.jpg.7322e1f85857c0c3e3a7eae21a61ffc2.jpg){kind=tracking}
Sarouan
-
Posts
574 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Sarouan
-
-
To me, it's not a question of having too many details or not. It's more a question of how easy or difficult it is to reach these details with the brush when the model is built.
I feel like recent GW models are more artistic than pragmatic for painting purposes in comparison to old models. How many robes are hollowed, how many gaps are there between a weapon and the torso you want to paint behind...In the past, you could always paint the model built on its base in one piece. Recent models are less and less like that, IMHO.
I guess I'm too old school in my way to paint miniatures (I stubbornly use brushes).-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I don't want to antagonize your or anyone else on TGA with this. Everyone here is still really chill in the grand scheme of things.
The people who post on r/warhammetfantasy on Reddit, though, have really damaged my desire to get into TOW, for example. Like, a new player will post a thread over there asking something like "Do Mortis Engine auras stack? That seems like a fun thing to build around if they do." and be met with "If you tried that kind of ****** my table, I'd throw you out, you WAAC sweatlord. Go back to 40k."
I believe I even saw @JackStreichercatch some hate over there on occasion for really innocuous comments, and you know that he's pretty far from a meta-chasing tournament grinder.
Understandable, thanks for answering.
Reddit has always been a troublesome place and it's not really specific to Warhammer TBH. I don't go there personnally.
This is more about someone having a bad behaviour than "a crowd", to me. And it doesn't necessarily mean the guy saying that was "anti-competitive". In times of Warhammer Battle, I have known competitive communities that have very specific way to play competitive - most famous is not playing with Forgeworld / named characters because they were deemed "OP". I have witnessed very agressive behaviour from members of that community towards someone who was showing another point of view : like playing competitive with these FW units / named characters.
But yeah, assuming things / intentions about someone else is also an issue. I know I can be very rigid sometimes...I try to correct myself when I can.
Overall, I have seen a huge positive feedback from AoS 4th. I agree that maybe it's just not for me. -
4 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I can't speak for everyone, but for me personally the anti-competitive crowd in both AoS and TOW are the ones killing my hype the most at the moment. They certainly pushed me out of WHFB when I was a teen, too.
Curious to see what is this "anti-competitive crowd", because so far, in social media with AoS and TOW, the competitive crowd is the one trying to push hard and very dominant.
If you were talking about me specifically on this forum, I would understand. I admit I'm very vocal on that matter. But who else, really ?
Otherwise, sorry for killing your hype. -
6 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:
Geeks geeking out about their hobby. Clearly a sign of the end of times.
Look, it's all just a bit of fun. Even when we get invested in discussions, it's still, essentially, just fun. No need to be judgemental, Mr/Ms High Horse.
Fun for the competitive players who don't understand they repel quite a lot of potential people into the Hobby. But feel free to keep having fun, just don't complain if you see you have less people to play with in the future.
-
3
-
6
-
-
4 minutes ago, Chikout said:
Edit @Sarouan Did you miss the path to glory preview?
Well...that's basically Path to Glory in 3rd a bit streamlined and the real "novelty" is Anvil of Apotheosis...but they didn't show anything about it specifically, that's what I'm talking about.
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
AoS arguably has become rather stale (less fun thematic rules) however this can be intentional since they will spice things up with battletomes
It's not even a question of that. Competitive play and obsession for balance keep asking for more competitive gameplay and more "balance". Nothing is never enough, nothing comes faster enough.
That's what keeps casual players from playing the game, and once a game is only filled with a thinner number of competitive players...well, it goes out the Warmachine or Guildball way.
I feel like GW needs to go back to its roots and push more about the Hobby, about creativity, about the narrative. Not just matched play. They should allow imbalance to be a part of the game again : asymetrical battle boards, playing with not the same amount of points, playing with unoptimized units...
I watched Spearhead videos. First I would have said "yes this mode is for new players, so that they can play faster". But I'm not thinking that anymore. I think this mode is (again) intended towards competitive play, and it doesn't especially play faster either if you look at the length of it all.
It's quite telling we still have nothing in the previews about the Path to Glory in 4th.-
8
-
7
-
-
Before I said competitive play and obsession for balance will kill the game. I only need to look at this thread to be convinced of it.
-
5
-
7
-
-
5 minutes ago, cyrus said:
So Blood vulture is finally dead ?
It will live forever in our hearts...and in narrative games.
-
7 hours ago, Beliman said:
One of my issues with Dawnbringers is how the bad guys were presented. They are like bosses in a videogame: first level, the Heralds; second level, Trolls; third level, Flesheaters, etc...
Since AoS feels more and more like a video game, I find it actually quite in line.
Joke aside, I don't feel like the story in Dawnbringer is bad in comparison to the others. I think I was expecting a bit more from the concept of Dawnbringer Crusades that was at the core of 3rd's background, and that were the focus of this end of edition book series.
That's why I don't really care about Vandus and Khul's story in this one. They were always generic side characters, to me. -
It will certainly be a mix of citadel chaos dwarves and classic chaos dwarves with more modern inspiration.
TBH, I feel like the Forgeworld models made plastic would be good enough for a release.I don't think they will include Fyreslayer design. They need to be distinct, because even if they look similar they are completely different. Grimnir has nothing to do with Hashut.
-
Khorne makes you daemon prince depending on the show you give him while he's eating khorne flakes.
-
3
-
-
It's more about the runes inscribed on their shields / stones, I feel. They are similar to some writings in Black Tongue (the language used by chaos denizens / sorcerers).
Otherwise, they have a great "Conan the Barbarian / comic style barbarian" design. That's why they're so appealing, to me. -
It's true this end of edition series feels a bit less "grand" than the others. I kinda feel like this "dawnbringer crusade focus" wasn't fulfilling enough. It felt to me like it was going too fast.
I never really cared about the stories of Vandus and Khul, they always felt bland / forced to me. If we don't get new miniatures of them, I wouldn't miss them. I always used their old minis as generic lords of their respective factions (which they always were, in the end). -
It's good to remember that Tomb Kings and Bretonnians were not really that much popular in previous editions of Warhammer Battle in terms of army popularity either. It was never just a question of models, but people are always excited when there's a new GW release and buy on an impulse. I wonder how many unsealed boxes of bretonnians / tomb kings are still untouched to this day in their buyer's homes...
(I admit I have a few myself )
-
1
-
-
I feel like the Dwarfen Holds are on top because they're the hyped ones in recent social media (including youtubers) due to their release being "soon". That includes the arcane journal people are eagerly waiting to know its full content.
They definitely aren't the most popular army in game. Dwarf play is very monolithic, you don't really have a lot of different options at your disposal. Doesn't mean it's not fun, but well...there's a reason why other players didn't like to play against dwarves in older editions and they always had "bad reputation" on that matter...it's because they're kinda forced to play defensive in a lot of situations.
To me, this poll doesn't really tell anything of value. And that's why I really don't like the way some youtubers tend to "hype" people with unrealistic expectations / "rumors" about TOW, it tends to lead to that kind of things, and it can only disappoint people when reality hits them and dwarves don't come "as they were announced in that youtuber video" (who then can verily decide not to buy anything after all). -
8 hours ago, Trokair said:
So mostly downsides for the Giant, for casual play I can live with that.
Worst case scenario the Giant gains some temporary chaos gifts in the form of ****** walking and spends all game short edge facing forward.
Basically using the bigger base of 2 options is mostly a downside, yes. In some situations, it can be an advantage (like blocking the enemy path more easily).
Either way for casual play, it's really fine. The best answer is to use a base you feel like is more adapted to the miniature and you have fun with it in game, the rest is tournament player shenanigan.
-
1
-
-
It makes a difference, mainly in multiple charges and while you fight models with multiple attacks (characters, some elite units, frenzied models / models with 2 hand weapons, ...). But it's not really that much game breaking. It's a giant, after all. It's not the ultimately optimized unit of the Chaos army list.
-
1
-
-
Told you the "rumors" were not realistic. Better not believe anyone on TOW release schedule and just wait for the sunday Warhammer Community will finally announce the dwarves. It's much less disappointing.
-
1
-
-
The battle was fought, and many old school dwarves died...and many more goblins and squigs too, but they're goblins and squigs, there's plenty where they come from ! In the end it was a draw...by exactly 99 points !
-
2
-
-
And now, a horde of night goblins march towards the dwarfen lands, for a great battle tomorrow...
-
1
-
-
A couple squig hoppers done !
-
2
-
-
18 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:
I think there are a variety of reasons:
- People like things to be official. They get a warm fuzzy feeling from it
- You arrange games against new people and it's a easy baseline to have
- You don't have time for messing around and just want to slap down the standard 2000 points and play
About these reasons, I've been thinking about it and the way AoS v3 was structured :
For 1, I wonder if it's really a question of "like" or if it isn't more about a "fear" of not being accepted in the "official player community". People go official because they feel they have no real other choice if they want to play with the other players they assume are all playing official only. The recent example of GW removing miniatures from the "official range" for 4th and the way Legends was considered in 3rd makes me think that maybe the real reaction to that - being upset on having armies moved to "non official status" - come from the belief players think other players will flatly refuse to play them because they're "not official". While in reality, that's far from true - it simply depends from each individual player's sensitivity, but most of them don't really mind as long as it's cool and they spend a good time.I wonder how many players would have loved to build a bretonnian army in AoS but then thought "oh wait, it's Legends material, so it's not officially supported...people will refuse to play with me if I do that". I have seen new players asking these genuine questions online or in the club, concerned about if it's "right" to do so or not - answers may differ depending which way you play. If it was just a "like" matter, these kinds of questions wouldn't exist I believe.
The fact 3rd put such an accent on matched play (we never saw battle reports of Legends armies in action, for example) isn't innocent either on that matter. If new players saw official articles showing "unofficially supported game material" in actual games / or just talking about it other than say "hey here's the link to download the Legends lists, we won't update them ever", I'm pretty sure such questions I saw online or heard in the club wouldn't be happening that much either.For 2, I think the question is "what is the baseline ?". In 3rd, it was murky at best - rules were pretty much tangled with each other, Season of War added them to the "core rules" and everything was basically a big blob that kept growing as supplement piled on. I think that was part of the problem in 3rd when dealing with new people : you assume they all start at the current rule supplement / Season of WarI, and it became heavier and heavier as years / seasons passed. It was specifically difficult for new players, because they had to be taught everything, season of war material included because they had the great idea to modify core rules in more than one way.
I believe 4th focusing on rule modules is a significant change on that matter - you can more easily determine what is the core baseline people can agree on and what are the effective "modules" we can use or not use depending on the mood / time / way to play you'd want. It's also much easier to work on a true baseline that way for fanmade rules.
For 3...well I answered a bit in the previous post above
but I believe if you had time to include all Season of War rules, battle tactics and grand strategies and all the army special rules just to play a "normal AoS v3 game", you definitely have some time to "mess around" as well. Seriously speaking though, it's also linked to how bloated the rules of 3rd were, especially at the end. That it is considered a hassle to even make fanmade rules in a game that has so many rules / victory conditions is telling a lot to me as well : it means that the players are so overloaded with gamey stuff than they can't even afford to have some silly fun with changing the rules a bit to make things different / more interesting.
Maybe 4th will give players a welcome break in that field, and we may allow ourselves more time to make up some rules on our own too.-
2
-
7 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:
So I think we are saying school kids can do stuff we can't but thats because they can be more flexible with their time.
You make it sound like it's hard and take a lot of time to make up fanmade rules for a game. Really, it's not. What, you think kids spend hours and hours about making their own stuff before the game ? Usually, they do it on the spot when they're playing and talk with each other about the details. Doesn't have to be perfectly balanced / tested several times before : the real game is the one-time test more often than not. Well, I guess not drinking alcohol during a game does help.
I've done that as an adult quite a lot, with rules just written as they came the day before the game and proposing them to the other guys (sure, helps if you already know them, but even with "new guys", you'd be surprised to how easily they can agree to your propositions if you offer them something fun and different). To me, it's more a question of mindset / will to do so or not than anything else : for the methods, there are several going from very simple to quite complex. You just take what suits you and your own time.
I mean, something like "let's just not use battle tactics / grand strategies, whoever control the big tower at the center of the table at the end of the game wins" can be brought litteraly just before deployment, is still fanmade content and is hell easy to apply in game, even (especially ?) when drunk.
-
2
-
-
22 hours ago, Mcthew said:
Or are we saying as a community, that what school kids can do, we simply can't?
It's simply the shift GW made by designing and advertising their games. In the beginning, GW was what you described with the kids - it was really about making up new rules / scenarios and adapting the existing game material to the needs of the game, not the opposite. And it was because GW encouraged people in its rules / magazines / stores to do so. But then the competitive scene became more vocal, GW's way to design games changed and new game designers who truly believe competitive play is the only play that matters are now at the wheels. We are now in a loop where competitive players tell GW that's the only way and GW show players overwhelming articles / battle reports that only care about matched play. One feeds the other, until it becomes the answer that feeds the question - forgetting all other elements that are silent.
Time have changed, and player communities adapted. But no matter what, there will always be people who'll just take and do what they want how they want, not how they are told to.
I actually find it funny how much players nowadays tend to beg for GW permission to use their collection the "official way". Like when GW removes miniatures from their range and plan to "stop" official support in a announced timeline : why are people so upset about that ? Can't they still use what they like the way they like, and simply not care about what GW tells them to do so-
3
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
The Warcry Fyreslayer band is a great example how to have more diversity, IMHO. I'd like GW to make new kits with that same design, but I'm not sure replacing the old models is that interesting for them financially speaking (I mean, most of Fyreslayer players with an existing collection don't have any real incentive to buy berserkers again).
The first edition models did have that "Warhammer Battle relation" problem : GW tried too hard to make them feel like "AoS slayers but with a helmet". That's why a lot of people use classic Warhammer Battle slayer paint scheme, IMHO.