pnkdth
-
Posts
647 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by pnkdth
-
-
5 minutes ago, chosen_of_khaine said:
I didn't say they weren't popular, my point is entirely that of the group of people that complain about LRL online, many don't play very frequently, and many haven't played much (or at all) vs LRL - and I'd bet the number that do and have is under 50%. Wasn't intended to be a nuanced point, just to get across that the vocal complainers online are (I believe) very overrepresentative of people who actually have experience playing against the army, and have their opinions mostly formed by online content creators, which leads to the community hating on an army for not much reason more than someone online telling them to.
Or maybe GW goofed and created a faction with lots of, while flavourful, rules which forgot there's a second player at the table. A second player who wants to have fun for the duration of setting up and playing the game. It would make sense that these more causal players would bear the brunt of these NPEs since they're not sitting listbuilding/tweaking/testing day in-day out to crack the code. For some the cracking of the code and go at it with cut-throat lists is the fun (like the people playing on SoW).
Back when I still played Planetside 2 the infiltrator class got a lot of hate (still do) because of its mechanics. It wasn't topping the meta or anything but it had lots of cheap ways to get kills. That stuff sticks, the experience which sours an otherwise great game. Same with LRL, it happens to have enough of those NPE moments to turn people sour. Basically, the point isn't if you win or lose but how the game takes you there. To go back to Planetside 2, people were happier to go up the Heavy Assault class just because it played and felt more fair to face despite it statistically being stronger.
In short, some mechanics simply rub people the wrong way regardless of powerful they are. Just some rules which didn't land well. It happens in almost every asymmetrically balanced game.
-
5
-
-
Just now, chosen_of_khaine said:
Tournament popularity doesn't necessarily correlate with casual popularity, but more to my point I think you overestimate how much the vocal online complainers actually play the game. And when they do, they'll already have the opinions of certain weekly content creators floating around in their heads to justify anything that doesn't go their way in a game.
When an army is about twice as popular as all but 6 other armies it is a very good indication it is, i.e. you will face LRL twice for every other than the top 6-7 armies at a tournament (since the entries per army takes a sharp dive by about half post top 7 IIRC).
My argument do not hinge on the claims of vocal players online. I do not over/underestimate them. I'm just interested in why you think LRL isn't popular or why you think people haven't really played against them. The data seem to suggest a lot of players out there have indeed played against them.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, chosen_of_khaine said:
While I agree that Foxes, Sentinels, and Total Eclipse aren't the most interactive to play against, every army has elements that could be a "NPE" (such an awful, overused term). Let's not ignore the fact that much of what determinies which armies get hate and which armies are deemed "fine" is merely the discourse around them coming from 1-2 major AoS content creators, whose (often poor) takes get uncritically parroted throughout the community and basically just become memes. I would bet money that ~50% of people who have complained about LRL online have not played a single game against them.
Season of War once had a battle report with LRL a while back that ended up very one sided, not because of any "cheese" or "NPE", just the mission and dice plus some very good play from the LRL player. Nonetheless, the comment section was full of "ugh stop playing LRL" or "nerf LRL already" because the community just decided they were the army to hate. Like most internet memes, it gets tired pretty quick.
LRL is one of the more popular armies in AoS so I very much doubt there's a lack of experience in facing LRL out there. It is top 6 in tournament entries in AoS 3rd edition. Perhaps the army is rare in your area but that doesn't make it true across the community.
In other words, I wouldn't put too much money behind that bet.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, KrispyXIV said:
It's still in the App though, isn't it?
I was just speculating (since -60 pts is a pretty big cut) but you never know with the app. Could go poof in the weekend or tomorrow. Some bugs remain, like giving unique characters like Glutos enhancements. I'd prefer WotE to stay but yeah, I was just musing a bit.
-
20 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Kinda makes you wonder why they waited so long. Maybe this is just how far ahead books are written at GW, that this was actually the first opportunity to react to community feedback.
Part of it was probably due to being stuck in physical print mode. From now on it seems the ball has started to roll towards digital, which is good. Removing the point costs allows them to nail down rules changes but leave points to be decided on later.
17 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:And FAQs still to come. Seems like we should have seen all the balance motivated changes at this point, but its unlikely that FAQs could be negative for Hedonites and they could be either directly or indirectly beneficial.
There is one bit which might just happen and that concerns the -60pts drop with Sigvald. I'm thinking that we might be losing out on the Wrath of the Everchosen stuff (no more of that lurid haze).
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Enoby said:
Seems like the new points are officially confirmed - no mistypes with Sigvald's points after all
Feels weird, doesn't it? To have competitively priced units. I mean, some players even seem to express disbelief and like this is somehow too much. Overall, I'm excited to be able to build a complete army list using Hedonite units rather than crutch on units from several other books.
I doubt we'll suddenly rock the meta but then again no army should do that in an ideal world.
Finally, feels hecking good not having to reach for the salt shaker this time around. Feels really really good.
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Enoby said:
As @Wordy9th mentioned, they do MWs on a 4+ per Slaangor, not per enemy. They're not known as one of the worst warscrolls in the game for nothing
The warscroll ability should be renamed 'Occasional Violence' rather than 'Obsessive Violence.'
Then replace the flavour text with this, "The nonchalant and apathetic attacks of these beasts can sometimes cause serious harm to an unlucky bystander."
-
1
-
4
-
-
Just now, Enoby said:
Just to check so I'm not missing something. For veteran units, are the pros:
- Can make them count as 3 models each when in a particular battalion *
- Can benefit from the new command ability if there are 10+ models in the unit *
- Can contest the special objective
The cons for these units:
- Can be targeted by +1 damage from units in a particular battalion *
- Some battleplans give out extra victory points when a player kills their opponent's veteran units *
* not guaranteed every game, depending on lists/units.
The penalties do seem harsher for taking these units. In the past, taking a unit of 30 or 40 would capture an objectives on numbers alone - they would only need to count as 3 for objectives when against large units themselves, so the new battalion doesn't really help these units. On the other hand, +1 damage against these units probably secures the unit's death and they'll count for 0 then.
The command abilities costs a command point and may not even happen, as well as needing 10 or more models in the unit, so it's not something to rely on.
Contesting the special objective is important, but as there's only one of these objectives at a time, you're better off just having a single unit to chase these.
In all honesty, I think this puts me off taking battleline units and I don't really see how it encourages hordes.
If someone could give me a good reason otherwise, I'd love to hear it - I could well be missing something.
We might be missing something but I think the more likely result is the AoS team dropped the ball on this just like they did Prime Hunters. Like in my previous post, it all comes across as if 'design by committee' or corporate meddling, i.e. these rules must be in X season despite making more sense to be in a battlescroll (I'm thinking of the ranks/coherency rules).
Well, at least we won't have to change our lists much at all. Always a silver lining.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Mutton said:
Let the semi-annual points leak rage begin.
I'm too tired to rage. HoS will continue to Hope™ for relevant point changes and resume to 'revel in pain' till the next non-event. 😅
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Enoby said:
I don't want to say it's broken, but I can see some potential issues.
If it's +1 damage against any (non-mount) battleline, then I'm afraid the game may become more rocket tag, where whoever strikes first wins. In addition, +1 damage is perhaps the most dangerous buff to give out because it doesn't scale equally.
As we've seen with Decimators, +1 damage gets better for every attack you have, so now battleline units with multiple attacks are considerably better. It would have been better if it was additional rend or +1 to wound - still very useful, but not quite "wipe your unit off the board with a sneeze useful".
I like that they're being experimental, but I'm worried it will have unintended consequences that will break some units while leaving others useless. It remains to be seen, but the more general something is, the more problems it's prone to.
Personally, I'm at a loss. It is like the took the issue of coherency and then created the most convoluted way possible to solve it and then over-correct it with additional bloat. A part of me is curious to see just how far the tournament scene can take this though.
From a design POV, you get the impression the design team wants to solve it but are forced to do it in the dumbest way possible by corporate to sell more books. Hence we get this design by committee monstrosity.
-
6
-
-
If these rumours end up being true then I suppose 40k will be the less crunchy and streamlined game from now on. 😅
-
57 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:
I think that's why a faction like Lumineth have actually landed pretty well, despite some of the model designs being hit-or-miss, there's actually been work put into what Lumineth society is like and how they live and organize themselves, socially and politically. That kind of stuff can give real weight to a faction and make the world and the setting that much more lived-in and alive.
This.
What we've gotten so far is macro-perspective yet we're lacking characters who drive the will of the gods (or who act in spite of them). This makes it quite hard to ground yourself and create something in this world. To some it might seem like a paradox but it is easier, and often way more fun, to create something within an established setting than when given near complete freedom. The world of WHFB wasn't just compelling because it had lots of time to develop but because it was densely packed and had lots of personality. Each place had history or a purpose.
To be more concrete, let's have a campaign about armies and their commanders and their struggles/goals and let the gods squabble and further their own ends. Build from the ground up, let us experience and see the world. You can't just tell people to be invested or feel awe. I might even start to take notice and remember characters as more than their role in an army list. Wouldn't that be something, eh?
-
6
-
1
-
-
I chose mathhammer/modelling but it is not so much getting the absolute most of the army and instead theorycrafting anti-meta, non-cookie-cutter builds, or stuff that fits my narrative stuff. I tend to take my time on the modelling side and much like my 'mathhammering' I am not happy until my models are special little snowflakes.
I also enjoy talking with others about various aspects of hobbying + start vast epic projects in my head I neither can afford or have the time for.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:
Exactly. Plus they will get to those armies at some point. The only one I would be “concerned” with is Cities but that’s only because I think they will get merged into Dawnbringer Crusades and some kits would go legacy.
Yeah, CoS has had that danger looming over them. Many kits are ancient.
One thing which really is concerning me though is how GW is increasing the price of their boxes for each release. I was almost interested in Necromunda and Kill Team (especially the new traitor guard) but it seems they're going to increase the price for each new box by about 15-20$ for each release. The Necromunda price point is comical. Thankfully there are tons of awesome games on that scale for the fraction of the cost. We're seen similar pricing with Thondia too and, just because it is fresh in my memory, the way they modified FS kits made the army exponentially more expensive to get into.
I won't get into another rant about GW pricing, at least not till we see what's what with the next season and GHB. 😆
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, OkayestDM said:
Which surprises me, because from what I've heard Gloomspite Gitz was extremely well received when it launched, and it's aesthetic is highly praised.
An army can still be well received and liked while simultaneously be considered as not meeting expectations from GW's perspective. Basically, if an army is a huge hit with a smaller crowd it won't be a commercial hit. I'm not making any comment on X or Y army, merely commenting on how GW rolls out releases. Because if you start to factor in popularity + sales into the release schedule things start to make sense.
2 hours ago, Laststand said:The opposite is also true. Some armies get no support at all in terms of models or rules and so remain unpopular. People don't buy them and GW carries on ignoring them. Skaven have had 2 heroes in 7 years and many models are metal. Just a book won't fix that. Gits have great models but awful rules. They just need a book. BOC are a nice idea that has been abandoned almost completely. Fyreslayers are an opportunity missed by taking a chance on having every model be an almost identical naked dwarf.
GW isn't a small scale company where you can argue that they don't have the resources to support large chunks of their product line. Ad to that their quality control and proof reading on books is appaling. They probably need to cut the number of factions by souping them and then give better support. BOC into STD, all the dwarfs together, orcs and gits. Remaining dark Elves into DOC etc.
They do so much that is right and amazing and make money because of it but that doesn't excuse a multi billion pound company living in amateur hour in many other aspects.
I do not disagree with certain factions getting too little attention. My point was that I do not find it particularly surprising to see certain factions getting more attention because, at its core, GW is a business with stakeholders who are not satisfied with just profits they demand a hefty return on investments. So while they definitely could give each faction proper support, they also ask themselves what is "good enough" for us keep spending. For example, if we keep buying battletomes which always require clarification and FAQs there is no incentive for them to change practices.
Filler armies, i.e. the ones that get slotted between the commercially successful ones, often end up with minor additions to their model range and a battletome. Occasionally, a faction meets the criteria for an overhaul and we see a bigger push.
Yeah, it isn't all doom and gloom and it is frustrating to see some factions languishing in purgatory with old janky rules and outdated models. The 3:e tomes themselves, have been been solid with the exception of FS. AoS, in general, is in a decent spot.
-
3
-
-
Popular armies get more attention and releasing new books for these armies is like printing money for GW.
All those DoK, LRL, and SoB players will have to update themselves with a fresh tome. Main reason some armies don't get new tomes, despite needing it, is because it is not worth it for GW to do so. They slot them in between the main armies, AKA the moneymakers, and let the bottom tier factions live with the Hope™ GW will address their issues in a WD/TC/GHB.
TL;DR: GW's ways are neither random or mysterious. Just follow the money and the reason for why certain armies get preferential treatment start to make sense.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, jaWn said:
Whaaaat? When did Bonesplitterz get great?
It is a very small sample (0.8% of the meta) so it is a very much an outlier and not useful for any meaningful measurements. I made sure to supply a wider dataset for proper context. That said, even if it just happened like once or twice it COULD happen again! However, given the lack of BS activity it seems it was more of a memey "gotcha" list.
edit: Also, it seems lots of people answered already. So that too. 😁
-
1
-
-
Just a few screen caps from AoS using ONLY 3.2 for context and ease of access
-
2
-
-
On 5/25/2022 at 11:34 PM, KingBrodd said:
The fact we arent getting any new Death Faction Tomes this year gives me hope for OBR and Flesh Eaters to get substantial updates. Im still of the opinion that these 2 Rumour Engines are one model, seated on a throne.
I really want this to be FEC but the sword looks very SBGL. As people have mentioned, Cursed City seem to fit since Vyrkos and the gang also got a bit of the bat/wolf themes.
Also, I'm just just going to huff some hopium and claim it is actually the return of W'soran and the Necrarch bloodline! 😅
-
9 hours ago, Ogregut said:
To be fair all the new battletomes have been good, each of the armies has a distinct feel and plays how they are portrayed in the lore.
With the exception of Fyreslayers I agree. It was a threadbare battletome and they did very little to revive it. It ain't horrible just disappointing and quite stale compared to how I wished it would be.
4 hours ago, Maogrim said:I know a certain Fyreslayers player who would surely disagree and give us another small essay about them being nerfed to ruins and how they are unplayable now and that the numbers don't lie etc.
To randomly, and completely unprovoked, pick on someone is toxic as heck.
-
2
-
2
-
-
32 minutes ago, Jetlife said:
Was just looking at this old rumor. Feels like sooo long ago. To be fair a lot of this is true outside of the timing and a few of the army pairings……
Only one that seems blatant is OBR. Maybe they assumed the thondia incarnate was for them 🤷🏻♂️.
Mostly false though. No OBR, no crabs, NH/DoK not mentioned for spring, Skaven is already paired with DoK in a box, no mention of Sylvaneth at all, S2D leaks show no BoC units on their content page, no mention of dawnbringer crusades, and Silent People/Umbraneth is starting to feel like a community meme at this point.
Just about the only thing that might be true is Ogor being one of the destruction tomes and S2D in winter. Khorne being mentioned as "high priority" made me laugh and then also cry a bit. 😂
-
7
-
-
1 hour ago, SirSalabean said:
That’s a lot cheaper compared to other boxes. Especially with all the new models.
32 minutes ago, Hawke said:That is dirt cheap, I was not expecting that at all. I was gonna get it anyway, but nice to know I can get it guilt free!
Makes sense since the points are approx. 1150 Sylv and 700 Skaven.
One of the worst boxes so far. Good (great even) for Sylvaneth but for Skaven is a gloried "Getting Started"-kit.
As someone mentioned, anyone demanding 50/50 parting with the Skaven side should feel ashamed of themselves. (edit: Just to clarify, I'm not throwing out accusations! Most people I've seen have been reasonable about this.)
-
4 hours ago, zilberfrid said:
Yeah, and I hate that.
Freeguild and Ironweld are not described as fundamentalist. Disposessed and Kharadron are godless, and I like all those factions.
GW apparently can't leave anything untainted by gods because they don't know how to write something else.
To be fair, the gods are very real and present in AoS. Combine that with a grim setting where you almost get the vibe of a funeral procession when a CoS expedition move outs to combat chaos or death factions and you'd probably develop a culture with a close relationship to the death and afterlife. Even when you look at the old rather morbid looking models with skulls and skeletons it wasn't really a rabid worship but an acceptance of death and respect for Morr.
In that regard, I hope there will be room made for a bigger pantheon, not just Sigmar, Sigmar, aaaaaand... Sigmar. However, AoS has this Avengers/Greek mythology thing going with hands on and physical gods rather than WHFB with the gods as guiding presences rather than guiding hands.
In some ways, AoS have fallen into the Marvel trope of always having some giant death beam to the sky which will end the universe yet for some reason half of the factions are fine with/indifferent to what is going on. Basically, if everything all the time is high stakes and epic then it'll start to feel tiring and anything but epic while the 'high stakes' become mundane.
GW have expanded a lot on Guard heroes in 40k which despite the imperium's supposed unity have different ideas and perspectives. This could very well be it, a mix of hardened veterans and zealots trying their best to make sense of life in the realms. Maybe we'll even get some more interesting characters to follow?
-
2
-
-
If the GHB reduce the points cost in meaningful ways then the Hedonite ability 'revel in pain' will make sense but on the other hand Hedonite players have been hoping for meaningful changes for awhile now. I guess we'll keep revelling in our pain for a little while longer. 😆
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
It is the data we have, which does indicate that LRL is one of the more popular armies.