Gailon
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Gailon
-
-
This conversation just highlights for me the incredible breadth and scope of Age of Sigmar. There are so many matchups, especially if you have a non competitive meta, but the game is so healthy right now (in balance of armies) that there is a lot of diversity.
for me the mortal wound wounds on to hits has not been an issue. But I never play Lumineth or sbgl. And Kruelboyz are not good. Mortals on hit are scary but it’s all they have that is.
but I have had Ogor Meatfists absolutely blast me off the table with almost entirely mortals. And hearthguard be completely unbeatable for me.
I really like the mechanic that 6’s to hit improve rend, Skaven have some of that. But it does extend the game, something they are clearly trying to avoid (until they aren’t).
mortal inflation really seems to be in the game. They aren’t particularly special. They are required. And some armies can produce absurd quantities of them.
-
3
-
-
9 minutes ago, dirkdragonslayer said:
Follow Da Moon as a battle plan is either going to be super easy or super hard, depending on random chance. Do we know if Skragrott can still control the moon? If so he can just force it to the middle of the board for a guaranteed battle plan. Being near the Loonshrine counts too, right?
But you can pick this battle tactic after seeing where the moon is right? So it will be a relatively easy one when available but some games just won’t be gettable.
providing moonlight around the loonshrine really takes away a lot of the randomness of the bad moon. You can still get nice bonuses in a fairly large bubble.
it does seem like more of an update (and incorporation of updates that all spread out, like white dwarf) than a rewrite. But that still seems pretty fun. Squigs look like pure fire so far. 10+2d6+3 movement before charge is ridiculous. The Mangler being able to just rampage past a screen like Stonehorns can is amazing.
Even small things like fixing netters do their exact position within the unit doesn’t matter is super nice.
-
7 hours ago, Sigmarusvult said:
There have been a couple of rumours mentioned today, please take it with a hand full of salt:
The first one is from Twitter, a TO was told that the priority roll will be gone in the summer ghb.
Now this rumour doesn’t say anything else so it could be for a specific turn only or under certain circumstances, no one knows for sure yet it has already sparked a lot of reaction on the internet.
The second rumour is from ThehonestWargamer who heard that once the Old World is out a few faction, including BoC, will be removed from AoS or no longer supported and instead be part of the Old World range only.
There are plenty of priority roll fights alll over this site and elsewhere. Setting that aside, it seems like modifying it in a GHB would really confirm the idea that these bigger changes in the GHB (like bonds of battle) are basically mass play testing potential rules for the next edition.
-
3
-
-
It’s always a bummer for me to see the negativity because I’m finding AoS completely awesome right now. In multiple ways.
GW is a pretty frustrating company, but the app has blown away my expectations. Is updated immediately and really easy to use. The army building and rules reference is fantastic.
the third edition games I play are almost alway super close and thrilling. They have a ton of decisive and drama filled points. With decision after decision feeling like it will be decisive, only for the next one to come and for that to actually feel decisive.
chalk me up as someone who loves the double turn. It’s been debated in other topics and is a bit off topic here. Personally I blame the double turn hate on three main things. First, playing with too much and too powerful shooting. I know this is on GW game design, but the double turn has far far less impact with melee vs melee lists. Second, people not finishing their games. There are a lot of times where a game feels done and it isn’t. I have that feeling all the time with a double in the second or third round and I am convinced that decides the game. We play it out because my group isn’t on a schedule and we are there to play and have fun. An amazing number of times that double turn doesn’t decide the game the way both players thought it would. Third, a desire for more control over a dice game. I agree that the turn roll adds a ton of randomness that helps to cover for the fact the game isn’t truly balanced.
I definitely think that without it going first would be way way too powerful in the current game. There are already a ton of competitive lists that want to go first. The double turn balances this.
new players should very much be told to go second if they have a choice though. They won’t know how to alpha and/or prepare for a potential double.
-
2
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, novakai said:
Considering how often in the dark the Facebook team is I think they have no idea what’s coming up as usual.
"we'll see what we can do!"
"hey, guys, can we do... no? oh, ok, so nothing? well at least we saw what we could do!"
But I am planning to play Troggs in a tournament in October. So I'm half convinced that a Gitz book will be released right before that and throw it all into confusion.
-
3
-
-
15 hours ago, Ogregut said:
I want it to be part of the base from a redesigned Egrimm Van Horstrmann.
Order have dragons, death has a dragon, destruction has a dragon, time to give chaos one!
The Khorne dragon enters the chat
-
On 7/2/2022 at 1:13 PM, Enoby said:
I wonder why this is the case.
I would assume it's to try as best as they can to not invalidate print - it's one thing to tweak points, and another to totally change the rules of a model. Perhaps they're worried it may confused some players who are less involved with online AoS.
Personally, I'd much prefer if they just ripped the bandage off and admitted that most of the time when there's an issue, it's the warscroll and not the points that need the core change.
For a ridiculous example, if there was a unit that did 10 MWs to every unit in the opponent's army, there would be no points cost that would make that unit work. Either it would be so expensive it would be unplayable, or it would be unbearable to play against. There'd be no happy middle ground. There's no unit like this that exists at the moment, but the idea stands - there are some units that are too bad or good that points would never work for them.
I also think warscroll changes are great for players with good looking units that are too bad to see play (such as Slaangors). By that I mean, they make people feel good about the game.
I think the reason is probably because of a certain type of NPE, specifically when you can't keep up with your army or you show up and play and don't know what it does.
I think this is why they also seem hesitant to change points that much or to shake things up. There are dozens upon dozens of warscrolls that are basically never take in tournament lists, and it would be easy to bump these all down 10 points just to change it up.
But a lot of players can't play that often. Maybe they show up to a game at their local store once every few months. Then add in the modeling and collecting. So if someone has finally bought, built and painted 2,000 points of their favorite army, you want it to stay 2,000 points.
It's not a great experience to be playing a casual game and try to do a thing you did before and have your opponent say "that's not how that works anymore." and then learn that in order to play this casual fun game you're expected to read online forums and download pdfs etc etc. If this is someone's second or third game after finally getting an army, it could really sour them to AOS.
I agree with the sentiment, I wish they'd bump points around and change warscrolls and I always with FAQ's and points updates came with bigger changes. But I get why they don't. Just by being on this forum we are showing we aren't the type of gamer they are probably worried about.
-
4
-
-
On 5/25/2022 at 7:37 PM, zilberfrid said:
Celestial Hurricanum. The fanciest horses, four wizards and a lot of just stuff. If you have one, you can make an awesome terrain piece with spares, or magnetize to switch it out.
This is the model that makes me wish I was a better and more patient painter (and didn't already have an enormous pile of grey shame). It is so gorgeous and looks like it would be amazing to really dive into an elaborate paint job.
-
1
-
-
More generic positivity. Game after game I play is completely filled with exciting moments and compelling rolls. It seems like I am constantly facing the critical moment with respect to a decision or a roll. Also constantly faced with a situation where I realize how different things could be if I had made difference decision one or two turns earlier.
I credit a lot of this to a non-competitive local meta where we really strive to stay away from dominant shooting, but that only exists within the rules of 3.0.
Excited for more difficult battle tactics.
-
3
-
-
Seraphon Saurus lists are far more interesting. It's interesting that Seraphon stayed at the top of the meta with 3.0 by completely switching factions and lists, and it could happen again. Saurus Warriors can count as 3 on objectives and reduce damage from bounty hunters, and saurus knights have a tone of 1 damage attacks, so seem primed to take advantage of being in Bounty. Combine that with board wide unbinds from the Slann and dramatically increased power of endless spells, which seraphon can control beyond 30" and they have the tools to remain at the top, but maybe with Koatl's Claw rather than Thunder Lizard.
-
Good discussion on how NPE =/= overpowered. Sometimes it's hard to feel this. Right now the competitive meta of AOS is impressively balanced. Lots of different armies hitting podiums with lots of different lists. But that just isn't the measure for NPE. I hadn't played Fangs of Sotek in awhile because they were OP in 2.0 for a bit. As they have fallen off a bit in the competitive scene I busted them back out, because now they are 'balanced.'
They might be more balanced on the tournament scene, but they are full of NPE. A block of skinks with a pile of buffs that run and shoot and charge and then shoot when you charge them and run away. That list has high unbinds, alpha strike, mortal wound shooting, and their shoot and run away ability is just a 4+, which is at least random, but is much much harder to interact with than Unleash Hell.
Losing 50% of the time doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of NPE.
Save Stacking
I will throw my hat in the ring as liking save stacking. At least liking it a lot more than just not having it. It's partially about survivability, but also about matchups. Mystic shield goes in one place, all out defense is one place, finest hour is declared in the hero phase.
It is kind of weird that Durthu can bounce off some infantry because they have mystic shield in cover with all out defense. But I like having high consequences for a poor matchup, not just x always beats y, but x shouldn't attack y *in this specific circumstance on the table this turn.*
It really allows you to use units and counter damage and create opportunity costs or inefficiencies.
My problem is that this doesn't work very well in a high point cost monster/hero hammer. I can talk about screens and matchups and such, but they have pointed the game in a way that makes it very difficult to run a tactical mixed force. Much better to have two maw krushas smashing around the table.
I just don't think it's the fault of save stacking. Archeon shouldn't be attacking grots when they have +3 to their save, he should be going somewhere else. Spread out your damage, force the use of CP attack weakpoints and try to put strong ones forward.
I just feel like save stacking has very strong potential to add a tactical element, but there are other things that make it difficult to engage with those tactics.
-
3
-
-
There is a lot of rock paper scissors lizard spock that could emerge from this GHB.
Veterans can count as 3 on an objective and be the only units that can controls some objectives. They can also fight in two ranks now. So let's bust those units of 10 sequitors or 30 vulkites etc.
But Bounty Hunters absolutely obliterate veterans. High volume single damage attacks are out there, and all that damage is doubled. Even something rarely seen like Saurus Knights is scary if it's in Bounty Hunter and attacking a veteran.
So, ok, don't run big blocks of veterans. Small mobile units will be pretty good. Tree revenants and vanguard hunters and 10 teleporting skinks can go nab an objective, or threaten to nab one at anytime. If they get killed by a Bounty Hunters hammer that's great because it's a huge waste of damage. No one will want to charge 10 skinks with 6 fulminators.
So those elite bounty hunter units may need to be a bit smaller to be more flexible.
[I wish the realm command ability wasn't limited to wounds characteristics of 4 or less. It would be very interesting if things like fulminators or gore gruntas would be risking strike last if they charged into veterans)
And all of this is layered on top of just going with a Battle Regiment and choose first turn.
My big worry is that this rock paper scissors may not show up much on that table and in battles, and could end up being in army construction. Rather than playing a game where I am trying to maneuver my best matchups around and counter certain units with other units, we may just show up and have a feeling of "oh, you brought that type of list? I can't beat that list." I am pretty interested to see how it plays out. Personally I feel like MSU may be a lot more viable as the risk of super high damage hammers is real, and you don't want to give your opponent a high wound target to chew into.
-
8
-
-
22 hours ago, Neverchosen said:
I am going to opt out of the GHB this time I do not play enough lately and when I do we have been going mostly core rules. Still sounds like a fun spanner in the works...
Also no this has nothing to do with having just completed my Ogors...
I think this is actually makes a pretty critical point. With GHB's coming twice a year, introducing more complicated rules, and with the battlescrolls making small changes quarterly, it sure seems like the rules can get way too much for your average player. As most people can only get a game together every few months.
I expect the number of people who just play the 'core rules' to grow, and the willingness of regular players to just play a 'core rules' game to increase.
That seems like a pretty strong direction for the game. The heavily involved players have a lot of new and interesting rules to really chew into. I am currently in a stretch where I am playing about 5 times a month. I LOVE the new rules, and complicated options, bring it on.
But I know that when that changes I will appreciate the ability to just play a core rules game and not be up on the newest GHB.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Mutton said:
Ogres just need to have 2" reach or their coherency rules adjusted. Their issues shouldn't be addressed by a 6-month long special GHB rule. If it's less than 4 wounds, my Ogres continue their damnation in the closet. If it's 4 or less, cool, I might bring them out for a few games...but their rules are still pretty awful right now.
But not everything should be all about damage output. I always viewed gluttons as more of a wound sink. They are about 11 points a wound. I'd think they could drop that a bit and suddenly gluttons would be a very interesting counter to the meta move towards "high quality wounds" i.e. things that do mortals or high rend. Like vanguard raptors. For elite armies built around precisions mortals, a block of 12 gluttons can actually present an issue. I'd like to see them more like 9 points a wound though.
-
A friend of mine told me that he heard in a podcast that the new Spiterider Lancers for Sylvaneth would have a 16" move. I know we've seen the attack profile, but did not think the full warscroll had been revealed anywhere. Do we know their move/armor/bravery and/or points?
-
On 6/9/2022 at 10:56 PM, Baron Klatz said:
I’d say it was mostly because of focusing on the nerfs while in a AoS2 mindset. Losing their extra move ability where that was a big boon in run & charge heavy AoS2 and going from guaranteed mortal wound terrain blast to 90% chance of causing it all seemed like downers.
Taken in 3.0’s change to smaller boards meaning harder to avoid terrain, Totem keywords being big to broadcast commands like a General can and Heraldor’s overall attack and defense buffs to make them much tougher in combat and they got off a lot better than the simplified warscroll would suggest.
This is it, they were the only source of retreat and charge (I think) and now there isn't any way to get it (I think?)
I love the knight heraldor as a Seraphon ally and think they're overlooked there. Combined with the Realmshaper Engine and Comet's Call, it can be a pretty gross sprinkling of mortal wounds.
-
1
-
-
I just don't view it as a 'balance' update in the traditional sense. I don't think it is meant to bring bottom factions up, or send top factions down, as much as it is meant to promote some diversity at the table.
We will see, but I suspect at least some of these will accomplish that goal (although, no sentinels? what?)
the question for me is how this changes the top tables? Sure, SCE with dragons aren't too worried about losing to Gitz, but are they now more likely to lose to Seraphon, or even other mid/top lists? If that's the case then maybe we see fewer dragon spam armies, as people diversify to try to win at the top.
I strongly suspect we will see fewer salamanders and fewer vanguard raptors for example. I don't know if this will have some huge impact on faction win rates, but it will have an impact on how the tables look and feel. Maybe some SCE go with grandhammers and judicators instead of fulminators and vanguard raptors. This way every game against SCE feels more diverse, and that is a different type of "balance."
Personally, I think they are trying not to change warscrolls and points all the time, as that arguably messes with more casual players, who really don't care that Seraphon have a 60% win rate, they just want to play with the things they own and painted.
-
6
-
1
-
-
Just hopping in to say that 3rd edition is still proving to be an absolute blast. Had my first tie the other day (ok, I lost to the tie breaker of battle tactics) and it was just such an amazing game. A lot of positioning and trying to plan out battle tactics and make the critical play. A lot of our armies left alive at the end of the game because we were able to focus on objectives and tactics and it was awesome.
I'm kind of excited about the new balance warscroll because it is a laser focused in on competitive matched play. It's more complication, but isn't great, but is a way to impact competitive scene and games while still leaving more casual settings alone (where points or warscroll changes would impact those games). Let the tournament players have their balance and the PtG players don't have to change their lists or rosters.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, Enoby said:
Totally agree with what you've said, and have a few things to add:
When I played 2019 Slaanesh, which as many remember was an awfully overpowered and oppressive book, it left me in bad situation when it came to casual games. The reputation of the book meant that nobody wanted to play against the army, no matter if you were playing three Keepers or only a single hero and a load of chariots.
In addition, depending on the attitude of the opponent, occasionally there were lose-lose games:
- If you won, you were carried by the book.
- If you lose, you must suck to have managed that.
That's not to say being significantly underpowered is fun either, but OP sounds much more exciting than it is when it comes to casual match ups.
This is definitely how Seraphon feels right now to me. There is enough variability in the book that it is easy to bring a more reasonable list. But then you get that lose lose you are talking about. And someone has to really understand Seraphon to see that my list is ‘more fair’
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I struggle to understand who these bundles are supposed to be for. You need to be pretty plugged in to the AoS sphere to even hear about them, but if you are, you are probably knowledgable enough to know that they are not good deals. Bundles without a discount are a worse than buying models individually, not better. The art print you get with them is not worth committing to such a big miniature purchase unless you were already going to buy all the minis individually, anyway. And that seems like a really unlikely situation most of the time, in my opinion.
It’s difficult to imagine. I’d guess that’s it big collectors who are contemplating a new army. I mean for some reason there are people who order off the GW store at all. So it would be easy to buy a bundle for sticker price and have a new army. And free picture.
-
2
-
-
32 minutes ago, AngryPanda said:
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.
This rings very true for me. I believe the new direction puts more and more onus on casual players to find their own balance in the game. My real concern is when the 'handicapping' options aren't even interesting, they are just worse. I really feel this way with the new Stormcast book.
It's not just that the bad units in Stormcast are worse, they also tend to be boring. Or they are so much worse as to be frustrating.
I play mostly stormcast and seraphon and the contrast is striking. The 'bad' units in Seraphon tend to be interesting, or have options that can be applied to them. Saurus warrior and razordons and ripperdactyls (not even that bad, but all worse than other options) can be used in interesting ways and make interesting lists. when I run them I don't spend the entire game frustrated at my choice to cut myself off at the knees, I am thinking about how to use them to their potential. This is because there are a lot of buffs and choices available.
When I make handicapping choices in Stormcast I tend to just be left more frustrated. I don't feel like I have options that could be applied to make the list more interesting, I just feel like it's worse.
I enjoy player choice, and agree that the game pretty much relies on people to choose to not always bring the filthiest filth. Leave that to the top tables at the tournaments, which is a small minority of players. But there needs to be nuggets of fun left for the people who do choose to handicap themselves.
It's why I often get the most upset at the inexplicable nerfing or gutting of things that aren't really being used a lot anyway.
-
8
-
-
2 minutes ago, Celadoor said:
Does that make a difference as to how it works in the end?
I’d guess that’s it’s how they don’t lose the leader role? Behemoths that become conditional battleline lose the behemoth role. Which is an advantage for things like battleline stegadons.
I’m sure GW will make sure this is perfectly clear at publication and there will be no confusion…
-
3
-
-
Are there any other hero units that can become battleline? They will lose the leader role but keep the hero keyword. So a battleline unit that can have artifacts, use heroic actions, issue all commands, count for HGB ward bubble. Pretty interesting options there and very different.
-
13 hours ago, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:
Most of my ideas would want to incorporate as much of the core rules as possible as an untapped design space. Any time we can add tough choices using rules that are familiar for defending players, especially against shooting, I believe would create a more interactive and fun game.
I definitely feel this way, and really hope they do this more. Ardboys being able to rally on a 4+ is a great example. I am surprised they haven’t done more with this already and hope it indicates a desire to save some of this as we get deeper into the edition and not then just missing it.
Clan rats should be able to rally in combat, there should be units that get a bonus to redeploy etc.
I agree that this really allows for interesting applications of artillery beyond damage. Just murdering support heroes from 36” is no bueno. But artillery that could prevent redeploy or unleash hell would be awesome (for example). It’s thematic and interesting and taps into the core rules.
The Mortal Wound Pandemic, and Dealing With It
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I do think you’re missing out as the game has improved in so many ways since 2019. IMO.
And isn’t ignoring armor the same as mortal wounds? Is there something I’m missing?
6’s to hit auto wound is a faction ability of Nighthaunt now. I love it as a mechanic. It is very flavorful without being op.
I would definitely agree that 6’s to wound doing mortals is far more balanced. It still blows past heavily armored units in a way that doesn’t make complete sense for ‘poison.’ Mortal wounds really make sense for magic and far less sense in other contexts.