Jump to content

pnkdth

Members
  • Posts

    624
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

pnkdth last won the day on April 10 2023

pnkdth had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

pnkdth's Achievements

Lord Castellant

Lord Castellant (8/10)

1.5k

Reputation

  1. It isn't just the hyper-competitive people who enjoy playing "the right way" but new players not wanting to end up playing a game no one plays. Modularity is great for when you already understand the game and introducing AoS to someone who is brand new to tabletop gaming (taking it one step at a time). Overall, I am not expecting this to blow our minds. Looks good as a presentation but the format is very familiar. For example, you can already choose not to use the GHB and stick the matched play rules only. Ultimately, even the most casual gamers enjoy games which are as fair as possible. That doesn't happen when playing open rules. That said, if the rules are presented in a more practical and clearer way everyone's a winner.
  2. People will find excuses no matter what. Good players should be getting consistent results because 'uncertainty', in my book, does not mean it has to be sheer randomness. I find it more engaging to have to have to make tactical decisions and games which involve more phases and straight up meat grinders. It is by no means perfect but it creates satisfying games.
  3. That's what I'm banking on. 10th 40k (and mission cards) and the managed changes had me kind lukewarm but I've really warmed up it. Mission decks, from my POV, is 40k's way of creating uncertainty and tackle mathhammer and also making it more difficult to solve the game.
  4. That's good to hear. Yeah, I do not expect it to change any time soon, if ever. I do appreciate the feeling of a book myself and complete revamps won't happen every edition.
  5. 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).
  6. Looking forward to the shake-up. 3rd edition has become a bit of chore to play with the bloat that's been added over the years. Hopefully the USRs and reset will address things such as every unit needing some kind of 6s cause MWs or similar, or causing a gazillion mortals wounds on a charge. However, the deal breaker for me is how wounds (or appropriate toughness) and points cost reflect the actual units themselves. Because if they point armies to the, well, point where it becomes even more expensive to enter the hobby I'm out. Love the settings GW have created and I know that every designer are really passionate about what they do but recent times the business side of GW have really put a dampener on my excitement, e.g. I am very glad I didn't jump on the FEC bandwagon just yet because they will got WE:ed. Rob's (THW) advice to never buy any books until they figure out a better way of supplying rules is legit. Especially since, apparently, the newer books (especially in 40k post index) are even lighter on lore/art/hobbying than before while remaining expensive has heck. But to end on a positive note, for awhile the rules will be free, there will be new ways of playing the game. I'll hold them to their promises that the indexes won't be watered down and sub-factions and so on will still be there as 4th go live. Here's to brighter hobbying days going forwards. Cheers!
  7. At this point GW should just get rid of the grand alliances altogether. Just give factions an ally/coalition chart with appropriate factions. Silent People doesn't seem to care much about others unless they disturb the nest which seems like the polar opposite of other destruction factions. If anything, those factions seem the most likely to end up in direct conflict with them (the Silent People). Now if Silent People end up going full Tyranid, i.e. it is time to nomnom the world, then that is as destruction as it gets.
  8. I would love to see some kind of Necrarch-line if SBGL complete with double cast Vampire lords (but weaker in melee). Thats pretty much the only thing I miss from the SBGL which otherwise a really good tome. Edit: Since we're talking characters. Zach or Melkhior. Seems like these sneaky death lords also have a viable reason to "somehow they returned."
  9. The point is we should do both. Not trying to run away from AoS characters nor kill off/ignore old world characters. I don't want it to be at the expense of either. Unfortunately, GW's writing tend to focus squarely on the heads of the factions. Unless they want to sell a new model they might give us a few breadcrumbs, i.e. most characters in campaigns tend to get lost to wherever once it it done. In my perfect world old/new builds on top of each other.
  10. Yes, it has to be done in a way that makes sense. Air dropping characters out of nowhere never feels good. Has to track with the old/new world dynamic. - To the confused emote-enjoyers, I'd love it hear what actually confuses you about my previous post.
  11. The old and new is connected. AoS is the continuation of what came before, after all. I am also convinced AoS would have ended up a resounding fail if GW tried the "kill everything old, here's the new cool game." All of the big characters in SBGL is old world, DoK is basically only here because of Morathi (old world), Malerion is old world, Teclis/Tyrion/Eltharion, and the list goes on and on and on and on. AoS is still warhammer. Having an old character come back in a cool way is fun. I do not think AoS is any danger when it comes to identity or anything like that. AoS is the round based skirmish/army hybrid whereas TOW is the RnF game. They're visually different. I guess I struggle with understanding what's so icky about being connected to WHFB/TOW. It was a game which preceded AoS and now it is a game which adds to the background of AoS. For example, me watching Andor only made Rouge One even better. Horus Heresy made 40k better. Otherwise, we need a completely different IP if the old stuff is an issue. I struggle to find anything that's uniquely AoS in AoS. A lot of it is just rebranded units from WHFB. KO is just mecha-Dawi, FS is just slayers, SBGL is just VC with a copyrightable name, etc. To get somewhere close to a point is the identity of AoS is WHFB+. Setting is bigger, more extreme, goes even further in mixing magical sci-fi and fantasy elements together. That is what makes AoS what it is to me. If a new or old character makes sense in the setting I'm A-OK with it. TL;DR: The more you try and distance yourself from WHFB/TOW the more obvious the connection gets. AoS already has an identity shown by how people talk about the minis (almost every 40k content creator I follow keep raving about how awesome AoS looks) and the game is constantly sneaking into previously 40k only channels. Just recently Play on Tabletop started doing their "40k in 40 minutes" for but AoS. TL;DR of the TL;DR: AoS identity is both defined and solid enough to handle another old character returning in an AoSified manner. I mean, the fact we say AoSified alone should indicate AoS has a very clear identity at this point! Happy hobbying, in the old and new worlds/realms!
  12. Very much hope 4th does something to revamp primary/secondaries and rend/MW/saves. Plus trim a lot of the bloat that's been going on. Don't mind more interesting sub-factions but there are layers upon layers of rules which just makes the game tedious... Not to mention the fantastic idea of introducing more and more markers/counters to keep track of. Personally I am a huge fan of the 40k detachment rules since it doesn't demand you play X faction in this way only. A side note, selling off your army (like some people apparently did) because of something like that sounds really odd to me since everybody knows there is no way in heck GW is going leave SM players hanging for long. I got a feeling they're going to regret that choice very soon.
  13. This makes me want to try a "beseech the gods" type of list. Quite a nice lil' glowup.
  14. A fun thing to do is to create your own book of grudges based on games you play. Back in the day I used it create my own lore around my Dawi army. Basing in on battles, I added short lore snippets. In a way, your local meta shapes your hold's history. My opponents appreciated it as well (especially those who beat me regularly ).
×
×
  • Create New...