanesh player, so I may be a bit biased when saying this, but I feel the game is becoming less strategic and more “one trick pony.”
For example, I don’t like how the Beastmen were updated. I 100% believed that they were deserving of an update because of how outdated their army was, but the update they received makes the army very simplistic. Having their scenery piece give the entire army increased rend without any prerequisites/strategic planning is silly because it doesn’t require the BoC player to do anything, and yet is such a powerful bonus. It’s parallel to when OBR were first released and had Petrifix Elite give a blanket +1 save to a sub faction. As a BoC player, you can spam Minotaurs with great axes, and delete the opposing army with some of the highest rend attacks in the game.
Now, Fyreslayers get a blanket ability to spam monsters, and Idoneth also get the ability to spam their biggest monsters as well.
What happened to balancing battleline with heavy hitters? It’s similar to the mistake they made with Imperial Knights that dominated the 40k meta, where players spammed them at tournaments without repercussion. It removes the fun of building balanced lists with a strategy behind how their played, and instead guides players to building armies that are basic/simplistic without deeper thought. This sort of game design, to me at least, is really boring
-
9
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Enoby said:
I think the rules team likely have a lot on their plate (and perhaps too few of them) so they end up with disjointed feeling rules that don't make that much sense
It’s a shame because sometimes it feels as though 40K gets better treatment over AoS with rule writing and FAQ; though CSMs not having 2 wounds by now speaks the opposite.
10 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:If it's Valkia, I hope she comes with a bunch of Khorne jump infantry! That would be pretty dang awesome
Khorne being a melee-centric with barely any shooting, and no magic, leaves the army much to be desired in regards to closing the gap. There are Flesh Hounds and Bloodcrushers, but having a flying infantry- melee unit would be very unique to Chaos grand alliance as a whole. I don’t want to wishlist too much, but a Valkia update would make a lot of sense, if Khorne were to receive an update anytime soon (which they badly need).-
4
-
-
I was rereading the Slaangor warscroll out of curiosity, and I noticed their “Obsessive Violence” special rule, which I initially misread that it only causes a single mortal wound on a +4 to a unit of choice.
Instead, it says that you roll a dice for each model in an enemy unit of your choice within 3 inches at the end of the combat phase, and on a +4 you cause a mortal wound.
If I’m interpreting it correctly, then that would mean that you’d be able to effect my cut single wound chaff/horde units in half. For example, if you have a unit of 60 Clanrats, you roll 60 dice, unless they have some sort of way to negate mortal wounds, they’d lose (on average) half the models in their unit.
If this is true, because of the 3 inch range, I can essentially put these guys behind a unit of Painbringers and cause somewhat consistent mortal wound output, just for the price of 130 points.
edit:
nevermind, it’s per slaangor model and not per model in enemy unit; Slaangors still suck
-
1
-
4
-
1
-
-
On 1/13/2022 at 12:58 PM, Carnelian said:
Difficulty with OBR and a few mortals here and there is they just got healed back up by Arkhan. Think I need to focus fire more on them next time
You could use shooting to pick them off; OBR mortek guard cannot reroll saves against shooting attacks. Mortal wounds are also great (which we have an abundance of), and think Glutos would work well against them with a life swarm nearby to restore wounds as he casts his constant -1 hit aura. In a way, you can beat them at their own game by tanking hits and restoring wounds.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, EccentricCircle said:
I think the thing to remember is that those of us who care about updates, metas and the upcoming release schedule at all aren't the bulk of the customer base. We talk loudest on the internet, but there are a lot of people who only play and collect casually. Around here, you get the impression that if you are a fan of an army, you buy all the units soon after release (or at least enough for 2k points) and then sit around waiting for more shiny things. However, there are a lot of folks, young people in particular, who don't have that kind of disposable income. They might play with basically a couple of boxes, and maybe get a bigger monster at christmas. For casual players there is no rush to update, and a single hero model, who can more or less be bought at a whim, is probably a pretty nice addition. For that audience, Fyreslayers aren't a ridiculous lineup.
A lot of folks wont even know how old the book is, let alone be hampering for an update.
By your description I’m more of a casual player. I like to collect an army over a period of time because of school commitments, and when I have the opportunity I paint what I already have. Plus, I like to take my time with what I paint by carefully basing and layering, as opposed to washing over a layer of contrast paints and callIng it a day, which also means that I don’t purchase as often because I like also finish my projects before buying more. Occasionally I might buy something on sale or if a battlebox is released, but that’s pretty much it. I have both a Slaanesh and Khorne collection that I’ve been gradually building for a couple of years, and until school is over, I probably won’t have enough time to finish them.
Something to also consider is that a Warhammer army is more akin to a fixed asset, meaning that once you’ve purchased a model, it usually stays in value for a number of years and doesn’t need to be traded/replaced often. For example, I have ten Painbringers in my HoS army, and it’s likely I won’t need to replace them anytime soon b/c they’ll probably still be in style for the next 10+ years or so.
-
3 hours ago, Neverchosen said:
@JackStreicher So is your rumour that we are switching from posterboys to postergirls? If so I dig it!
As one of WH+ most ardent critics I might be down for a Chaos Sorcerer and some AOS love... but only if they keep discounting WH+ memberships to the point that I am basically pre-ordering the mini.It looks like he got plastic surgery; can his face get any tighter?
-
7 hours ago, novakai said:
i wonder if all of them picture is of the same model?
i would dare say this is a pretty good size model (bigger than your standard hero model) since the book has to be pretty good size to freehand that lettering so clearly
Something to consider is that this model has multiple arms. Looking closely, you can see a hand writing/point towards something in the book within the third photo, and the other hand flipping a page on the last photo. However, on the first photo it’s clearly holding a lantern. Either this model has multiple arms, has multiple figures on it (indicating it may be a larger model), or are photos are showing two separate models.
-
1 hour ago, zilberfrid said:
Well, we already had this image in Soulbound:
So I think we can say female fyreslayers exist.
She looks like Chucky
-
1
-
5
-
-
If there is one thing I learned about life and the internet in general, is that everyone has an opinion, and that they usually treat said opinion is fact (ironically this statement mimics this concept).
However, in very rare instances people universally come together and agree to something. When this happens, it’s very likely what is being agreed upon is completely factual, or so fundamentally misunderstood that we as a society or group have failed to some capacity.
The universal agreement that Slaangors are bad is most likely the first. They’re so bad, there are no counter arguments, nothing that can be said to support them; there’s nowhere where I’ve seen anyone ever mention that they’ve had success with Slaangors, ever. If GW were to release a survey that asked us what unit was the biggest success, and which was the most disappointing, I guarantee Slaangors will be the winner.
GW is very, very stubborn when it comes to changing warscrolls. I don’t know why, but they are very keen on keeping warscrolls the same through updates despite some obvious flaws (Blades of Khorne mortals have needed serious help for a very long time). I don’t expect Slaangors to get much love in the future, maybe if we are incredibly lucky in an update will see something, but I doubt it.
The upside, however, is that the battlebox that was released comes with only one squad, which is perfect if you just want to own the models. Also, they’re pretty good in warcry, which is a great game to play if you only want to have quick skirmishes with your Slaanesh models; that’s where I plan to use my Slaangors.
-
2
-
1
-
-
I think the point changes are a nice little boost; Painbringers and Twinsouls were already the better of our two troop choices, and to get a point decrease is going to help a number of lists and give them a little bit more wiggle room to fit what they want in. Below is a list I thought of that wasn’t possible before because of the point costs, but now I’m able to field; the Bladebringer (who hits like a train) will pair nicely next to my Slickblades. I’ll also be able to generate enough command points to pull off a couple of combos.
Invaders- 2000/2000
Warlord Battalion
- Extra Enchantment: additional artifact
Heroes:
Glutos- 475
- Spell: Dark Delusions
Bladebringer - 265
General #1
Command Trait: Delusions of Infallibility
Artifact: Rapier of Ecstatic Conquest
- Spell: Flame Spell
Lord of Pain- 155
General #2
Artifact: Rod of Misrule
Triumph: Inspired
Batteline:
Blissbarb Archers x 10- 170
Blissbarb Archers x 10- 170
Painbringers x 10- 290
Monsters-
Mindstealer Sphiranx- 95
Calvary:
Slickblade Seekers- 230
Endless Spells:
Emerald Swarm (60)
Dreadful Visage (90)
Summons:
Fiends
Daemonettes
Keeper of Secret
Infernal Enrapturess
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Jaskier said:
I'm going to laugh so hard if this announcement about an update coming this week is just a setup to reveal they have delayed it. Like, that would be the most GW move ever, especially after weeks of refusing to offer any clarity on if the update was even still coming in the month they told us it would be in.
I bet they’re going to release a teaser that goes along the lines of “we’ve heard a ton of community feedback, and we are delighted to say that we’ve made some much needed improvements to one of the most request units: Slaangors”
This gets everyone hyped, and when the update drops it’s revealed that they buff their bravery by +1, with some designer commentary stating that the issue isn’t that they hit like a sack of wet tissue paper, it’s that they’re just not brave enough to take on the pain they’re gonna suffer in return because of how much they suck! This is followed by another point increase for Slaanesh, with the removal of some of their abilities (no longer able to take Lurid Haze, etc.)
-
3
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Gothmaug said:
The longer I wait for new models, the more time I find myself browsing Etsy and other model manufacturers. And the more I do that, the more wonderful non-GW models I keep finding out there. I'm not a tournament player, and I like to build conversions, so if my army isnt 100% GW models, it doesn't matter. Considering the high cost of GW models, the competition is looking better and better each day.
I know there's always been the "high quality" argument, and that GW charges a fortune for high end product and supporting a business, but frankly, with 3D printing tech on the rise, they are no longer the epitome of quality they once were. I find myself buying character models and unique heroes from GW, but for generic stuff (60+ zombies im looking at you), i find myself turning to the 3rd party guys more and more. I can buy 60 GW zombies for $160 bucks, or I can buy 60 zombies for $60, and still have $100 left to drop on zombie dragon, and then go grab some lunch with the rest of the cash.
And GW's feeling the pressure, or I assume so, looking at how they cracked down on 3rd party operations this past year. I don't fault them for this, people shouldn't copy GW's models for resale. But I do fully support those artists who design their own models from the ground up (creature caster I love you), or produce generic monsters (skellies, orks, zombies, etc) that GW cant copyright.
Amyhow, just some lunchtime ramblings, as I sit here and peruse the Warhammer community articles for the day, looking for AOS stuff. 😁
I agree with GW feeling the pressure, but I think the pressure that they are feeling isn’t because of the growing competition from 3D printers or 3rd Party sellers, but rather it’s the encroaching/looming threat that they potentially pose. It’s like they know or having a feeling that a storm is coming, and even though they’re doing good right now, there’s an underlining fear that it could completely turn upside down on them.
I’m not a business person nor do I have specific training in business-related decisions, but something that I do know is a well-understood fact is that businesses absolutely need to adapt (technologically, methodology of running the business, image/morals, etc.) in order to continue as a success. GW is riding the high wave at the moment, but that can change quickly if they don’t continue to grow and adopt to modern needs.
There’s a lot of people online that are saying because of Henry Cavill and Tom Holland, GW has gone mainstream; I disagree because it’s still unknown to a number of people, and is only starting to potentially catch on with some audiences. Instead, this is showing that it has the potential to become more mainstream, and I think of GW wants to continue succeeding, they’ll need to expand their business model and IP to a somewhat broader audience (video games, TV shows, etc.)
I guess my main point is that making the majority of their profits on miniatures may not be smart in the long run because of how it’s getting much easier each year to print one’s own miniatures, and GW knows this is the case and has tried damage control by limiting what models you can bring to tournaments, official events, or stores based on whether they are converted or purchased from third parties. But this may not last very long, and they’ll probably need to expand early on to other means of making revenue, otherwise they may be in trouble.
-
1
-
-
I like Slaanesh’s endless spells, even though they’re expensive (though everything in HoS is overpriced). They all have their uses, but I like the mirror because it can snipe heroes and do some early board control, or the wheels because they generate early depravity and do decent damage.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Enoby said:
Nice to see you around again!
I think, regardless of how well Slaanesh sold, it's very likely it would have sold better had their rules been better - but even then, it's hard to get hard knowledge from internet feelings.
I can say with confidence (though admittedly no hard facts, just anecdotes and what we can take from the survey) that Slaanesh would have sold better had the reception of its rules been better. There have been countless people who have said "loved the models, but heard they were in a really bad spot competitively". It almost didn't matter if they were bad or not, all that mattered was the internet consensus was "book bad" and that was enough to put some people off - and definitely not a good luck on the rules team as a whole. In fact, I'd say this is the most negative the community has been about a book in AoS.
In a way, if the book did sell badly and they could trace it back to rules, I'd hope they'd at least take that as a good reason to take a second look at the rules and make some public changes before the battleforce went on sale. Even from a pure corporate greed perspective, if they buff Slaanesh significantly then the battleforce box will likely win those over who are on the fence, whereas doing nothing would likely not sway them.
I do think that, if any warscroll needs a change, it's the Slaangor - and the vast majority of people in the AoS online sphere agree on this. Maybe they'll think it's not worth buffing, or think it's too risky to buff (rather than nerf) such a recent release, but I'd like to think they can add extra end and extra damage as an easy fix that would be very unlikely to break them. Give them extra rend, +1 damage, and run and charge and they'd actually be a pretty great unit in my opinion (and much closer to their lore).
Finally, it's almost certain that the rules team know the general consensus of the battletome - it'd be close to impossible for them to not to, not just from the survey but also from pretty much every online discussion surrounding Slaanesh. I think the GHB, regardless of how strong or weak we turned out to be, would have had the same points. The AoS 3 FAQ would have given us the changes we got as they were all standard changes that looked like nerfs (e.g. removing rerolling saves was game wide).
I'd say that this coming FAQ is the only FAQ that we can say was definitely made with the appropriate amount of hindsight and data available. If we see no changes here, then we can assume GW does not see a problem at all - at least not yet. That doesn't mean the changes will be big (after all, it would be reckless of them to give out too many buffs and risk creating a monster), but if we see something positive then we know GW is listening.
If we're lucky, we'll see some larger scale changes, but I wouldn't count on it.
I agree with your points, though I’m still very skeptical; within less than a year (assuming they change the points again next month), it would mean that Slaanesh would receive three (!) point value changes since February of this year. I’m not sure if GW would be willing to make these changes so rapidly; there might be a change to Slaangors, but if there any changes to the points they’d probably be minuet at best as you mentioned.
I’ve been a Blades of Khorne player since 2016, and GW has yet to update any of the mortals to actually be decent. Blood Warriors will continue to be bad unless they also get a revamp, whereas the other mortal units are “ok” and don’t do anything unique/special. The best way to field a Khorne army is through bloodthirster spam and cheap bloodeavers to fill necessary battleline slots.
It just seems that GW is very slow when it comes to updating armies have obvious problems, and even though updating the points or warscrolls would be the logical thing to do, there’s a slew of other armies that have been neglected for a while now and haven’t been fixed (Skaven, Sylvaneth, GSG, BoK, NH). It just seems general trend is to not fix stuff, and then move onto other projects.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:
Here's hoping you're dead wrong.
Yea, I’m hoping I’m wrong as well; but looking at GWs track record I don’t have much hope. Before every rumored update since the book released earlier this year, I’ve walked into with my hopes high only to have my expectations dashed. Now I’m starting to take a linear outlook, and when it comes to Slaanesh it doesn’t seem as if GW has a grasp on how to balance the book. Not from a rule perspective (I also think the rules are pretty good), but by balancing the points/summoning.
Personally, I think it’s because they’ve adopted the philosophy that it’s better to have an army that’s underpowered and doesn’t impact gameplay, than create an army that overpowered and rocks the meta. At least by choosing the latter, they play it safe by not rumbling the jimmies of everyone in the community, as opposed to only collectors of Slaanesh.
But who knows, maybe GW waited to get more data from tournaments before making changes. There has been some recent tournament results that have shown Slaanesh to be in the lower half, but not all the way at the bottom.
Deep down, I really want point adjustments and for them to do Slaangors justice because of how great the modes are, but the book has been out less than a year, and to see such warscroll changes from such a recent release is something I’ve yet to see from GW in a while, unless it was an accident on their part.
I also have a suspicion that Slaanesh didn’t sell as well as other armies because of the poor rule reviews and overall anger from the community. The release of a battle box this early after the book’s release is unusual; this is more common to occur after over a year an army has been out so it can inspire people to begin collecting again. My guess is that they’re trying to get rid of the Slaanesh models that are overstocked from poor sales. In any case, it be interesting to see their sales figures for the Slaanesh releases, compared to other releases.
So, they may buff the units to incentivize us to buy, but I’m very doubtful.
-
1
-
-
Hey guys 👋 it’s been a while; I’ve been lurking around the forums but I haven’t been participating because I’ve been so busy. Exams are around the corner, and I was thinking of picking up the new Slaanesh box for Christmas as a nice award for myself on getting through exam season; I’m going to use the Slaangors for Warcry.
Regarding the December update, I have 100% confidence Games Workshop is going to either nerf or ignore Slaanesh. At this point, whenever I feel GW is going to give us something fair, they’ve turned around every time and did the exact opposite, or at least put a “twist” on it that took away more than what we asked.
Slaanesh needs a new book that takes the focus away from heroes being the only source of depravity? That’s a great idea, and while we’re at it let’s just jack up the points and make every unit overpriced.
The entirety of the community is within agreement saying the points are too expensive from both an insightful survey we got from some passionate fans, and community figures who actually play the game at a tournament level? No problem, let’s just increase the points across the board again within the summer 3.0 update.
Oh, people are saying we completely dropped the ball on Slaangors, and that we should rewrite their warscroll? Just to be safe, I think what they’re trying to say is that Slaangors need their points increased by 10; that would really get those barely sold Slaangor models to fly off the shelves!
Actually, Slaanesh seems too powerful; that guy in that tournament or whatever won 5-0; we gotta nerf the army because that guy just showed us this army is too good and isn’t fair for the struggling LUMANITH who’ve not gotten enough; those sentinel archers are terrible! Yea we gotta nerf them even more, really teach those power-hungry Slaanesh players a lesson.
At this point, it wouldn’t surprise me that one or more members of the rule team occasionally reads what we posts, and remembers when they got tabled multiple times by some guy with a neckbeard the size of a small child and fingers covered who grease and Cheetos, who used the original HoS book with the old OP Locus of Diversion. They probably still have PTSD, and want to make us suffer like they did by giving us updates that are the exact the opposite of what we suggest/wish for.
I’m predicting that if we are to get a point decrease (which I have little hope we will), it’s going to be “balanced” with higher summoning costs. It would also be hilarious if they bumped Slaangors by two bravery, and consider that to be the warscroll rewrite that the community has been asking for.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by AngryPanda
I swear the inconsistency with GW rules team either means they’re incredibly incompetent, or they snort some sort of crack cocaine when writing the rules that gives them a mind numbing high or low, and depending on where they are in this roller coaster of a trip dictates how good the book is going to be.
But seriously, how do BoC get a rend increase across the board that makes Minotaurs hit harder than a sack of bricks, whereas BoK get this slathering of poop?