Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

RocketPropelledGrenade

Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Celestant-Prime

About RocketPropelledGrenade

  • Rank
    Judicator

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think the extra Ossiarch units make a big difference in the feel of the faction. I also personally barely count Vomkortian or Zandtos as part of the roster, but I can see your point in counting them. Flesh Eater Courts don't have the named hero problem, and have excellent variety in what their generic heroes do. Fyreslayers are (IMO, at least), basically the definition of a problem faction--they have precisely one model that isn't a naked dwarf of some variety, and it's a mount for a naked dwarf instead. Their issues go way deeper than warscrolls (and they certainly exist at the warscroll level). Also, I'd like to point out in response to both of these comments that saying there are multiple instances of a problem existing doesn't make the problem less bad. It just makes it wider spread. This is just reinforcing my opinion that GW needs to go back and add more waves to existing factions.
  2. I agree that with everyone saying we're not going to see new models, but I remain baffled as to the design choices behind it. Not only is Lumineth one of the smaller factions, as has been discussed endlessly, the distribution of warscrolls is really weird. Unless there's some details we haven't seen, there's more hero warscrolls than unit warscrolls, and fully half of the hero warscrolls are unique named heroes (Teclis, Eltharion and Avalenor matched up against Scinari Cathaller, Alarith Stonemage, and the basic Mountain King). There are almost as many named heroes as there are unit choices, especially if the Stoneguard weapon options are part of a single warscroll. Further, we've got at least three mages, compared to a single non-monster melee hero--and even that option ends up being one of the named options. It feels like it will seriously limit army construction options and playstyles, above and beyond the already present issues with the size of the range. I just don't get the design choices here, especially when combined with the scope of the marketing (which was already in unusual amounts of hype before COVID forced them to stretch things thin). There's a part of my brain that is screaming that there has to be more, even as the rest of it is pointing out that if there were more, we'd have seen hints of it by now.
  3. There was a period of several years where I left Warhammer for other games, and while the price increases were not the sole factor, they definitely played a part. The same is true of my return--edition rules changes made me interested in checking it out again, but having more money made it something I could justify.
  4. Very much this. As much as certain new factions and aspects of the lore would be nice to see (Malerion's Aelves, Grotbag Scuttlers, etc), I would love to see the smaller factions get larger ranges.
  5. Eltharion already made an appearance in one match, and either they have two models from a new army win, leading everyone to cry OP before the army is even released, or they make the star of the new army get chumped by Archaon (more likely, given I don't think Teclis is supposed to be on his level). Either way, not a good look.
  6. If people aren't following the RPG news, a supplement including Lumineth details is planned for later this year: https://www.cubicle7games.com/age-of-sigmar-soulbound-upcoming-releases/
  7. The issue with Realm Artefacts isn't that they are too strong, it's that there aren't enough options without them. For example, I play Ravagers in Slaves to Darkness. I have literally no options for an artefact that just makes a weapon stronger, which is what I want both thematically and mechanically, without using Realm Artefacts. The closest things I get are the Hellfire Sword (doesn't boost melee at all, and is also kinda bad) and the Desecrator Gaunlets (which, even if I flavor it as weapons in my head, do not help with most targets). There's lots of cases like that, where you want a specific kind of tool for one reason or another, and it doesn't exist in your battletome.
  8. I like the second and third options, Warmill! The first feel a little too Chaos Warrior for me.
  9. I don't disagree that Dark Elves and High Elves are distinct culturally or spiritually. I disagree that they are distinct genetically, and I emphatically oppose any linking of morality and genetics.
  10. None of those things have anything to do with biology or genes (especially "purity").
  11. I can confirm both that Karkadrak with a dimensional blade is absolutely horrifying, as well as that Ravagers summoning is really nice. Knights are pricey enough that you can't really build an army around them, though--need some Marauder Horsemen to fill out the battalion. Further, in my experience (which is admittedly limited and not highly competitive) blocks of five knights do a lot worse than a block of ten. You're definitely on the right track with the ensorcelled weapons over the lances, though.
  12. That'd be really nice, as it would signal an imminent Battletome release. Without more units and with the release of the new Soulbound RPG, Lumineth lore is easily the part of the release I am most excited for (not to knock the rest of it! Just...lore is good).
  13. I've not read a huge number of the novels yet, but I loved Gloomspite. I'm not even that big a grot fan compared to some other factions, but I got it on a lark, and...it is seriously good. Also, creepy as hell. Moonclan Grots are now some of the most fearsome entities in the AoS setting for me.
  14. Not to one god, as I understand it. The process of making Soulbound was created by the whole Pantheon of Order in the Age of Myth, and that's the process that was revived by Sigmar.
  15. I did that too, when I was in college. I meant that taking one bit of side characterization for Teclis is not equivalent to what is a fairly defining trait for Zeus, especially when they aren't even equivalent--Teclis is neither an adulterer nor a rapist. And that's even before considering that the gods in AoS are not 1 to 1 translations of who they were in the world that was, and Teclis is now the God of Wisdom, while Zeus remains the patriarch of the gods in a myth-cycle where the patriarch of the gods fathers patricidal children, which is a decidedly non-wise action. There's just a ton of ways in which "this god has had sex" is not the same thing as which "this god is like Zeus." If that's what you're learning in your mythology class, someone in that class is badly messing up the subject matter. EDIT TO ADD: But this is neither here nor there when it comes to the original topic, so apologies to the rest of the thread posters.
×
×
  • Create New...