Jump to content

yukishiro1

Members
  • Posts

    1,136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by yukishiro1

  1. Looks less like Galletian Veterans and more like Galletian Cannon Fodder TBH. Why take a big unit of elite GVs when they're hugely vulnerable and you could just take a cheap 10-man unit of ****** that still counts as 30 on an objective and that nobody is going to want to commit a Bounty Hunter to killing because it'll just be ridiculous overkill? The Bounty Hunters bat is a big design mistake, the only redeeming feature of which is that it is *so* pushed that it may finally be a bat good enough to stop people taking 1-drops. But that's not a great redeeming feature. Why should veterans take twice as much damage as non-veterans? It's beyond silly both from a design point of view and from a "this makes sense within the world we've created" point of view. Veteran Hearthguard Berzerkers taking twice as much damage as non-Veteran Hearthguard Berzerkers...whoever came up with that one should have been sent back to the drawing board.
  2. Yeah, but that isn't the rule. And it's in a competitive ruleset designed for competitive play so of course people are going to use the real rule, not an approximation of the rule that's less generous to themselves.
  3. Adding a second check on top of the existing rules doesn't make it simpler. Especially not one that requires you to make two measurements just for that check, in addition to the third measurement for the alternative check. And where it's done model by model as well. I applaud the end result of making it easier for (some) 32mm and larger base models to fight in two ranks, but this is such an ugly way of doing it.
  4. It is going to be beyond ridiculous if in six months these units lose the ability to fight in two ranks and go back to being gimps.
  5. The battle tactics and grand strategies are also going to cause a massive split between armies with new 3.0 books or white dwarf updates that have good tactics and grand strategies and those without them. People were already talking about whether tome-specific BTs should be banned at competitive events and I think this is just going to push that even more in that direction. Having good tactics in your tome wasn't that important when you could usually get 5 per game either way and when GSes were so easy as to be stupid, but it is going to make a huge difference in a world where completing all 5 is going to be rare rather than the norm and where the new GS list looks genuinely difficult to achieve in close games.
  6. Even Phoenix Guard get deleted if they're taking an extra point of damage per hit. I agree that if anything this raises the value of ****** infantry. Tree revs for example are looking borderline busted with the amount of stuff they do in this new edition. Tiny footprint, free teleport, cheap as chips for a unit that counts as 15 on an objective, can score bonus points for new savage spearhead. Of course they're also getting a new book and may lose what makes them good right now. But the point stands that stuff like that suddenly got a lot better, and it doesn't care if you're hitting it for an extra damage because it'd be dead either way. If Bounty Hunters is a single unreinforced unit it won't have a big impact, if it's 3 troops units with no restrictions on reinforcement it's going to be a deeply meta-warping thing where the game is going to come down to objective-grabbing with vets units that then get deleted as soon as they get looked at by bounty hunters. And that doesn't sound like a very fun game to me TBH.
  7. Bounty Hunter looks hugely problematic, depending on the details (and badly designed regardless of the details, frankly, because +1 damage is such a weird buff of differing value to different stuff). Typical war-com article to tease that with no details while "revealing" absolute junk like that fights-last CA.
  8. Sure, but the obvious solution to that was cloud coherency. GW is so stubborn though about not adopting rules innovations developed by other gaming companies. They'll go miles out of their way to come up with a complicated and problematic "solution" instead of just admitting that someone else came up with something better ages ago.
  9. Yeah, they have been a massive problem that's artificially made a ton of units bad for no real reason. It'd be great if they get fixed, but it ought to be via a rules change, not something that only applies to one way to play the game.
  10. Well, presumably if it is real it's something they'd tell playtesters playtesting the new GHB about since it'd be a huge change that'd drastically impact that new GHB. But the leak doesn't say that, it says it's in the GHB, which would just be bizarre.
  11. It's hard for me to believe they'd do something like modifying fighting ranges in a battlepack, that seems weird even by GW's standards. Surely that's a core rules tweak, not something to pop into a battlepack. Why would Ogors in Thondia have shorter range than Ogors in InsertRandomlyGeneratedPlacenameHere?
  12. I'm not sure there's enough in the Bonesplitterz part of the book to say there is a lot of things period, much less a lot of good things. 😁 It's definitely not as bad as people first thought, it can mathhammer its way to victory in a decent number of matchups. But that's not exactly what you want in a good book. It stands out among 3rd edition armies by being far and away the blandest with the least going on in terms of interesting mechanics, it isn't even close.
  13. Bonesplitterz have only 15 tournament entries, it's a classic case of nobody playing a faction which means that just a few good players can skew the stats substantially. They've also never actually won anything in 3.0. They're not as bad as people sometimes think but they're very much mid-tier, not top-tier like a lazy look at the stats without drilling down might suggest.
  14. It'll be pretty funny if AOS3 goes downhill at almost the same point in the edition as 9th did, and if it's dark elves that do it in both games. 😁
  15. Yeah, very dumb move there. It may be that it is compensated with other things to not be such a big deal this time around, but hero phase shoot abilities just shouldn't exist, period. Or they should prevent you from shooting in the shooting phase if you use them, so they're just an option to shoot before moving rather than after. But they added the SCE one in 3.0 too so obviously the devs think shoot twice is fine.
  16. AOS also has the leftover armies that got ported over but have got only token model support ever since the release of the game and may or may not ever get a significant post-AOS release. FEC, Bonesplitterz, BoC, Cities historically though with DBC who knows now.
  17. Sylvaneth are elves (sort-of), they go by the elf rule.
  18. Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what it means. Now if you were to say that Lumineth not getting as many models wouldn't guarantee that some more needy faction would get more...that's obviously true. I'm not sure any amount of limiting Lumineth releases would have got Fyreslayers more than their token foot hero, because I think GW just doesn't have any ideas left for that faction. If it wasn't Lumineth it might have been one of their other favorites instead. But it is pretty much the case that one miniature for X means one less mini for some faction other than X.
  19. 180 days is the delivery time on made-to order; it's not saying they'll come back in 6 months. It's saying that if you order now you may not get them for up to six months, but they will make them for you based on your order, as long as you get it in by the deadline. It's part of their discontinuation - they'll guarantee you can buy one if you submit an order by X date, even if it takes up to 6 months to get it to you. I would be extremely surprised if they bring them back sooner than a year from now, and quite possibly substantially longer than that.
  20. There's another thread about it that lists them all, but it seems to have fallen off the front page now. It's a bummer for sure, and it's weird to see them discontinuing recent plastic kits that tend to be very high quality. I can only assume it's because nobody actually bought them. GW doesn't make decisions based on anything but the dollars and cents, and I guess some bean counter must have determined it costs them more money to keep the kits in regular production and stored somewhere than to discontinue them and bring them back to much FOMO fanfare once a year.
  21. Magic in WHFB/AOS has always been a bit of a weird feast and famine kind of thing where it tends to be of very limited value if you don't go in hard. It's not as bad as old WHFB where you could win the game with one supercharged spell, but the basic structure where small wizards of limited power are largely neutered has remained, and the result of that is that you either need to take supercasters or just take so many casters that you can overwhelm their number of unbinds to have a reasonable chance of getting stuff off. 40k actually does this way better, largely because psychic powers are (terrible balance snafus aside) less powerful, but also a lot more reliable to get off because psykers aren't as ubiquitous, deny range is small enough that it can often be played around, and you can always reroll a cast if you really need it. Competitively AOS is actually in a pretty good place re: magic doms right now in that Seraphon is the only dominant faction at the moment that is really oppressive re: shutting down your opponent's magic. So even normal wizards can be fairly useful. But that wasn't the case throughout most of AOS 2 and I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes less the case in AOS3 too as we get new Lumineth and Tzeentch books. If it were me I'd reduce unbind range to w/in 12" of the caster or the target, and change Slaan unbind to only allow the first unbind to be board-wide. Suddenly you don't need to be a magic dom to cast as long as you position well, and casting becomes much more reliable generally and more about smart play and less about just rolling dice and seeing if the RNG god blesses you.
  22. That'd be just fine, and if they had presented it that way I don't think anyone would be worried. It's the fact that they presented it as both a "CoS refresh" and "a new Dawnbringer Crusade focused on humans" and then pointedly refused to confirm that non-human CoS units will remain supported that has people worried. They must have anticipated that people had these questions, and the fact that they weren't willing to address them in the reveal beyond a "who knows, maybe there'll be a few non-humans?" is concerning to anyone who has existing CoS armies, and I would hope anyone can see why that is.
  23. I guess it'd actually be kinda interesting if Dawnbringer Crusaders are a bunch of xenophobic jerks carving out a humans-only dominion for their God-Emperor while the Cities remain the integrated societies they are. You could even do a whole thing where the Dawnbringers end up destroying or crippling one of the major original Cities because the city-dwellers don't agree with their extremist methods and ideology. Seems a bit too ambitious and politically controversial for modern GW though and more like a 30k kind of story anyway.
  24. Yeah the math in the original post seems quite dramatically off to me. I wonder if it was done on the mistaken assumption that to dispel you only need to roll higher than the CV, not the actual roll?
×
×
  • Create New...