Acrozatarim
-
Posts
485 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Acrozatarim
-
-
Cautiously enthusiastic about these changes!
-
If next week is something Skryre reimagined, I guess there's equal odds between jezzails and that ratling-cannon-wagon-bike thing.
-
1
-
-
I really like the open-faced helms, personally.
-
2
-
-
Cautiously optimistic about these battle tactic changes. Having a very limited number of 'extra' tactics associated with Grand Alliance, rather than faction, seems a good approach.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, MitGas said:
What I wonder after seeing the WarCry ones - will Ogors in general become more monstrous? The classic Ogor looks like a giant powerlifter (well, a very unattractive interpretation of one) but the new ones reminded me more of something like ghouls on steroids. I‘ve got no real opinion on or preference regarding Ogors but those minis made me think that the ones closer to humans will just be part of Cities and the Mawtribes might become more „unique“ in appearance? Barbaric traits are pretty much Darkoath‘s thing now so perhaps GW wants to reinvent Ogors a bit? 🤔
Would Ogor fans like that or not is what I‘m basically asking myself…
Those were Gorgers; they've always looked monstrous. The new ones for Warcry were very nice models but kept pretty close to the existing Gorger aesthetic, tbh.
-
3
-
2
-
-
29 minutes ago, Sception said:
The scenery suggestions are nice, but I'm very worried about the terrain rules. I'd love to have some simple but intuitive rules for basic terrain like forests, walls, hills, ruins, water features, defensible buildings, letting people use their own terrain in a way that makes sense.
But I'm worried we'll instead get a bunch of hasslesome and arbitrary rules for specific weird terrain feature models that GW sells, or pretends to sell (but is perpetually out of stock), or used to sell (but never will again), similar to the stronghold rules from the recent dawnbringers book, which in no way generalize to the sort of generic terrain that most game stores, even most warhammer stores, typically have available for players to use.
To be fair, if what's in the article is any indication, there will be a small set of broad terrain abilities rather than specific ones for specific models.
The terrain abilities included there are Cover (which will presumably be a bonus to save, or a penalty to attack rolls vs a unit in cover), Unstable (presumably a 'you can't have a unit sitting on top of this' rule), Obscuring (which will likely be a rule for LOS blocking or the like), and Place of Power. The latter's the only obvious place thus far for weird and specific rules to go, and I wonder if it'll be more like a simplified version of the Mystic Terrain rules/table of times latter rather than anything else.
-
2
-
-
Glad to see grand strategies getting the boot, as they were basically the 'strategy of what I was going to do anyway'.
-
3
-
-
I think it's 100% that there'll be a wizard on each side in the box, and if the Warlock Engineer is no longer a wizard, that doesn't leave a huge amount of options for who will take the spellcasting slot unless they're putting a Verminlord in there too.
-
I wonder what units the warlock engineer will be able to take in his retinue. He's not a spellcaster any more, basically he's just a good jezzail unit attachment that can wander off, but it may be that his retinue unit selection makes him a good choice too.
-
They have to be an Infantry hero for the unit not to be able to shoot them but yes, I think k that's accurate based on the rules we've seen which, crucially, are obviously just a very limited slice.
That said, I don't think it's a problem. 40k ran into issues because of some weird rules interactions and because you had units like battleship commanders and primarchs being untargetable, which won't be the case here by the look of it.
-
Yeah, that's a surprise he doesn't have the Wizard ability.
Warlock engineers losing the ability to cast spells is a bit of a headscratcher, albeit it does enhance the focus on the 'engineer' part. Will arch-warlocks still be wizards?
-
I wonder if it was just an accidental early post today, or if someone got the schedule entirely wrong and uploaded the wrong miniature for this week.
-
I like the fact he's got a jezzail, as it means there's a character to nicely pair up with the jezzails in the box. I wonder if he gives a bonus to jezzails or the like.
-
I actually don't think Big Waagh is necessarily gone. It may just say 'you can take units with the Ironjawz or Kruleboyz keywords'. Hell, it *might* be a 'subfaction' you can take for either army.
-
1
-
-
I'm liking a lot of what I'm reading here.
Most of all, I'm liking Vindicators actually feeling more like spear-armed troops, and the loss of missile fire in melee. It feels like a return to the more strategy-game feel of old that AoS has often felt a little lacking in some places up to now.
-
6
-
-
I'm assuming the Memoriams will be a token that you can spend for an effect or bonus, rather than minis with their own stations, if only to avoid the issue of a unit with models in it that have wildly different stat lines.
-
2
-
-
Human priests as grounding anchors for the Ruination soldiers is very nifty. Having some literally be those stormcasts' descendants is very cool, albeit seems to run thr risk of making things worse when some poor ****** sees his many-greats-grandchild die on the battlefield in front of him 😛
-
2
-
-
Fantastic couple of models, those. Necromunda continues to knock it out the park with miniatures.
-
1 hour ago, Nezzhil said:
Seraphon needs a revamps in their design because It is one of the hardest faction to balance and I am bored that all the editions happen the same. Maybe removing summoning and changing for return destroyed units is a way to balance. But the CPP is the same bad design as always, and a faction that requieres changes and fixes during all the editions is a design problem.
I do hope that, in general, summoning is scaled back a bit this edition.
It's a pain playing a monogod Chaos faction and having to accept the inevitability that a bunch of your faction's weighting for its power and playability is going to be in summoning daemons when you're more interested in the mortal side of them.
-
Yeah, "there are four battle formations to pick from for each army on release of the new indices" is not the same as saying there will always only be four per army. I expect battletomes to roll out plenty.
It's certainly better than the 10th ed situation with indices where each faction started with one, and only one, detachment type per army, even if the new AoS formations are less rules-intensive than the 40k ones are.
-
2
-
-
Anything that cuts down on the amount of 'dice roll to see if you get to make another dice roll' effects in the game is fine by me.
-
6
-
3
-
-
Looks pretty good. Big question, for me, is if these 10 are the sum total of commands that will be in the game, or if there will be faction- or unit-specific ones as well.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:
At a guess, a tactical rock to give good height to the rumoured Sisters of Battle jump-pack character.
-
2
-
-
You can tell it's someone's fan fiction because they claim leaks and rumours are carefully-managed PR, which is abject nonsense.
-
6
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Priests can try and banish manifestations, I think, plus now that endless spells have stats, Khorne can literally just facemurder them, and possibly get buffs when doing so.
I mean, now you can actively flex on the things with your enormous, blood-oiled muscles. Sounds like a win for Khorne to me