Neil Arthur Hotep
-
Posts
4,316 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
104
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Neil Arthur Hotep
-
-
27 minutes ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:
I very much want my cake and to eat it too when it comes to Battle Tactics.
They peeve me greatly when an opponent effortlessly pulls them off, and when they run completely counter-intuitively to the way the battle is going. I've often thought that the game would be better off without them.
... but then they do make me think. I'm lazy when it comes to formulating a battle plan, and would easily fall into the trap of playing games the same way every time. I guess Battle Tactics circumvent that, to a greater or lesser extent.
Bringing battle tactics more closely into alignment with the fiction would definitely help. Or victory points in general. I have a fairly easy time understanding how controlling territory could mean that you win a battle in AoS. I can understand how that might be the aim of the mission.
But it is harder to rationalize how something like this can be the "aim" of the battle for my army:
QuoteLed into the Maelstrom: You complete this battle tactic if all of the following are true:
- At least 2 friendly units charged this turn.
- At least 1 friendly Battleline unit charged this turn.
- At least 1 friendly HERO charged this turn.
- At least 1 friendly Battleline or HERO unit that charged this turn is within 3" of an enemy unit at the end of the turn.
-
5
-
6 hours ago, Chikout said:
How can you say that when we haven't seen today's article yet? The concept of battle tactics isn't a problem, the way they were executed in 3rd was.
Take slay the warlord. There's nothing uninteracive about that battle tactic. It reinforces the narrative of the game rather than going against it like some of the book battle tactics do. If the article comes out and it's all the same as before with tactics for doing non interactive nonsense then I'll be right there sharing my disappointment with GW but it's not time for that yet.
I'm not sure what is so lacking in immersion about the rules we've seen so far. I admit that battle tactics is probably the most important aspect of the game that's problematic but I'm at least going to wait until I read the article before I make my mid up. Praying is more thematic. The list building is narratively logical. Interactivity looks to have been improved. AoS has always been an objective control game. That hasn't changed.
I hope today's article on Battle Tactics is good. I can't say that I really enjoy Battle Tactics in their current form, but it's not like I have never had fun moments with them. I still like the idea of having some kind of secondary system. Anything that can encourage movement on the board and make the game less static (although AoS already does a good job with that).
I recently played a Core Rules only game, and was reminded how much battle tactics have changed since the start of AoS 3rd. Cities of Sigmar have a tactic where you need to destroy 3 units in the shooting phase, which is so difficult that I have never managed to do it even though I play a shooting list. In contrast, the core book basically has "just go destroy a unit, idk". All the tactics were so easy that you literally could not fail to get them every turn.
I hope 4th manages to strike a balance. I think ideally, we get a few tactics that are not impossible, but also not guaranteed and encourage players to make use of the whole playing field. I don't mind faction specific battle tactics, they could be a great tool to reinforce the flavour of a faction. But there needs to be much tighter balancing on them. No more free "just move two units up the board I guess" tactics like Daughters of Khaine get.
-
1
-
-
I started Warhammer by painting a unit of Tomb Kings skeletons and it was so difficult for me that I didn't paint another model for 10 years.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, TechnoVampire said:
I pray that there is little to no mortal wounds on hit for shooting attacks 🙏 and would generally like to see a reduction in mortal wounds across the board.
The new Skaven hero only has Crit(Auto-Wound), which is much better.
14 minutes ago, Beliman said:Imho, it's about the impact of this "minor" changes:
Who will have the "shoot in combat" USR, what to expect to see with units with 5 shooting profiles, is there any diference between ranged units and artillery, how they interact with terrain rules and I wouldn't mind to see a few warscrolls.
One of my number 1 wishes is that we don't see units with 4 barely different shooting profiles anymore. I can get behind one profile for a big main gun and one for all the small guns, but having to also roll for the pistol that one guy on the model happens to be carrying is super tedious.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
Maybe it's because there's very few changes? Are we expecting anything major? (apart from what we know already, no shooting if you're in melee, which is big but already "spoiled")
A more concrete idea of what reduced shooting range means would be nice. I would like to see if there are specific abilities on shooting attacks other than "shoot in combat", as well.
Would be cool to see them say something like "there are no more mortal wounds on hit for shooting attacks" or "the line-of-sight system has been reworked" if those changes are in the game.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Bosskelot said:
Continuing on with the added seasonal rules is a massive turn-off for me. Thought it was one of the worst aspects of 3rd.
As above GHBs just being mission packs would be fine.
If the recent article is telling us all there is to know about seasonal rules, I am OK with how they are now. Everyone getting a honour guard unit with one of three traits for a few months seems fine, IMO.
I strongly disliked the recent Andtor rules, too, but mostly because of how much they push faction list building towards generic options, how intrusive the seasonal mechanics were and how the GHB battle tactics just don't feel fun. If new seasons don't have these kinds of generic must-takes, intrusive mechanics and battle tactics, I am fine with getting a different little gimmick every year.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Landohammer said:
I mean if you are playing against guys that only play a few times a year or are new then that is completely understandable, but for a typical matched play game among adults that is crazy to me. In the matched play games that run at my FLGS, 90% of games finish within 2.5 hours. Maybe some pickup games will run to 3 hours if the guys are goofing around and chatting.
I don't mean to yuck your yum, but that is definitely not my experience within the hobby.
I don't know which of our experiences is the atypical one, but I have heard a lot of complaints of games going over 3 hours online, especially with the seasonal GHB rules. I don't think games going longer than 3 hours is that weird.
That's why I am pretty excited about the changes in 4th. The game looks like it will play a lot faster.
-
3
-
-
51 minutes ago, Landohammer said:
Are you saying that your games, on average, last 4.5 hours?
Yeah, I think that's accurate. I have been playing games with a timer recently, and 3 hours usually gets us to mid to late round 3.
I get a whole game done in 3 hours occasionally, but only against opponents who are really familiar with their lists.
AoS just takes really long. Especially for synergy armies.
-
19 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:
I like what they showed today. A 4 rounds universal scenario is perfect for casuals like me who don't want to be bogged down in 5 rounds game that can take a lot of time.
Personally I find that the first two turns of the game take 3 hours and the last 3 take 1.5 hours combined, so I am not so sure going to 4 turns will save that much time.
By turn 5 I usually have, like, three units left on the table
-
4
-
-
35 minutes ago, Vagard said:
Neat twist, I look forward to forgetting it the second I step up to the table.
-
1
-
1
-
12
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:
The Scuttleboss does get removed along with Bonesplitterz.
I do hope this signals a Spiderfang refresh. That would be very much needed, the whole subfaction is only 3 kits and 1 gets removed. I can see the Arachnarok staying. I could see Spider Riders updated along with a brand new hero (a named hero would also be very welcome) and maybe a new unit to round out the subfaction. A unit of half transformed spidergitz or some kind of web shooting unit.
Put that one down more to a purge of Finecast rather than Spiderfang. So I would also stay hopeful that Spiderfang as a concept stick around.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Chikout said:
It's weird that we've had all this talk but noone has mentioned the ways in which AoS attempts to make heroes unique, namely heroic traits and artefacts. We know that command traits are being changed to heroic traits but we still don't know what they are or how you choose them. Is it still one per army? We also don't know how artefacts are chosen as the battalions are presumably gone.
If you take your slaughter priest then give him a heroic traits that grants a 4+ ward and a weapon that adds 3 damage to his attacks, you've suddenly got a pretty decent blender.
Yeah, this is interesting and we will have to see how the news of 4th ed develop. It kind of feels to me like there has to be some way to get extra toys (artefacts, traits, spell lores).
In 3rd, foot heroes are kind of underwhelming on their own, as a rule, but if you kit them out they can be pretty scary. I think the big problem is that your return on investment for traits and artefacts is generally bigger if you put them on a better base unit. Why would I put my +1 rend and damage artefact on a foot slogger who can't get anywhere if I could put it on a 14" flying move guy on a monster mount?
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Greyshadow said:
Yeah, decision making paralysis is certainly a thing. I personally try and pick a theme and direct all my efforts to that. I have a goal that once I start painting, I have to see it through before I can butterfly on to something else. I also maintain a project queue to try and help me stick with my decisions. I also try and forget about why I am painting the model in front of me and focus on finding the joy in each paint job.
There is an idea in game design that players will tend to optimize the fun out of a game. I think that is also a danger when it comes to painting miniatures. Especially if you paint them with the intention of using them to play, because then you start to think in terms of points per painted model and efficiently getting units on the table. For me, batch painting a unit I don't love, but which is good in game absolutely turns painting into a chore. Conversely, I have never regretted painting a one-off model that I just liked the look of. Even if it never ends up hitting the able at all.
But of course, if you want to have a fully painted army eventually, you will have to sit down and work through the less exciting parts of that at some point.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Beliman said:
I love all the new dwarf kits in that list
I see the confusion! Dwarfs are missing because this is a list of stuff people actually want 😘
...will you put my name in the book or should I do it myself to save time?
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:
Spiders out, and something new to fill the gap?
I kind of feel that if spiders were out, they would have gone at the same time as Bonesplitters.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, RetconnedLegion said:
Moving to prepainted miniatures has been the death-knell for multiple companies.
I have to say, though, the new Prismacast stuff and even Heroforge colour prints look a lot better than traditional prepaints.
-
1 minute ago, Flippy said:
The Megaboss is 8 3/3/1/2, fight on death and gets bigger as a reward for fighting and killing. I used him a lot in smaller games (1000 pts) and he always felt like a very competent melee brawler. He's very slow, though, and all his specific artefacts were better suited for the Maw-krusha version.
The Megaboss is one of the units I would point to as an example of a good brawler hero. I think the fact that he's slow is a weakness inherent to the role of an infantry brawler, which is honestly fine. They have trouble getting in, but should be really scary when they do. This probably means that you will rarely see even good brawlers in competitive lists (because a damage dealer without a reliable delivery mechanism is just not that useful), but I don't think competitive viability should be the measure of success here. As @Beliman said, I think it's more about the characters matching the fiction, or perhaps about them having any role at all (even if the role is not that valuable).
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, bethebee said:
if models came pre-painted i'd quit the hobby right then and there lol. i don't get what the obsession is with replacing the human in art! why the hell would you want to engage with something that somebody couldn't even be bothered to make?
Other people playing pre-painted miniatures doesn't really take away from the enjoyment that I get from customizing my own army, honestly. I don't think GW will ever go for selling pre-paints, but I really don't have much of an issue with other people only enjoying some parts of the Warhammer hobby, but not others. I also don't get angry at people who play netlists or, in the future, Spearheads. I get that list building is not fun for everyone.
-
3 hours ago, Beliman said:
I don't think that damage is the issue here
I don't know, I think damage is very much one of the issues for melee brawlers. 4 3/3/1/2 is just kind of a bad stat line. The expected damage is almost exactly the same as a 100 points screen (10 dudes, champion, 2 4/4/-/1).
I honestly don't know how much of a problem it would be from a gameplay perspective to just double the damage output of infantry heroes whose main role is to fight. It feels like the game can handle it, honestly.
-
2
-
-
Just now, DinoJon said:
Kroxigor! coming in regular and warspawned flavors.
Oh wait, new Brutes too.
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, Snorri Nelriksson said:
I was thinking....what if the bomb RE is a dual build option for Globadiers?
Maybe a unit with "normal" bombs option that shares the kit...sort of sabouteur unit.
What was the last dual kit of this type? Slaanesh Twinsouls? It feels like this kind of thing is not very common for AoS anymore.
-
9 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:
So there is this interesting disconnect regarding foot heroes. On one hand, players and designers don't want Herohammer. They want to have AoS be around units, and not heroes, which is a fair design constraint. On the other foot, foot heroes tend to have the most personality. They show up the most prominent in lore, and are often the most interesting to write/read about. (or just pick up to paint) They also are the choice where most customisation (rules, lore, your dudes) tend to happen.
So we end up with a type of unit that people want to be cool and good, but not good to overshadow regular units. I don't think this can be resolved under current or previewed rules.
I would definitely agree that there is a bit of a problem in so far that one very specific type of hero, namely infantry brawlers, are almost across the board too weak to be worth using. And as you say, those are some of the most iconic archetypes in warhammer.
The Chaos Lord frequently crops up as a negative example in these discussions, because he basically just brings his combat profile to the table and nothing else. And then that combat profile is not very impressive. But this is also a unit that a lot of people love for its "your dudes" potential.
I think it's important to acknowledge that infantry brawlers have a lot working against them from first principles, though: Good combat units need to deal damage and have a way to deliver that damage, and by virtue of being on foot, infantry brawlers are usually slow. This means that in most games they won't have an impact until turn 2 or 3, at which point a lot of the action will already be over. So even if they got their damage output buffed substantially, chances are most pure melee damage infantry heroes would still not feel very good to use.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:
So far I like what I'm seeing from the core rules. I just hope GW won't cut down points to force players to buy more minis.
I wonder how it will go. What do people think would be a good point cost for a unit like the new Vindictors?
-
Here you go, guys:
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
This actually looks pretty good. I like the idea of Grand Alliance battle tactics. I think they are a good compromise between army-specific and generic tactics.. They allow the rules writers to emphasize what the alliances are all about, but are easier to balance because there are a lot fewer of them.