Bosskelot
-
Posts
310 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Bosskelot
-
-
I'm kind of impressed that they managed to make the Stormcast helmet design even worse.
I guess they wanted more of a divergence from the original model which is fair, but that face ain't it.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Sception said:
stuff
It's definitely an interesting conundrum any game faces because yeah I agree with you on the priority roll feedback they got at events being true, but of course people who are going to a 2-day AOS event are already the ones super hyper invested in it*, so the real question is how many people is the double turn alienating from getting deeper into the game or entering at all.
But that's always the difficulty with this type of thing; do you just keep appealing to the same core audience, or do you try and make big changes to grow the audience? But by taking that risk, you might alienate the dedicated core audience and also not really do a good enough job of capturing new people either.
I can tell you for a fact that everytime I ask people why they haven't gotten into AOS despite showing interest, or they tried it initially and stopped, it is always ALWAYS the double turn.
At the end of the day it sort of depends what is the overall feedback they get about AOS and what their goals are for 4th. 40k had a player survey done on it halfway through the ed, but 3rd never got that, so all the designers ever speak to it seems are hardcore event players and seemingly have little to no feedback from the wider playerbase. They definitely pulled out a little bit of that "simplified not simple" phrasing for the announcement so there is at least a concern of new player attraction and retention
*AOS is a very weird community too in that it's hyper-defensive about any criticism of the game. A lot of this is obviously an ingrained reaction to old fantasy players, or total war fans, trashing on the game for years, but it is what it is. TGA is actually pretty unique in it's one of the few AOS communities online where you can actually criticise the game and not be personally attacked over it or have any aggression thrown your way. If people disagree, they actually do it politely and try and have a discussion about it. -
3 hours ago, Tonhel said:
I have to agree. The posts saying that double turn adds tactics and causes you to think ahead is a bit bizar as there are many games fantasy or historical that achieve the same or even better without it.
Double turn is in AoS, because GW thinks its revolutionary and gives in their opinion AoS something unique compared to other games. I am not a fan of it. As in most of our games the most important roll is the priority roll. It "currently" is to decisive in the outcome for the game.
Oh it's not even that, sure it can add its own type of tactical depth, it's people making wild statements about other games that don't have the double turn mechanic.
Someone said that 40k, and by extension any pure IGOUGO game, is solved in turn 1 and you just have to execute your plan is pure delusion. It speaks as someone who literally only plays Age of Sigmar.-
3
-
1
-
-
You know some of the statements being made by ardent double turn defenders really read like the people making them have never played any game aside from Sigmar.
-
2
-
7
-
-
Quote
There are also other benefits, as Matt explains: “Say, for example, we find out during the course of a season of Matched Play that the economy of Command points isn’t quite right for competitive play. We don’t need to issue an errata online; instead, we could have a new General’s Handbook with a new Command Module that is both thematically resonant and helps evolve the internal balance. If we want to bring that Advanced Rule module back in the future, we can.”
How is this any better than an online errata?
-
2
-
-
32 minutes ago, Togetak said:
This is a niche enough hobby that a loud enough fuss actually does get results, whether they’re quiet ones that alter things in the pipeline or shallower but more visible shifts like with the CoS marketing stuff. Even still, I don’t have to care about Beasts as a faction I want to play to care about the idea of completely randomly squatting a mostly plastic army four editions into the game, a year after they got a new miniature and following an edition that gave them a bunch of relevancy and fluff in elements of the narrative, supposedly so the same minis from the army (minus the one they just got) could continue to be sold at almost certainly a higher price in a sidegame.
If anything they'll be cheaper in TOW. The trend in that game is to sell giant regiment sets at a discount.
Just compare Tomb Guard in TOW to Black Guard in AOS.
-
30 minutes ago, Beliman said:
I think exactly the same. I just hope that the people above the creative and developers doens't bother with Matt Rose stuff.
I know that it will be an unpopular opinion, but I don't see a gigantic amount of changes in that PDF. Not so diferent than AoS, only 1 page of core rules changes (mainly to devastating wounds and a few clarifications or better wording to how can you use the Insane bravery/Overwtach stratas).
Everything else seems to be focused on factions, that is expected (if you group up all codex's FAQ's, you would probably end with 20-30 or more pages).
They're changes after just 6 months of release and many of them like towering and dev wounds significantly change how the game plays. The dev wound change itself is a bigger core rules change than anything in 9th and has still basically lead to a lot of abilities being semi-broken now.
-
3 hours ago, pnkdth said:
To me it is the 'uncertainty' element of 40k. AoS have priority rolls and secondary cards in 40k means you can't auto-pilot your way through a game, i.e. castling up and creating a death ball isn't viable because you can't score if you bunch up too much. Without I think it would be too easy to 'solve' 40k by simply fielding the most effective units at killing/tanking. Instead we see lists making use of units which are focused on objectives (or 'schemers' as they're know as in Malifaux). Their role isn't about producing the most dakka but rather protecting the back line, securing objectives, and so on.
In this regard, I enjoy 10th and the list feels more dynamic and lot less mathhammery than before. Once I got used to the new systems/rules games do run a lot smoother than 9th too. Really hope USRs and consolidated rules work out similarly in AoS 4th (while remaining distinct enough not to become Fantasy 40k).
The cards allow people to have a casual game and assign their wins or losses to bad draws, but the game is just as easily solvable as before. It's why you consistently see the same people winning events and its why I can basically score 37-40 secondary points in every single game, guaranteed, even when going tactical. And that's assuming you don't just go fixed where the game becomes easier to "solve" than before because now you're only having to worry about 2 easily scored secondaries rather than 3.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Flippy said:
What does this mean? Like, seriously, balance? Flavour? Gameplay? I've very recently checked 40k rules (I haven't played this before) and everything looks rather elegant. Where's the mess?
Huge amounts of errata's needed (to the point where the physical cards they printed out have more errors on them than the past 2 editions worth of codexes combined), tons of unintended but broken combos of power such as a plethora of high damage weapons with devastating wounds, needing the designer commentary to actually understand and use the Fly rules properly, plenty of core rules just not tested at all, tons of characters who join units and either give that unit a duplicate effect or give it a bonus that actively clashes with their weapons (tons of characters give their unit Lethal Hits, but the unit itself has Dev Wound weapons, which are two conflicting rules), bland and poorly thought out bonuses and abilities with armies like Votaan being able to get +4 to hit despite the modifiers to hit capping out at -1 or +1. I could go on.
Here is the 40k balance dataslateThe amount of gigantic core rules changes is actually kind of crazy for a game not even a year old, and the index/codex changes are pretty gargantuan too. While it is good GW is willing to make those sorts of changes it also shows just what a complete disasterzone 10th was on release.
-
6
-
-
Yeah that's a complete nothingburger of a video.
-
8 hours ago, Jagged Red Lines said:
No catastrophe for buyers. Its everywhere, no panic buying, can't be scalped, and is an affordable start to either army.
I'd say that was pretty preferable to a situation where the starter box is only available from retail for 24 hours and thereafter can only be bought from ebay for double the price.
There's a balance to be struck with this kind of stuff.
GW doesn't have unlimited production capacity, especially nowadays we have extreme issues with entire ranges struggling to be in stock anywhere and some countries have been unable to buy certain things for over a year. Producing 2x more Dominion than what was needed was a huge amount of plastic and cardboard gone into stuff that could have been allocated elsewhere. Great; you can buy 200,000 Yndrasta's off of Ebay but Lumineth players can't buy a battlecow and Australians haven't been able to buy a Land Raider in years.
Not only that but all that excess stock has to be returned to get destroyed. It is hugely wasteful in an industry that is already massively wasteful and has a crazy carbon footprint.
So yes it is catastrophic for buyers because it negatively effects every other product GW produces.
-
3
-
-
40k 10th isn't really built for comp players.
It's very much meant to appeal to ultra-casual garagelords who play 1 game every 3 months, or super new players. That's what the system is built around.
-
You should be more worried as to what sorts of lessons GW has taken from Dominion.
They catastrophically overproduced it last time, so will the suits now be pushing for a much smaller production run on what might end up being a much more popular box? Who knows, but I have faith in GW to make bad judgement calls on this sort of stuff because they've been doing it consistently for the past 10+ years.
-
4
-
-
He's not on a chariot. Just a giant two-headed wolf.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Double Misfire said:
Just realised there's been all this second Dwarf special character speculation going on, and we still don't know who the second Orc and Goblin one is.
Any guesses/wishes before the book goes on preorder tomorrow? It won't be anyone we've seen before because none of the 'historic' characters were active during that time period, and greenskins don't tend to live so long.
A wolf mounted Goblin Warboss to go with the Nomadic Waaagh would be neat + something we've never seen before (for the love of Grom, please no more named Black Orcs)
It's a mounted Goblin Warboss called Kiknik on a two-headed wolf called Chompa.
-
1
-
-
The other issue with adding more and more reactive moves to units to account for a double turn is that it also adds onto the total amount of activations being made which in turn adds onto how long the game takes to play.
In an AA game your reaction to your opponent moving their stuff first is just that; it's you activating your units as a reaction to what they did. In 40k and AOS with their reactive rules you are doing a reactive move ON TOP OF your regular movement, or a reactive shooting attack on top of your regular shooting. This might be fine if such moves weren't so easily accessible and in some cases very spammable. But restricting them too much also goes against GW's ideal to have the other player on the receiving end of a double get more moves so they're not just sitting their for 40 minutes with their finger up their ass.
-
17 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:
A few comments up I list a few things I think would go terribly wrong without the double turn. I’m curious as to your thoughts on them.
It's amazing how 40k can have armies that are purely melee with little to no actual shooting who can manage to solve these hurdles perfectly fine, and also has armies that can heal and rez and also function perfectly fine too.
-
Regarding USR's I can only hope they actually commit to them rather than the half-baked implementation in 40k currently.
The potential removal of battle tactics for a 40k tempest style system would be interesting. Battle tactics, like faction secondaries in 9th, are an attempt to make a faction play like it should in-lore but they can often miss the mark and become wildly too difficult to balance or become very boring. Not that the Tactical Deck in 40k doesn't have it's fair share of "go to this corner and do an action and score 4 points" but it does at least have plenty of "Kill ___" and "take this objective off of your opponent."
-
2
-
-
The whole of AOS is hardly built around the double turn, sorry.
You could remove it and the game would still function perfectly fine.
-
4
-
-
I do hope the new Stormcast take more inspiration from the Thunderstrike, rather than just being battered grizzled versions of the 1st Ed models. I actually like the thunderstrike aesthetic and proportions and think all of the SCE pre-that look like dogwater.
-
3
-
-
Just now, Vagard said:
According to V10 40k last year, when can we expect more new from now?
It's hard to say because a lot of Leviathan was.shown off at Warhammerfest, which isn't happening this year. I'm not sure when the next big con/event is happening before summer.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Snorri Nelriksson said:
It does'nt make any sense though at least for the plague monks.
"Basic units" for the 4 main clans can't be eliminated like that imho....i could see a sort of renewal for Gutter runners (maybe even a name change) but monks are also in the underworld warband....it makes little sense considering Pestilens was also his own battletome in the first edition.Yeah considering they both have representation in Underworlds it would be very strange for them to disappear.
Especially as GW was selling a christmas box with 40 plague monks a little over a year ago.
-
There's a skaven leak going around that sounds a little disappointing. Apparently Plague Monks and Gutter Runners are disappearing.
-
1 hour ago, Garrac said:
I mean, this is a BIG bomb. This is the worst kept secret in GWs recent story, but also their biggest sales drop bomb of this year. Something on which they must have been working to promote for a year, if not more. Warcom must be having rn a hell of a confused brainstorming session trying to decide what to do.
Also, I think this sprue solves one or two rumour engines? Not entirely sure
Honestly leaks are good for hype.
I'm still of the opinion that the absolute silence surrounding Dominion and further Kruleboyz releases was one of the contributing factors to that box not meeting expectations.-
6
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I think if you just putty in those mouths and file them down so it's flat the helmets are improved massively.
Why they decided SCE should look even more like Handsome Squidward I don't know.