Ganigumo
-
Posts
1,578 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Ganigumo
-
-
20 minutes ago, novakai said:
So unfortunately its basically the same system.
I'm shocked BTs are still in the "first blood" battleplan, its an easy thing to leave out for starter games.
The core book tactics are legal in the GHB, interesting. if its not just for the first season they're going to get very old.
GA tactics are the same thing as faction ones, with a bigger risk of some armies not being able to do them well.
Its not lost on me that the destruction one previewed is the hardest out of the 4. Like its actually incredibly tough unless you're playing ironjawz. you can triple charge a single unit, destroy it, and still fight but still.-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, AquaRegis said:
I still think the spider fang are in the danger zone of being squatted from GSG, as they are present in the old world, and GW hates you being able to use models in two separate games.
If they get an updated model of some kind, or a revamp then they are completely safe and the current models will get siloed off into the Old World. If they don't then they will probably go the way of Bonesplittaz.
Thing is, if they were getting shipped off to old world exclusively, why wouldn't they do it at the same time as bonesplitterz/BoC/Gitz line cuts.
-
3 minutes ago, novakai said:
Some armies can’t avoid it like LRL where I believe every hero is a spell caster of some sort
in fact if the 2 armies that have spearhead boxes the one for FEC has a Abbhorant ghoul king which is currently still a spellcaster.
Spearhead boxes will probably rewrite the wizard spell into a buff, maybe on a single die roll, with no unbinds or miscasts/etc.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Ookami said:
Regarding gitmob release, I think it'd be better for them to get their own tome or be moved to KB. They differ a lot from the concept of crazy shroom-eaters and cave dwellers. Expanding their range within GSG tome will make tome bloat. I've always been wondering why they put gitmob in GSG army, unless it is just a temporary harbour. They don't even have synergy with any of GSG heroes or traits.
I'd be fine with their own tome, maybe they'll take spiderfang too, but I think we should expect more warclans-like battletomes in the future, to reduce the number of total battletomes.
2 hours ago, DD-Lord said:I'll be painfully honest with my thoughts here. I really don't understand why so many of you here believe the Gitmob is coming back; they were squated for the same reason the Greenskins were; they were old models without any new ideas or concepts to expand them beyond just that. And you seem to base your belief about their return entirely on the existence of the Snarlfangs. I seriously don't get it.
High elves were squatted because of lumineth, in that same vein greenskinz were squatted for kruleboyz. I know the models were also old, etc. but they had to have been planning the kruleboyz range at the time they squatted them (2019), and kruleboyz are our greenskinz reimagining. Narratively there's a bunch of differences, but when you look at the units available it maps into kruleboyz pretty well.
Its possible gitmob was squatted just because they were old and didn't make it into the gitz book, but its also possible they had plans for a refresh there as well. Gitmob continued to show up in narrative stuff (broken realms stories) and received 2 kits after they got squatted.-
1
-
-
Just now, Augusto said:
So what are we expecting for gloomspite gitz new expansion? besides armored troggoths and gitmob hero or chariot
new grots and spiders, after that the moon's the limit.
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, Landohammer said:
Ok so keep in mind that we had 8 editions of Warhammer Fantasy and 2 editions of sigmar where battle tactics weren't really a thing. What we learned from those editions is that if you make a game solely about killing power, lists become homogenized as the most lethal/survivable units become clear and the rest of the units fall to the wayside. An "ideal list" becomes obvious quite quickly. Its why we have objectives and secondaries now.
The BT system is meant to reward preparation and strategy in addition to raw killing power. You can argue that the secondary system is not good, but arguing that secondaries themselves are bad for the game is a bold argument and goes against like 20+ years of game development.
I have played game systems where you just push forward and fight and whoever gets the most kills wins. That's essentially what TOW is now (with a bit more nuisance of course). But IMHO its not what AOS is meant to be.
I'm not arguing that secondaries are bad. I'm arguing that the current system isn't great, and any system that rewards you for doing stuff tangential to the primary game is going to feel weird and out of place especially if you care about the narrative of a battle. Plus they become busywork if you can solve them(skill ceiling), so its just playing the old game with extra steps. I'd be a lot more forgiving of the skill ceiling if the system was less complex, and somewhat more forgiving of the complexity if the skill ceiling was higher.
Seasonal rules, and balance updates can play just as big a role in pushing people to play certain units as specialized battle tactics, and we still get those "ideal lists" anyways, the only difference is that the heavy handedness of the seasons would kill them faster than we're used to.
A lot of problems stem from BTs trying to be battleplan agnostic too. I'd be quite happy if secondary scoring got built into the battleplans. Where sometimes you could have kill points, sometimes something close to BTs, etc. In that way having a variation on secondaries would both make games feel less "samey" and encourage diverse lists since you need to be able to adapt to the different secondary systems.
You could maybe fix the current system with incredibly tight BT writing and strict unified design constraints on them, but I'm not sure its worth it. I haven't played much 40k 10th, and i'm not a huge fan of how it handles secondaries, but at least it knows what its trying to do with them. Take consistent ones you can achieve (safe), gamble on random with more potential for points (risky), and gambits as the super risky comeback mechanic where you give up on the primary.-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Landohammer said:
If we exclusively focus on the GHB tactics, I don't agree with anything you said lol. Secondary objectives require you to build your army a certain way or to take units that excel at things besides dealing massive damage/absorbing damage. Remove them and you just end up with armies purpose built to kill with maximum efficiency.
AOS is the simplest of the big four games and I do not see new players struggle with generic BTs. Most just use those little cards that come in the GHB and may take a minute to read through them at most. I'm not saying its super easy, but its not any more complicated than learning their warscrolls/spells/allegiance abilities etc.
I play every week and I am never bored with BTs. They require planning. For example deploying so you are outside of 30" from enemy wizards for magical dominance, or positioning so you are able to get Surround and Destroy next turn.
Just as they require you to build your army a certain way they also hurt armies that can't be built that way.
BT selection always takes people out of the game in my experience, and people can take a while to decide. Sure it might just be a minute or two, but it feels like an interruption.The more I play at events the less I like BTs. If you stick to a single army the effect is way worse. I played Big Waaagh! for a couple, literally every game the same 5 in the same order, and I would often go 5/5 even if I got tabled. Played Kruleboyz for a few, same 5-6 every game, roughly the same order. Yes, you do need to plan for BTs, but my issue is that its a solvable system. You'll optimize your play and do the same plan every game. "I'm going first? I'll plan for a t1 magical dominance and a t2 surround and destroy, then save intimidate for t4/t5" Then you do that (with that army) nearly every game you play until a new GHB drops. Usually the way BTs get denied is by your opponent (mostly) tabling you anyways so they can't score any.
in my opinion the problem is the skill ceiling for BTs is way too low, while the complexity tax is too high. Either raise the skill ceiling or make it simpler.
I also really hate the narrative of a lot of them. Magical dominance sounds cool, but the play is to hide a wizard in a corner and cast a spell that probably can't reach anyone useful. Reprisal? Yeah the optimal strategy is to get my general killed so I can score more points. I get there's a desire to not have the game just be about killing stuff, but its a wargame. taking the table is the game, optimizing for damage/defense is how you take and hold objectives. Forcing people to play suboptimally, or bring bad units, to score points is just taxing victory. You go from playing with 2000 points, to playing with 1600 points and 400 points of junk to score points. Just shrink the armies at that point. Honestly having BTs being stuff you want to do anyways isn't even bad design, it forces you to communicate a plan to your opponent, which lets them burn what resources they can to try to deny it. The system might be better that way, it would certainly fix the narrative issues.-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, Landohammer said:
If the faction BTs are going away as rumoured then I am totally fine with it.
If every faction has access to the same BTs then this is a great change. The issue with BTs has always been that some armies require you to jump through crazy hoops (see Sylvaneth, Nighthaunt) while others just require you to just stand around (See Tzeentch and Slaves to Darkness)
I play/assist with tournaments every month and most games get completed. I don't think incomplete games is a wider problem, but more specific to certain players/playstyles.
There are substantial design problems with 3e's secondary system that weren't just tied to accessibility (faction BTs).
Obviously they dropped the ball on balancing them, as they clearly never considered army strength when they wrote them initially. A weak army, with easy BTs could make for a balanced design as an example, even if its not fun to play. The ones they patched in with battlescrolls were aimed at balance, but were also just addressing that the first few tomes had particularly bad/few BTs.
In terms of design BTs are terrible for new players, because you've got to weigh 6-10 options and don't know what any of them are.
They're bad for experienced players too, since its actually a solveable system for most armies. you do the same 5-6 every game, in roughly the same order, and makes every game feel the same since you need to get 5/5 every game to do well. This isn't even an issue of they're too easy, the top players are going to go 5/5 every game unless you make all of them very difficult to the point where newer players are going to get maybe 1 or 2 out of 5 every game.
They're pretty good if you're in the middle, where you're still figuring the system out and enjoy weighing the options.
This is a huge design problem because that's pretty much the worst demographic to target with a secondary system like this. Making it easy for new players makes onboarding easier, but makes it less effective at breaking close games (and probably boring) for competitive play, and targeting competitive players makes it bad for new players, but it becomes a great way to help break ties and decide close games.
There's also a lot of conflicting priorities when it comes to BTs as a whole. Failing BTs feels bad (git gud etc), but it just becomes busywork if everyone is going 5/5. Some BTs are given out like pity points to make games closer, but if its supposed to help decide winners shouldn't it be a win-more mechanic?
WH weekly did a fantastic show about it last year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6QyHanz-IYFor reference, my preferred system would be taking like 1-3 "Grand strategies". Then you make them difficult or easy to interact with/deny. With some being end of game checks, and others being "if you did this difficult thing at any point you score it".
-
8
-
-
2 minutes ago, dmorley21 said:
Tyler from Warhammer Weekly released old favorite battleplans updated for 3rd edition called Warcoda. Border War was one of these and was a lot of fun to play. So it can work well with battle tactics.
In the both versions of border war in warcoda the tactics are only worth 2points. for 6 or 7 primary/2 BT. This new one has 6 primary/4BT. which feels like a pretty significant bump when the max points you can score without the "home" objective is 3 points on all versions.
-
43 minutes ago, OkayestDM said:
Path to Glory saw a huge improvement in 3e, but still missed the mark in my book. I'm more confident that they can make appreciable improvements to this again, but my big ask is that they just incorporate a faction-specific Anvil of Apotheosis section into each Battletome, designed to work with Path to Glory. Give me this and I could even overclock them completely fumbling on battle tactics (I only play casually anyway, so it isn't like they'll be hard to ignore.)
I would trade a lot of the listbuilding complexity we have in the game for AoA to be matched play enabled. Artefacts, spell lores, battalions, seasonal rule options, unit options/upgrades.
Being able to have your guy actually lead your army is such a good feature. A lot of narrative would naturally flow from that direction too.41 minutes ago, Chikout said:They're worth the same proportion of victory points as they are in every current battleplan. In the new version it looks like there will usually be 10 points up for grabs rather than the current 5. I definitely share your concern about the battle tactics article though. I have a feeling it's going to to be the most debated article of the preview.
Border war might actually be ruined by the presence of BTs, since it predates them, and they're still worth 4vp on it and its one of the ones previewed.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, The_Tallest_Ork said:
If battle tactics have to stick around, I'm glad their scoring is less convoluted than 40k's secondaries. Hopefully the tactics themselves are better designed too.
Underdog bonuses seem like just that: a nice little bonus. Cool to have, potentially helpful, not at all game-breaking.Hopefully they don't overtune the underdog bonuses. I despise nexus collapse because of how sandbagging is the optimal strategy.
-
Just now, Acrozatarim said:
Glad to see grand strategies getting the boot, as they were basically the 'strategy of what I was going to do anyway'.
On the contrary I'd much rather than GS than BT.
Battle tactics are really weird narratively. I get the use case of having a secondary scoring system, and tying it to things that aren't things that you do anyways to win the game is an extra challenge, but so much of it feels like busywork and intentionally making "bad' strategic decisions to score points.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:
@Ganigumo I do hope everything is not mounted. I'd like some foot troops as well.
Also I like the "boring" aspect of just normal grots.
I think they'll still be part of gitz, so from a strategy perspective thats moonclan's gimmick.
-
9 minutes ago, Vagard said:
My thoughts:
- I thought upping the scoring to 6/4 from 3/2 was wierd but I don't hate that every battleplan is designed to have a max score of 50 points. I like this. Although I very much agree that events should just treat all 5-0s as being first place, and we should be comfortable with multiple 1sts.
- Battle tactics 🤮 Extra 🤮 on border War. Either table your opponent or be better at doing backflips. BTs are worth more than the primary unless you cap the home objective (I really hope we actually see BTs soon and they're different than the 3e ones)
- Suggested Terrain Layout: I absolutely love this, its a massive improvement. having a suggested terrain layout also helps when you write BTs/GSs that care about terrain placement.
- Seasonal honor guard: Seems like it might be boring, which is good for the first season of an edition.
-
2
-
15 hours ago, Warboss Gorbolg said:
I’m skeptical that we’ll get Gitmob. If there is another grot faction, I think it will be more creative than Gitmob. Grot sky pirates would be my wish but I think any Mad Max version of grots would be great to give Destruction a technological faction.
Guess I feel like Gitmob is too vanilla and Middle Earth for AOS, and GW is therefore less likely to invest in them.
15 hours ago, Luperci said:I expect if it happens it'll be like SBGL or LRL, a clear replacement of the old stuff but with new ideas. Maybe we see stuff like the snarlfang riders but multiple grots on a bear, or a giant wolf avatar like fenrir from norse mythology. I think it'd be cool to see a frazzlegitz/gitmob/hobgrot khaganate faction with some kinda aos twist.
Gitmob had enough wacky stuff to fit into AoS (pump wagons, doom divers). They just need to play those elements up a bit, and drop the boring elements.
The light of hysh apparently makes them extra clever, so they could push the crazy contraptions a bit further, and I imagine they'll play the nomadic element up way more.
Everything needs to be mounted, so chariot mounted artillery platforms (doom diver is a must), return of pump wagons, and some extra spice.-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Luperci said:
if you're talking about the harbingers as a sign for a gitz release, then fyreslayers should also be getting a release wave. Do we think nurgle's getting a release wave too? New plaguebearers and drones, maybe pestigors too
Harbingers led into trugg.
But the signs as I see it are:-
Old world split: We need new grots, and to either get rid of or update spiders, and maybe updated fellwaters
- If they were getting rid of spiders they would've done it now, but they didn't, which means they're in the index. They only got rid of the resin scuttleboss.
-
Gitz are very popular, and if they started working on a second gitz wave ASAP we'd probably be seeing it around then.
- I think they underestimated the popularity, look at lumineth/StD releases as a comparison for what they do for popular armies
- The snarlfang rider kit was a very weird off one-off. There's rumors about it being the AoS team "staking a claim" to gitmob, if so it might've been pushed up in its release date from this release.
I'm not actually sure if Gitmob will show up, but I'm expecting at least new spider riders, a new arachnarok, new grots, probably a replacement scuttleboss thing (might just be a monstrous cav unit). Gitmob could get fleshed out decently with 3-5 kits so its possible since then you'd have a release of 4-9 kits.
-
1
-
Old world split: We need new grots, and to either get rid of or update spiders, and maybe updated fellwaters
-
4 minutes ago, ScionOfOssia said:
I think the largest armies in the game can stand to take a single foot hero this edition while the smaller factions get wave 2s.
Its not a statement on which armies should get updates, but I think there are a lot of signs for a gitz release. If it was based on need Fyreslayers and Ogors would be at the top. We all know popular armies get way more support though, and I think they underestimated the popularity of gitz before they released.
-
3
-
-
16 minutes ago, novakai said:
Well going by history
Greenskinz/wanderers/swifthawk agents: exist in the background but rarely mentioned again if at all
Gitmob: exists in the background but did came back with one mini
Lion rangers/order Draconis/ Eldritch council : umm we forgot about these guys
Phonecium: your city get blown up
gitmob are definitely being built back up again after being squatted. I'm fully expecting another gitz wave in the first year of aos4 to release new grots and spiders so ToW can have the current ones, I could see gitmob making it in if the release is big enough.
-
Their last published actual stats from March 7th:
Battlescroll results:
Gigabuff Sylvaneth, good buffs to DoK
Give Warclans pointless pity buffs.
No bias at all... -
6 minutes ago, Baron Klatz said:
You literally said LotR movement trays before that. 😂
It fits the same though, closer blocks but they still will have enough room between troops to move around, rotate into better positions and pile in or slide around terrain.(not to mention the troops like draconith & gossamids who get extra coherency to do more)
I mean this is almost the same debates we had when the AoS3 rules dropped and people blew up about closer coherency rules then too.
We’ll adapt and keep have fun with our heroic blobs and solo heroes like always. Especially with how great the rest of the rules look. 👍 ⚡️
we'll adapt yeah, but coherency was the biggest and most common complaint of all of aos3. Makes me wonder if they thought the complaint was only because we couldn't fight with all our models.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Sarouan said:
Rend reduced across the game is the same move than strength save modifiers being gone in The Old World : it helps making save characteristic more relevant. And it also helps stopping making big saves like 2+ as essential. I bet some saves will also be less "bigger" across the game than in 3rd as a result.
I'm also not a fan of the 1/2 inch coherency. Someone at GW design team really dislikes big units spreading across the table...to be honest, unit coherency was also an issue in 3rd, with the first release punishing hard all units of 6+ models. Seems like the same blind move from the design team too focused on tournaments and "what may happen with players abusing big units".3rd edition rules were written like 1.5 years into 2nd edition right? There was still some "within" 1st edition style buffs running around, so tightening coherency made some sense to crack down on the conga lining. Problem was they had fixed the problem in the battletomes by switching to wholly within so when we actually got the rules the problem had been fixed.
I'm not sure why 10 dudes standing shoulder to shoulder is illegal, but 6 pigs butt to face is fine.
17 minutes ago, Tonhel said:yeah, but now it's problematic for basic infantry.
I don't disagree. Its not like a balance problem, just really annoying.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, CommissarRotke said:
Where do you see this?
presumably based on what they said AoD is the only universal way to get +1 to save now.
Doesn't mean mystic shield is gone, but its not +1 to save anymore. Maybe its a ward, spell ignore, or ward vs mortals. -
44 minutes ago, Tonhel said:
Yes, but the mini's aren't designed with that in mind. There are dozens of examples of dynamic mini's that will have problems to fit because of the pose/weapons.
Just going to point out we had this tech in the first aos 3 book (stormcast) and it somehow made it into idoneth sharks, but not nurgle flies, despite the sharks being easier to get into coherency.
-
3 minutes ago, Tonhel said:
I don't have the feeling rend is nerved at all. It will be much more effective than before. I agree with the rest. The 1/2" coherency is a bit bizar, as it already was sometimes difficult with the 1" for the more dynamic models with bigger/longer weapons.
They said in the article rend was reduced across the game.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
As I've mulled it over a bit I think GA BTs might actually be worse than army specific ones.