Greybeard86

Is the consensus that putting more bodies on the skeletons is not worth the cost? I haven't had time to think much about this, but I feel that it seems that at baseline 10 dire wolves benefit over skellies for the reinforcement rules. Or perhaps I am overlooking something obvious.

Thanks for the reasoned response. Let me preface by saying that, combos aside, unleash hell is undoubtfully a bonus to shooting. Given that shooting was already meta and dominant (as well as heavily conducive to NPE), this just adds salt to the wound. I do not think that is up for debate. The question is then how bad it is, as in how much in can hurt when utilized by powerful shooting armies. In that context is where we find the dreaded sentinels. In units of 30 that's 10 MW per shooting phase and, thanks to unleash hell, that means potentially several additional such phases. Let's see what the rule does to melee units / armies mechanically. Since it allows for an extra round of shooting, it will heavily incentivize running screens + shooting. This means that any charging unit will potentially face the following sequence, before getting into combat: 1) charge screen and you get shot, 2) get shot in their turn, 3) get shot when charging. This is potentially 2 additional rounds of receiving shots, if the opponent chooses to do so, that are new to the game. You mention as counterplay baiting it out or shenanigans. You can do this, and you could do this before too, it will just be more costly to you due to unleash hell. But we turn to the beginning of the discussion: this is simply an extra boost to shooting, and not a small one. Coming from the end of an edition dominated by shooting and with lots of complains surrounding the NPE due to shooting, further boosting shooting is an extremely bizarre design choice.

Well I'll be darned. That is not reading the room well, if you ask me. As if Sentinels weren't getting enough hate, GW highlights them in the "hYpee!!! machine", in conjunction with one of the most contentious rules. 🍿🍿🍿🍿

Those are good questions. For me, the answer is that the difficulty (and scope for counterplay) of a move should be in direct relation to its impact. Otherwise, players can feel powerless while the opponent decimates you and the game becomes more about alpha striking and trading units. The problem with unleash hell is that it is very devastating and supremely easy to execute, yet there is little counterplay. Shooting in AoS is a leading cause of NPE because: i) not all armies have good shooting, ii) there is little to no terrain to hide, iii) double turn, iv) sniping is too good and too easy, v) shooting bows into combat / at combat engaged units is counterintuitive to common wargaming.

First of all, anger over the demise of WHFB is very justified. It was an extremely crabby move from GW, from a consumer perspective, and it broke a tradition of miniatures being supported for decades. Anyone telling me otherwise already makes me raise an eyebrow. Second, immediate comparisons between AoS and WHFB are natural since one is meant to replace the other. GW bringing back TOW is only going to make these comparisons more obvious. Third, people disliking the fixation of GW with power armored Mary Sues is not strange. I get that some like the models and lore and that's just a matter of preference, but quite obviously GW is pushing extremely hard for them, this is not demand driven. The % people playing them and the attention they receive are very imbalanced. The way that GW tries to insist in people buying the latest SCE sculpts is not consumer friendly either, or so am I told (e.g. supporting only a fraction of the model range with decent rules). That said, this doesn't mean I believe it is nice or constructive to constantly wishing the worst to AoS. But that's not what I see around here. Most people in TGA are playing / collecting AoS models and would like a smoothly working game to play. Insinuating that those are just hatred filled grognards is strawmanning and dismissive. As to whether the release is a flop or not, it seems that it is selling, just not the way some other releases did. Good, I'd be worried otherwise. GW needs to learn that constant "hYYYpe!!" and "NeeWWw!!" are not sustainable. I like that they are slowing down the release of new armies, going for larger ranges, and consolidating the rest.

Those are good questions. For me, the answer is that the difficulty (and scope for counterplay) of a move should be in direct relation to its impact. Otherwise, players can feel powerless while the opponent decimates you and the game becomes more about alpha striking and trading units. The problem with unleash hell is that it is very devastating and supremely easy to execute, yet there is little counterplay. Shooting in AoS is a leading cause of NPE because: i) not all armies have good shooting, ii) there is little to no terrain to hide, iii) double turn, iv) sniping is too good and too easy, v) shooting bows into combat / at combat engaged units is counterintuitive to common wargaming.

Sure, FW chorfs bring discontinued even though the new sculpts came with the launch of AoS (and were priced at FW standards). Slowly tossing into the fire WHFB kits that had been ported didn’t help, but that isn’t exactly the same. Others may have more examples for you.

How could it not be a problem? The counterplay is more uncertain and resource intensive than the move, making to move "imbalanced".

Beautiful painting! Any tips for a returning painter? I feel I might be stagnating a bit.

*Cough cough wink wink cough cough* Take the hint, GW.

Spot on. Specially like this bit: reworked old armies rather than always brand new stuff. Some of the bean counters at GW need to read this. You will still sell new sculpts for old products, maybe a few less, but still. Constantly legending stuff and using new releases as business drivers leave an extremely bitter taste in the mouth of those making the purchases. And, while I am sure you get money from people who don't stay in the hobby, how much of the revenue is from long term customers?

After reading a lot of the complaints, I understand that some players love KO (fewer FS) and are afraid to lose them as a faction in a soup. As in declining support. Personally, I have witnessed factions languish in AoS and I am pretty convinced that GW is unable to support as many distinct factions. I’d rather backpedal and apply nuln oil over the several factions so that they blend together into soup, even if that means toning down their individual identities. Because I believe the alternative is simply death by neglect. I do however acknowledge that this is ****** for people who loved those factions. And I resent GW s approach in early AoS. It was simply poor practice to release for those sweet few release dollars and not support any longer afterwards. That said, here we are, and at least they acknowledge tacitly the issue. If soup is what is needed, I ll take soup over legends. As long as this is not repeated! Stop freaking legending or leaving factions to rot. You sell expensive minis and not cards, accept it and stop treating them artificially like perishable goods.

I am not a stormcast player, but this concerns me greatly. Back in the day GW released both new units and new sculpts for old units. This your old as heck metal quarreler or miner was as “legal” as the plastic sculpt. Now, it seems that GW releases predate or obsolete sculpts that are fairly new. And I am not even talking about legending relatively new stuff (I will forever hold a grudge over the new and very expensive chorf FW being trashed). I mean the primaris treatment, where models are made obsolete to make sure people refresh sculpts. SCE seem to suffer from this, as the model line is unbearably extensive but, based on what I am being told, often at the cost of older lines not being as supported. If that is the case, please stop it.

What other faction has more modern models? 🤔 This. Stop with the fire and forget armies, they just clutter the setting, lead to imbalances, brutal legend approaches, and disgruntled consumers.

I would be extremely surprised if W+ offered digital rules. They charge far more for them on a book by book basis. Thus, W+ is a hard pass for me. It seems that it will be advertisement we are supposed to pay for, which is what white dwarf has turned into anyway.

The weirdest way in which I have seen this saying used, yet. Just wow. This is almost always used to describe a situation were at a societal level we choose the greater good, not to defend corporations putting first their "very few and select" shareholders over the "few" (majority?) of the consumers.

Excuse me? Their boots are perfectly fine. Big enough to stomp on the consumer without breaking a sweat.

Ahhh! Finally some proper reason to go to war. Retaking our (new) ancestral homes!

Grudge! Sit here:

This, so much. Which is compounded by the fact that, usually, models and rules go hand in hand, meaning that if a faction gets no new rules the model range is left to languish. It is a terrible feeling to spend hundreds of $ and many hours painting and basing an army that will get sidelined. Yet, that happens constantly with the current release schedule. And that's without bringing up when GW gives the death kiss to a faction, such as Legion of Azgorh aka chaos dwarves aka chorfs. 5 years post release of a bunch of super pricey FW models, they burn them down in a trash can fire in a back alley.

Khazuk Khazuk Khazuk-ha! Khazuk Khazuk Khazuk-ha! Khazuk Khazuk Khazuk-ha!

So much this. "Hyper-narrow" factions lead to abandoned factions, which is possibly the worst feeling for both hobby oriented people and "gamers".

I find that very annoying, as someone who paints both old and new sculpts.

Which is a pity, if you ask me. I really like some of the themes. For instance, seahorse eel conversions look really good.

I have to admit, the prospect of rot-squids vs fishy-squids is appealing. But them sea lads need some more sculpts.