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

Greybeard86

Members
  • Content Count

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Greybeard86 last won the day on October 23 2020

Greybeard86 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

425 Celestant-Prime

About Greybeard86

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

169 profile views
  1. I imagine that making those sort of decisions requires an understanding of the hobby, which I expect a lot of the management doesn't have. Or maybe they do? Some of the folks around here worked there, care to enlighten us?
  2. I understand they want to rebuild entirely the range for AoS. That said, to keep selling kits after WHFB was killed and then retiring them over 5 years is just terrible from the consumer's perspective. This happened in cities but I also hear that orks suffered from it badly. I prefer releases of "newer" and "improved" versions that are more backwards compatible. For example, why are swordsmen free guilds restricted to the old empire kit? I believe that if the theme is "militia" many of the old dwarf units would fit there: -- dwarf warriors with two weapons / miners -- > halberds. -- dwarf warriors with shields --> militia with shields. -- thunderers / quarrelers --> crossbowmen and gunners. Make that official (I know many people just do that) and you'll have happy players. Or, in other words, re-think how you treat "legends". Collecting miniatures is expensive and time consuming; while I understand they would love for us to constantly replace old ones with their newer releases, this is not a card collectible game that can work in "seasons". What happened to the company that was happy simply re-sculpting old minitature ranges? How many space marine versions are out there? And people still bought them without the need to go full primaris on them.
  3. Shouldn't we talk about models, not warscrolls? I don't consider the two squig varieties or eel types to be fundamentally different models. That said, I'd prefer factions to have "redundancy" and support multiple full playstyles. I do not consider gitz to be a good example of that. What I mean is several armies with a variety of models (besides support heroes), all supported at all levels of play.
  4. What irks me is that they no longer support their product lines for as long as in the old times, and this is tied to releases. Sometimes they'll release something, like fyreslayers, that one cannot help but wonder if it won't be killed without a word of warning like Chaos Dwarves. So, release cycles are erratic and show what they believe they can push more, and they seem to "squat" things more frequently. Either hard squat (Chaos Dwarves), or soft squat (fyreslayers getting absolutely no love). A bit more commitment, please!
  5. No offense taken, you kept it mostly to yourself But honestly, it is a matter of preference, so there isn't right or wrong. Hey, as things stand, the status quo is more like what you prefer than my ideal. That said, I am doing just fine mostly painting.
  6. That's a tricky one. Personally, I find it more immersive when we are all battling with lists that "make sense". But I do not want to dictate someone else's fun, so it is difficult. Again, from a personal preference standpoint, I like more games where there are multiple units representing multiple roles, and high skew armies are just fluffy gimmicks best left for narrative. But I would probably settle with "at least not worse", for balanced lists.
  7. Very nice post explaining the differences. The only thing I want to add is that lack of unit variety makes the hobby side of some armies more tedious (at least for me). I don't really want to pain dozens of the same units. The rest is more about how we envision the fluff of the armies and how much we care that it might be represented on the table top. The competitive viability is important to me. I like "wargaming" games, not "board games". Thus, I would like to see the lore more represented in how the armies are built. I do not think that army level battles (which I think is what 2k points are) should be dozens of demigryphs and 2 support heroes.
  8. Here is where we disagree strongly. Yes, it d rather have good internal balance. But there is so much more variety in 40k armies than in many AoS ones. They feel more like an army, whatever that might mean in that dystopian future. you could say AoS simply not having enough units plays a role, but then you get books like the gitz one where the designers actively work against variety.
  9. I honestly believe gits and other cases are not that hard to fix. Instead of rewarding buff stacking a single type of unit, give buffs to combinations of units. Examples were given in this thread. It is purely a design choice, that we see hyper focused lists, it really isn’t some feasibility issue. I mean, support heroes are already a thing, just make more support units. And that’s without fundamentally changing how the game is played at other levels. Personally, I’d favor bringing back specialized roles for units. But that is not how AoS is built right now. The plus is getting more people to play, imo, since the gaming side is often at odds with the hobby. I do not want to paint 18 trolls because that is the only way to bring some trolls into a battle without them being terribad. I ll paint a bunch of trolls, some gobbos, some squiggs; that’s how I imagine most hordes would look like. Then, some day, instead of facing them off in a diorama against my dawi I’ll join a game. Hopefully without them being hot trash and still putting up a fight against a gaming list.
  10. I see your point. I think that there is a lot to build in terms of female representation in fantasy worlds, and wargaming in general. I do believe that the traditional approach is crabby. But what can new authors imagine that is not "old sexist" but neither just "see we put a female head on it so the female gender is represented"? I don't know! I am not sure witch elves is necessarily the way forward (personal preference), and I haven't read that much about sisters of battle.
  11. I don't fundamentally disagree, but I want to point out that part of the "weirdness" @MitGas is feeling might be associated to the fact that there hasn't been an effort to make "female chaos warriors". Instead, they are just "head swapped". Why does the female chaos warrior have to be identical to the male chaos warrior? Specially when the male chaos warrior has been developed as so stereotypical "bulky man"; that makes it a tad weird to see, since we are mixing things we aren't used to seeing. Now, of course, femenity could not be linked to the body form; I am cool with that too. But I also think it would be cool to have female chaos warriors that are different than the male ones. No need for bikinis, or a sexual theme. But to have their own look besides old stereotype with a new head. I do not know if I am explaining myself well, or making any sense to the rest :P
  12. There is a very important consideration here. One is, the opponents want to bring some narrative list, you want to bring a competitive list, that's not going to be fun and can be sorted out beforehand. The other, which is some of us, I think, are trying to discuss is: The "competitive" lists do not have enough variety of units; and, my personal take is that they fail at promoting armies that reflect the fluff adequately. For example: while there could be rules for a "cavalry battalion", certainly I would expect most freeguild armies to be a combination of missile pieces, infantry, cavalry, and magic. That is certainly one way to get variety on the table. Why did armies have a variety of units? Because they fulfilled a variety of roles, and spamming one type of unit would get you butchered. If you remove that from the game, of course armies slim down to "the best choice". But that's because you shot yourself in the foot Sure! I enjoy, first and foremost, painting and collecting. But I like fooling around with the gaming side as I like wargaming and the applied stats side to it. As for my opponents, old buddies, but I would like to dabble more into competitive once that is possible (and I do not like TTS :P).
  13. In table top simulator, where you don't need to buy the minis, so people vary their lists just for fun as much as they want. I mean, it is a different beast altogether, I am not sure TTS tournies mean that much in that regard. As for solutions, mimic better what 40k is doing for army composition. Even after removing a lot of the restrictions in army building in 9th you see lists that have plenty of variety. True, there are some restrictions (rule of 3), but people simply choose to bring variety anyway to fulfill different battlefield roles.
  14. I have said this elsewhere, but I have my theories. To an extent, I think part of it is GW overdoing the idea “wouldn’t it be fun to have an all slayers army?” Much like they overdid those gimmicky rules that went “if you yell waaagh you get +1 to hit”. Then, I also think GW wants to: 1) control what miniatures are popular at a point in time, and then rotate those over time: instead of having multiple viable models at the same time. 2) wants people to collect multiple armies, and not just have a large force for one. And I think it is profit seeking behavior.
  15. But of course, isn’t that obvious? The rules dictate what is competitive, and that in turn determines lists. Some of us want the rules to encourage you to bring a variety of units, in a way that better resembles what the fluff would have you expect of an army. Then, WD releases could offer some support for special thematic armies, such as a troll horde or the only slayers army. But those shouldn’t be more powerful than the balanced armies. Will it please everyone? I don’t know, I guess not. But in any case I do believe it is what makes the most sense. I think someone at GW got to carried away but the idea of supporting gimmicky lists (wouldn’t an all slayers army be fun?) and battalions and mire restrictive lists are too central to competitive armies nowadays. To those arguing go play narrative instead, I ll answer that narrative supports everything. I d prefer a game were gimmicky lists are the ones people bring to narrative. The game, imho, should try to deliver that balanced army experience via rules and not via people ignoring what’s good and bad and playing pre arranged scenarios. The rules are supposed to simulated the AoS world and its battles! As to whether this is possible or not, GW has done it for 40k, so yeah it is possible. You just have to write the rules accordingly.
×
×
  • Create New...