Jump to content

yukishiro1

Members
  • Posts

    1,136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by yukishiro1

  1. Yeah, the "can't be more than 50%" is in the battlepack section in the core rulebook, but it isn't in the battlepack in the GHB, so it doesn't apply to the GHB battlepack.
  2. Doomfires were just stuck into DoK to pad out the roster.
  3. Yeah, they've definitely never released half a battletome then released the next half less than a year later...🤣
  4. Well, not quite. Being "in cover" includes being "behind cover." It's just that to be behind cover, it seems per the rules you have to be actively under attack. I was mainly trying to figure out if I had missed something somewhere. It doesn't look like I have. So the result is that shadow warriors actually only get the bonus attacks if they are wholly within a terrain feature, which is probably what the datasheet actually ought to say since it isn't technically possible to be behind cover when you're attacking.
  5. Yeah, SoB were already being nerfed out of the competitive scene but this is just the nail in the coffin IMO, I don't see how they can possibly win giving up 4 extra VP and having to deal with something like this. I have been wrong before about stuff being busted but this looks pretty busted to me, at least in certain combos. And since anybody in the game can take it, it's hard to see how it ends up any place other than "auto-take broken" or "never-take except in the gimmick lists." It's a bold choice, I'll give the designers that. An unkillable unit that can heal is basically as problematic a thing as you can possibly make. I hope their confidence isn't misplaced.
  6. It isn't going to be eating any endless spells unless it goes wild, you'd have to be really incompetent with your endless spell placement to give your opponent that opportunity. It doesn't really threaten a T1 charge on most maps so if you have the ability to degrade it to level 1 before it gets into melee that's a massive thing re: your ability to realistically kill it. If you have no ways to damage it besides melee you are stuck eating a minimum of two full rounds of its output to remove it, compared to potentially zero from a shooting list if you can get the T1/T2 double. Or even just shoot + then unleash hell + potentially melee to finish it off, for again just 1 round of its output instead of 2. What it counters best is strong melee hammers. It's weakest (though still not exactly weak) against armies that have teleports, cheap screens and good ranged damage.
  7. The matched play stuff is really weird, it is clearly not actual competitive content, more like a combination of narrative and matched play, and feels like something aimed at just trying to nudge matched play players into buying the super expensive terrain box. At least they had the decency to put it into its own battlepack so that you can just ignore it entirely if you aren't interested, aside from the incarnate itself I suppose (and even that technically isn't playable in a normal GHB tournament until they update the list of usable books to include it). The rest of the book seems pretty good.
  8. Yeah, I have learned not to judge things before I actually see them on the table, but from a book rules point of view this thing looks problematic, and like yet another new set of rules that punishes melee and rewards shooting.
  9. Yeah, I think it's totally fine. It's super strong if you get it off, especially if you get it off on level 1 on a turn where you'd otherwise die. In fact it's so strong that I think the effect will just be that you never, ever get the chance to do it because nobody is going to be dumb enough to position their endless spell somewhere where you could. Except maybe for stuff like warp lightning because the casting value is high enough to make it a real gamble. Anything with a 5 or 6 casting value is just suicidal.
  10. Yeah, for sure. Forgotten Nightmares seems particularly problematic.
  11. Yeah, I forgot it actually won't charge in the opponent's turn anyway since it stays your model and it explicitly only has to charge in your charge phase, not your opponent's. So it'd be super hard to actually get into a position where it charges your own units and locks them up. I guess the only way is if it's already within 3" of another unit when it goes wild, as it'd then enter combat and you couldn't retreat it or the other unit because both are impacted by the aura. But that requires the player using it to mess up pretty fundamentally. I almost wonder whether it was originally written to be something more significant - like becoming like a wild endless spell, so your opponent got to use it in their turn - and then they changed it to this late in the process because they realized that was too much of a drawback, and now they've got something that actually isn't really much of a drawback at all. RAW going wild doesn't even seem to stop it from continuing to cap objectives for you! It seems really undercosted for the damage it can do, though, for something that can't die in 1 round and degrades only modestly, and not even until the battleshock phase of the turn it takes damage. It has better combat abilities than most other monsters in its points range on top of the super powerful anvil ability and a situationally very powerful aura. Though I guess it doesn't really have synergy with much of anything. The degradation is also weirdly small. Going from rank 2 to rank 1 has almost no real impact on its effectiveness - 10" to 8" aura and 26 down to 20 max damage, it's not nothing, but it's also anything you're really going to care all that much about. The whole thing is a bit of a head-scratcher IMO.
  12. Right. My point was just that the hero bonding mechanism doesn't seem to actually do much tactically. It doesn't really change how you approach it - targeting the bonding hero isn't a viable strategy unless your opponent is really misplaying it, given how anemic the result is. About the only time I can really think it's relevant is if you can snipe the hero at the top of T1 while the thing is still in their deployment zone on a battle plan where they can't stick it out of range of everything else, causing it to charge its own team and stick the enemy army in its own deployment zone...and top of T1 hero sniping really isn't a strategy the game should be rewarding anyway. So either you effectively win the game on the top of T1, or the mechanic likely does nothing. Doesn't seem like a winner from a design point of view. The whole unit seems like a very hard rock-paper-scissors type of design, and I instinctively don't like those mechanics because they tend to make for lopsided games.
  13. Thanks for the bigger photos. I honestly dunno how much of an issue the reserve thing is because of the lack of all that big a penalty if it goes wild anyway. Given you still get to move it yourself, it's unlikely it's going to come back to bite you even if the hero does die. It doesn't seem to me like "snipe out the hero" is actually going to be a strategy, you're going to have to just kill the thing or ignore/tarpit it, and if your list can't do either, well, sucks to be you. It's going to hard counter SoB for example, who are already pretty countered by the new handicap system. I'm not going to shed any great tears for that army because I think the concept is bad, but I don't think it's great to have a model that hard-counters an entire army, especially when any army can take it.
  14. I can't really read the text, but I couldn't see any limitation on bonding it to a character deployed into reserves, which seems like a bad oversight if true? I was honestly expecting the hero to have to stay within a certain radius, but it appears to not only be board-wide but also even if the model is off the table. And the penalty for the hero dying doesn't even seem to be all that bad as long as you've already got it into your opponent's lines. 400 points for a flying 12" move monster that's on the killy end of the spectrum for those points values and that shuts off retreating in a 10" radius and that can't be killed in a single round (without auto-kill abilities) seems really good to me.
  15. Being in cover is defined in the core rules (17.1.1) as: Being behind terrain - 17.0.2 - says this: The way "behind cover" is defined, read strictly it seems to imply that you can only ever be behind cover when you are the defender of an attack - because you have to be more than 3" from the attacking unit in criteria 1. If the Shadow Warriors are the ones attacking, that would appear not to meet the criteria, even if they would be behind cover and therefore "in cover" if they were being attacked. Does this mean Shadow Warriors only get the +1 hit/wound if they're wholly within terrain? Or is there something I'm missing that would allow them to get the bonus when behind terrain as defined by all the criteria besides not being more than 3" from the attacking unit (since they are the attacking unit)?
  16. Manually uninstalling and reinstalling fixed it for me. Looks like it was just the bug again. Though obviously the fact that they have this system means they built in the ability to do so, presumably because they are planning on doing it some day. I'm just glad it doesn't seem to be this day.
  17. Yeah if they have really done this and it isn't just the bug resurfacing, it's a big bummer for a variety of reasons. Aside from allies, another big one is that it means you can't easily look up your opponent's warscrolls, which wastes time.
  18. So I'm not really clear here - people seem to be saying different things. Are there people for whom the 3.0 book warscrolls aren't currently locked? I'm on IOS, if it matters. Just trying to figure out if it's the old bug or if there was actually a policy change.
  19. I just noticed today browsing the app that scrolls from 3.0 books are now locked if you don't have a code from buying a codex - it used to be you had free access to the warscrolls, it was just the other rules that were locked. Did they announce something about this that I missed? Or is there some error with my app - IIRC some people had a similar bug happen to them in the past? edit: See below, appears to be the bug surfacing again, which can be fixed by uninstalling and reinstalling the app.
  20. I dunno, I actually think the devs do a pretty good job with AOS. 40k is an absolute dumpster fire, there's no arguing that, but AOS right now is in probably the best place it ever has been. No faction win rates over 60% is, by GW's standards, quite good. My read of AOS is the biggest problem is lack of time put into balancing. Both the last balance patch and this one are more or less right in terms of what they targeted, the problem with both is just that they didn't put in the time and effort to really go the distance. When I say they both feel like Friday Afternoon Specials I don't mean that they're incompetent, but rather that the effort wasn't put in. And that may well be the product of things beyond the control of the devs themselves. We know from the last year of reveals that GW game developers are underpaid and overworked and even expected to create new stuff for the company on their own time. In that environment a Friday Afternoon Special starts to feel justified. My read on AOS is that the real problem is that the suits aren't giving the game developers the resources they need, not that the developers are fundamentally clueless like they seem to be over on the 40k team. I wouldn't be surprised if the expectation of doing quarterly balance passes was simply thrust upon the team as an additional requirement on top of their already overburdened job duties, without any extra resources being allocated and without any diminishment of their other work expectations, and with unworkable restrictions like not being able to adjust points in this one because it would make GW's print model look bad to adjust points now and then have them contradicted by the points that have already been sent to the printer. If that's true, I don't really blame them for taking the low effort path, and the only way that's going to change is if people demand higher effort and the suits take notice of it and decide that investing a little more will generate them higher profits. For example, does anyone really think that it's the devs that want to adjust points via a printed document that has to be to the printers 3-6 months before release? I can't imagine that's the case. That's surely a suits decision, not a developer decision. I can't imagine the developers don't agree with the vast majority of the community on how silly it is to try to do points adjustments 3-6 months ahead of time. Nobody can seriously think that's a good way to do things, it has to be an economically-motivated diktat from the bean counters. And the only way to get that changed is to convince the bean counters they've counted the beans wrong.
  21. VS boxes are generally bad for the consumer and great for the company selling them. Probably 30% of people buying them tell themselves they'll resell the half they don't want, and then just never get around to it. There's a reason they'll give you plastic that would cost you almost double as much if you bought everything separately, and it's not out of the goodness of their hearts.
  22. I think this is true when people have limited collections and so their army tends to look the same every time. Like there are definitely LRL lists that can play against Deepkin. But that isn't relevant to someone who doesn't have those models available to them.
  23. I would assume the hero has to stay within its domination range (or at least w/in a fixed, relatively short range - if the domination aura changes size based on power status probably that shouldn't result in losing control of it, so maybe it's fixed at the medium size or something), it'd be a bit weird otherwise if the whole point is that it's being controlled and then it goes crazy if the hero isn't around any more. Doesn't mean it's impossible to still keep the hero back safe somewhere behind terrain, but that really restricts how aggressive you can be with a piece that seems like it is designed to be used aggressively if you're having to tether it to a back-boarded hero parked somewhere safe.
  24. I think you are taking things unnecessarily personally here. I didn't say you were a white knight, and I didn't make a generic response. I responded to the exact thing you wrote, which was that you didn't really think the community really deserved better than they are getting, and that we needed to be positive because otherwise GW would give us nothing or a knee-****** reaction next time instead. I don't agree with either of those points, but that doesn't mean I'm attacking you by saying so. Attempting to draw some kind of karmic equivalence between some random person responding to a post on a message board and actions by a multinational corporation worth billions is, again, just a bit silly. We should hold GW to higher standards than random people on message boards. I would hope you would hold me to higher standards if I was getting paid hundreds of millions a year to post here, and I would hope that GW spent more time and effort on their balance update that I spent writing that post. 😁
  25. Yeah, but most resilient characters are super expensive. Is anyone going to want to spend 1400 points on Nagash and this thing? Presumably not, that leaves your army so vulnerable to anything that can actually kill your big model. There are some relatively cheap but resilient characters, but they're pretty rare. Like I could see pairing it with a frost or maybe even a flame phoenix - gotta kill 14 wounds on a 4+/4++ that then if you do kill it, it heals to full on a 4+ and you gotta do it all over again. Or on a cheap stormcast hero with the thing that prevents you from being shot outside however many inches it is. Or IDK. But aside from edge cases like that it seems unlikely to be worth it.
×
×
  • Create New...