pnkdth
-
Posts
648 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by pnkdth
-
-
1 hour ago, Il Maestro said:
why do you think being forced to use all of your resources every turn confers more tactical ability then being given the choice? Somewhat beside the point, but I would have thought that having to make decisions with pros and cons to either, where you might suffer a worse outcome now for the delayed gratification of an advantage later was inherently more tactical than ‘must use all CP now or lose them’.
More tactical in the sense that it will be a back and forth between the players, active and reactive choices, as opposed to the more strategic option CPs are now. I don't really see one system as superior to the other but in conjunction with being able to burn objectives if you get double turned, charge reactions, I see a system which isn't purely "I go, you go" and let's the opposing player react. This + keeping the double is going to keep us on our toes throughout the game.
-
I fully expect a complete points update as well when the 3rd ed hits.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, GrimDork said:
Could Kroak not foresee that they were playing into Belakor’s hands?
Seemed a bit weak to me, but maybe more will be revealed in time.
The ability of foresight does not always mean you see what you need to see. Despite his wisdom he isn't infallible. I think that's the appeal of all this for me. The pantheon on AoS more akin to the gods of ancient Greece or the Aesir gods. They squabble and keep trying to earn their godhood and power. Belakor is one heck of a sneaky boi too.
Looking forwards to Kragnos too and where it'll take us!
-
3
-
-
40 minutes ago, El Syf said:
If charge reactions becomes a thing we may as well go back to square bases rnf and call it warhammer fantasy battles 9th edition!
The rules proposed aren't nearly on the same level, besides we still move like have been, we're not stuck with ranks, block movement and <insert 23492343 other rules which makes AoS different from WHFB>. Let's not blow things out of proportions, is what I'm saying.
Pros of the changes:
Modifiers being capped at +/-1. More varied builds and killing builds which relies of abusing mechanics. There's nothing good about 1+ re-rollable saves or impossible to hit units.
CPs being generated per hero phase. Makes them more tactical instead of encouraging hoarding. You're encouraged to be more active and spend them.
Battalions limits entire battletomes in builds and list variety. You'll actually start seeing people bringing units they like as opposed to battalion tax and overpowered battalions. General battalions will only make the game better.
Double turn allowing me to burn objectives. Jolly good. Won't be a no-brainer now since the opponent can actually impact your scoring ability. So a take double requires you play well and weigh options. Charge reactions also plays a part in making the double turn more interactive on behalf of the player who lost priority (this is a huge plus for the addition of charge reactions). +1 to armour is pretty neat for attrition for slower units, for instance.
Remember, this is just a handful of the rules and they apply to everyone. I want to hear more on shooting and how things are impacted in other phases before I go yay or nay.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Phasteon said:
Most people who complain are those that lose a lot.
That isn't true. Some of us simply want this game to become as good as possible, which involves not having easy opponents just because they wanted to start the wrong army, i.e. we want competition and fair play. Sort of like those who stood against ESL because they didn't want a special group people to have an unfair advantage and some having to compete over scraps. The latter part is especially relevant to this discussion.
As for the rest of your post, even the guy you claim believe this has already clarified he doesn't. Yeah, we agree with you. You shouldn't be able to take whatever in whatever combo with no thought behind it. Misunderstanding someone's point is not the end of the world. Let's move on, shall we?
-
10
-
-
6 hours ago, Harioch said:
About new vampires characters, I don't mind that neither Vlad or Kemmler (etc) never come back. They had a good fluff and a good ending, at least Vlad, in the end. But pn the other hand, Aborash is already hinted in AoS and he never had a model or rules back in the Old World which is a shame since he was some of their best character. Bringing him into the Mortal Realms could expend his lore (which was cool but less fleshed than Neferata or Vlad or Mannfred). Besides, his power level isn't really a problem in AoS when there is a God/Demigod at every corner of the Realms, compared to the old setting.
Abhorash is also a character which I could see making it to AoS in terms of lore. The guy literally walked away, bored of the infighting and drama, to meditate in seclusion after curing himself from the thirst for blood. There are also other character which are suitably resilient and refuse to die (The Red Duke).
Though when it comes to Abhorash this opens up the possibility of representing noble warriors who strive to master their blood thirst. As a character he probably would have stood against Nagash since he never was onboard with the debauchery and hedonism of the Lahmian courts. I imagine meeting up with Neferata could get awkward and a nice source for intrigue.
Speaking of intrigue, with Nagash gone from the spotlight I hope that this opens up a more interesting dynamic between the power players in the death factions. Nagash as a character always has to fail since he has a world-ending goal in mind but the general theme of the vampire counts have always been to rule one way or another over a mix of mortal/undead empire (Necrarch's being the exception since they're pretty much aligned with Nagash in terms of end goal).
All in all, I'm hoping for rules which accommodate various bloodlines, arcane or martial focus, to create undead with a lot of character.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Yoid said:
For some reason people find the KoS inspiration as something wrong, but the current KoS is like a mini-slaanesh design-wise. I really like the twins being basically a GW version of the Exalted Keeper of Secrets. And since the game is moving around god-like models in every army more and more, this will probably open the door for the other three chaos gods to make their own exalted greater daemons/sons in the coming years.
That's where I'm at as well. It is a more regal version of the keepers, floating above the rest. Their wings/fins/things? gives them even more dark angelic presence wearing them as if a fine robe or dress. I'm cautiously optimistic on additional rules but those in the know seem to be excited.
-
1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:
I've never disputed that some factions are easier to play than others, or that some factions provide more or better tools for low or no cost. The question is how much does that impact the outcome of games? And why are factions having an impact? Are averaged skilled players using factions beyound their skillset? Are the some books so inherently more powerful than others? There are a lot of assumptions built into the question you ask datasets and AI.
My position again is in the middle I think we want player skill and faction choice to be roughly equivalent in determining outcomes of games so that players at that level can choose how much effort they want to put in.
This of course means that your favourite faction could end up not on top of the pile, and hard to play.
I think this is more or less the ideal. Sort of a "easy to understand but hard to master"-design. This design would be on a clearly defined spectrum to ensure we don't end up with a chess situation where everyone are playing the same army with a different paint scheme. In that regard, I'll happily accept there will be some imbalances and meta shifts. A game which remain static is boring and would probably die. On the other extreme, I don't want a game which is so hard to get into that we eventually end up with a small group of die hard fans and then it dies.
My main issue with recent releases though (LRL, DoK, HoS) is how they appear to be written with three completely different design philosophies. That said, out of the three HoS is the only one without BR rules (and those twins look pretty rad).
In short, I want better consistency and updates which corrects units/battalions which end up being under/over-costed to mitigate the extremes. It would make the scene more interesting overall, whether it is casual or competitive.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Golub87 said:
To be honest, tournaments and placings are really not that important. Even the data shows that good players perform well with any faction, but favor factions that will give them an edge. Meta-chasers if you will (and I do not mean that in any derogatory way - they take this seriously and pick the best tools for the job).
Kitchen table games are where the real problems lie.Yes, though I'd say the issues I raised here applies to kitchen table games too, i.e. if certain armies can win by pushing models forward while others needs precise measurements and micromanaging abilities merely to function there's an issue with how battletomes are designed in relation to each other. So I think we can learn from both settings in terms of skill ceilings and mastery levels.
That said, if things get really bad perhaps the community will simply decide to go back to comp scores or even unofficial points changes. This in turn might inspire GW to perform more frequent erratas and points changes.
-
9 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:
The question isn't if the game is balanced of course it's not. It about determining if and exactly how it could be better. The data shows even where faction strength is most impactful it's still less determinate than skill. And, the arc shows that faction strength as an effect not just as an effect of the factions we have right now.
Looking at more recent data (the feb 2021 TTS on honest wargamers) we see Seraphon winning 500% more than other factions, twice as many top3s, and half of their players end up in top10. Are you saying that all good players just happen to choose Seraphon and that we've had a massive influx of really skilled players (who also just happen to choose Seraphon)? I would say the data suggest that this army allows for otherwise unremarkable but decent players to earn top placings and great players to net even greater results.
Tournament players value consistency. Swingy armies are not worth their time because it gets in the way of their objective, to win. You can see it in the BoC data from the same batch. At first glance you see 60% win rate, and that must be good, right? But then you look at placings and you see a single top10 placing. Why? Because BoC don't win big. In contrast the higher placing armies like Seraphon, LRL, IDK, DoT, do.
Indeed, the other side of the coin of 'git gud' is the hard to swallow fact that certain battletomes will contribute to the success of a player. Both are uncomfortable since they chafe at our egos.
But just to be clear, I absolutely believe good players can get good result with most armies. It is the just the top and bottom pile that needs a look at cause the former excels in the current meta and the latter has to jump through way too many hoops to win (and rarely get a top placing despite winning more which must REALLY add to the frustration).
-
4
-
-
More is more, I say. Under normal circumstances the battletome would probably have been out for awhile now... And, well, two amazing models in a kit which will give you a lot of extra bits to kitbash and use for your sculpts.
As far as I'm concerned BR have given armies useful updates and boosts while pushing the narrative forwards interesting ways. As a hobbyist I love that we're not stuck in a static world that never changes. Narrative battles becomes so much more than rehashing the same old story over and over again (if that's your jam you can just go back in time and say your army is from X time period).
All I know is I'm a happy hedonite.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, AaronWilson said:
I think one of the hardest things around balance is also different things to different people, so people are arguing a biased argument about a subjective topic.
I think with how complex a book for example like Seraphon is, 2 subfactions, 4 more futher subfaction splits, say 40 warscrolls, everything can interact with everything, there is just NO way you can properly playtest it all, let alone then test again all the other interactions out there.
I would certainly like all battletomes closer in power level but I do truly want everything to have a 50% win rate to the point where warscrolls are all nearly a template of each other? No. I like having underdogs, it makes for a great story when a weaker book is rising up through a event, I love having boogeymen we can all joke about, but I would just like the relative power levels of all battletomes to be a bit closer.
You got a point there. Most of the time when an army is having a great time in the meta it is due often a single build or a few problem units, not the entire army. If we can count on one thing is that the tournament scene WILL find that broken combo and crank it up to eleven.
I personally like the underdog armies, coming up with new army lists, and making "sub-optimal" units work. It just comes a point where some armies needs a proper look at. I like what they're doing with BR at the moment even if it is more stuff to buy and I hope we'll see some boosts to Sylvaneth, BoC and BoK in particular.
-
35 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:
The first response doesn't really answer if you are as good as them, or good enough to make up any differences in the raw materials you are using. My Zilfin perspective is important here, it's possible you are just playing skill based lists without sufficient skill. It's not every person with a license that can drive F1.
For example; I came to football late, and was better than my peers by the end of the season. Do you have any examples of you playing with other factions and getting substantially better results?
Skill is obviously difficult to quantify, but indications would be sufficient. Just putting in the work isn't enough.
The rest is good. What is the best example of a competitive list you have recently used and what have you used it against? Including battleplans.
If your opponent would suddenly bring on 12 players or two keepers on the pitch you'd probably have something to say about it, or maybe your opponent decides to pick up the ball with his hands and throw it in the net but you're not allowed to? Analogous to under and over-costed units and/or objectively more powerful units/rules.
Battletomes serve as a force multiplier. A skilled player will run away with it and some armies are even able to thrive when used by otherwise unexceptional players. In casual games, where the majority of play takes place, if these battletomes has too much of a gap between them the game will suffer.
It is inevitable that some armies will be better/worse given the diversity of armies and playstyles but at the very least we should be able to expect SOME level of consistency between the armies in terms of game design. DoK, HoS, and LRL pretty much look like they were did for different games. First is hugely practical and powerful, the second barebones but also very neatly designed IMO, the latter is a bloated mess of useless, frustrating, flavourful, fun, and powerful rules as if they added everything they could think of. None of these approaches are wrong I just want them to be more consistent (especially when we're talking about three tomes released so close to each other.
That said, I think we shouldn't underestimate new players. They probably understand that they won't be awesome day one but I did hear from people when first getting into AoS that I could pick whatever. Fortunately I read up on stuff myself before investing more money. Rule of cool is everlasting but similarly if you buy shoes which doesn't fit you probably won't run far. In this regard I think it is good to be honest about what to expect because much like has been mentioned WHFB/40k/AoS never have been very balanced. For the majority of time in WHFB for instance I only came into contact tournaments with comp rules (to those unfamiliar, your army list gets points depending on how powerful your list were and the filthier it was the larger the impact on your total score).
I was going for a point here, I think, and think it is to give new players the right set of expectations. Some armies will struggle immensely and if that player doesn't see themselves as someone who wants to delve deep into the game that kind of army won't be for them. As a community we should be straightforward with that while also mentioning that many armies will sometimes have a bump ride from being top to low tier.
Also, your local meta matters a lot. Another dataset I'd like to see more of, i.e. the collection of armies at local events.
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Kadeton said:
If you'll continue to humour me, I think there's still a lot to unpack there. For instance:
Which armies would you currently see as not having a "limited competitive build"? The nature of competitive play rapidly distils complex army books down to one or two largely inflexible builds, and this affects the top armies just as much as the bottom ones (see Kroaknado, Teclis Castle etc, as examples already mentioned in the thread).
How many bad matchups is "a lot"? How "bad" does the matchup have to be before it's a "bad matchup"?
How much harder do you have to fight than your opponent before it becomes a problem? How do you even quantify the comparative difficulty of each player's fight?
Yes, to be clear: I'm in no way arguing that AoS is tightly balanced. I'm saying that the imbalance which clearly exists isn't sufficiently unbalanced to produce the "unwinnable" matchups that people commonly decry online.
Skill and luck have so much sway over the outcome of games that the overall winrates of the "worst" and the "best" armies only vary from (roughly) 40% to 60% across the same field of opponents. Yes, maybe the players of the worst armies are working super extra hard to barely scrape out wins with their passion army, and maybe the players of the best armies are all netlisting tryhards or whatever, but nevertheless those are the outcomes which are actually being achieved in the real world.
Obviously balance could be better, and that would be great. But the level of imbalance we currently have does not make the game unplayable.
Mechanical advantage over lots of armies = high consistency and high tier army. Competitive builds therefore do not limit the army and can happily and reliably compete against the vast majority of other armies and builds.
Mechanical disadvantage over lots of armies = low consistency and low tier army. Competitive builds rely on the right army to show up and has a very low probability of going 5-0 during a tournament.
This goes neatly into the equation I posted earlier. Popularity, win/loss ratio, consistency in wins (going 3-0 or 5-0) which tells us what bad match ups are and how an army wins, or if an army sinks or floats when facing diverse list of opponents.
Then there is the much harder to define "fun" and "anti-fun"-mechanics. For instance, if key abilities go off on 4+ (or even 5+) is that good/fun design? Shutting down abilities, auto-casts, or generally removing agency and control. I think that is why LRL has gotten such a bad rep, not because they're the best of the best but because some of their abilities lead to a frustrating experience even when you win against them.
-
I don't think when people say unwinnable or similar they mean it literally. Literally is just overused and misused. However, I still think you can fairly easily discern which armies have sunk too close to the bottom of the lake and who are enjoying their time in the sun.
Things can very easily turn hyperbolic online though and quite antagonistic, i.e. if you believe that then you must also believe this! Outrageous!
-
5
-
-
2 hours ago, Kadeton said:
This sounds like you have quite a specific definition of "viable". Could you expand on what you mean by that?
Viable, which performs on good enough level in all metrics. A below-viable army would be an army which has a limited competitive build, has a lot of bad match-ups, and has to fight much harder than the opponent to win. Hence why I brought up the how you win as being important + the additional factors I detailed because they cut through the noice of good/bad players using X or Y army.
I've also seen low tier armies beat higher tier armies, it happens, but that does not mean there is balance. Sometimes the better player and/or luck wins out. That is also why I maintain that win ratios can be skewed when it comes to low tier armies since they have such low representation and, usually, are played with highly experienced players who's dedicated a lot of time and effort into that army. Meanwhile, when you see popular meta-lists racking up the wins a good deal of players will not be there because they happened to really love that army (in that case the army would *always* be that popular) but from players who want an easier time winning (which does not mean bad players).
Note that I'm not throwing shade anyone in the tournament scene for using a powerful list. That's just how the scene is and everyone is expecting the toughest lists in the game. Fair play, game on.
-
4
-
-
10 minutes ago, Kadeton said:
Good start. I think everyone would agree with that at some level. So the question becomes: how heavily?
At what point do you personally think it becomes unreasonable? If you only win 45% of your games? 40%?
From what I've seen of the various stats thrown around on here, the worst armies in the game are languishing around the 40% win rate in tournaments - they're winning 2 in 5 games on average against random opponents at the competitive level. That seems a long way from "unwinnable" to me.
We also need to factor in popularity since the number of players matter when measuring outcomes. For example, an unpopular army is more likely to be used by a player who is stubbornly trying to make their preferred army work at all cost whereas a popular meta-chaser build will attract people who just want to win and will use whatever is the most powerful army. The former might inflate the number of wins whereas the latter will usually deflate the number of wins.
In addition to popularity + win/loss ratio, consistency matter a great deal too. As in, you can barely snatch a win or you can steamroll everyone and do it over and over again.
The top tier army all rate highly on all their factors. Having low tier armies which manage the odd win here and there does not show they're a viable army. In short, how you win needs to be factored in. I believe there is a platform in development trying to solve this for AoS (saw it on one of thehonestwargamer YT vids).
-
2
-
1
-
-
I guess we were right in speculating that the release schedule seemed smushed together. Surely explain why there has been such rapid fire releases... Also, my jaw dropped when seeing this. Hope it leads to new exciting hosts and fun stuff for us to represent the return of the newborn twins.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, AronQ_ said:
Im making roster at the moment and have a question... What are really strong sides of Hedonites comparing to other factions? I know that we have nice summon mechanic( we have profit from any dmg, that cool) and we have nice speed. But what hedonites have that we can outperform our opponent? Who can share with some tips?
P.S. I love Slaangors, but I know that they r too bad for their points cost and sadly that there is lack of synergy between hedonites. Any hope for new units or something more for Slaanesh when NEwborn will come?Glutos can be a real MVP. His effects and -1 to hit aura is useful (and it isn't 'wholly within' just 'within' so has quite a reach).
Seeker Cavalcade is generally accepted as Hedonites most competitive battalion due to extra movement + it makes slickblades better. That 6" activation and pile-in is great, it really lean into our fast and furious advantage.
Lurid Haze is arguably out most competitive host option with its powerful redeploy and stellar command ability (+1 to saves).
Yeah, don't forget those DPs BUT do not compromise your battleplan just to get them. Objective play > DPs. Don't save for something big if you can make impact with with a lesser summon which gets you points. When and what will become an easier choice with experience.
There are some hints of the newborn Slaanesh will appear later in BR series. Unless the great threat being referenced in BR:Teclis actually is Be'lakor rather than Slaanesh. I'm hoping for more host options or something like that (similar to what Nighthaunt got in BR:Be'lakor) to give us both advance is the lore. Maybe even an updated version for all three host + extra options. On the other hand, with 3rd edition being rumoured the newborn Slaanesh might be a part of making Chaos the main big bad again. In other words, no one really knows.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, Mutton said:
We're already there. Plenty of units have ridiculous armor/ward saves with rerolling dice. Almost every game you can expect to be against some kind of -1 to hit, some armies easily getting to -2 or -3 to hit. It's why so many warscrolls deal mortal wounds now, they have to in order to get past all of these stacking fortress armies like Lum, IDK, Seraphon, etc.
We've had a crazy escalation of defensive power since the beginning of 2.0, and it needs to go. Give us a cap on debuffs and stop letting units get 2+ armor saves.I don't think we're quite there yet. Watching a batrep between DG and DA and it was a lot of dice-rolling for very little returns. Then you also remember that the vast majority of armies don't have those rules and you end up in a pretty bad situation.
That said, I agree, less is more and the rules needs to be more consistently applied with a design document every single battletome team must adhere to. The results have been pretty uneven. Then again, GW can't do major releases for everyone. However, the least we can expect is more sensible quality control and testing.
-
22 minutes ago, stratigo said:
Eh? Big characters are not defining 40k either. Even mortarian, while certainly very strong, is only a part of a list, and you can't win with him alone and whatever else deathguard brings. Deathguard works off the back of its quality terminators right now, and mortarian is a strong supplement, but it is equally valid and strong to avoid him for just more terminators.
Now, there IS one winning 40k army combo that's all in on big dudes, and that's demons (which does, these days, include mortarian in it pretty regularly). This is a pretty big outlier, though it is quite strong. But the top two factions in the game don't tend to utilize a big centerpiece, but reliable hard hitting (but, note, not durable) melee infantry. And that's harlequins and Sisters, both use fast melee threats to challenge objectives and can back it up with strong shooting. I can guarantee to you, these armies don't struggle to drag down a mortarian. Though harley lists had to change in the face of death guard.
I have my reservations in how 40k is so obviously hardcore power creeping its codexes, but it's not untenable yet (I mean, neither harleys are sisters are new dexes), but the game is just more dynamic and better than AoS is right now, and I hope AoS 3.0 takes the objective system from 40k.
Yes, like I said I don't want AoS to be dominated by elite units or pave the way for hero hammer. Effectively becoming an arms race where eventually you're not a resilient unit unless you have a 2+, 4++, 5+++ and reduce damage + 3 strats on top of that. We've already seen units with coming in with transhuman always on too. That is why I think it is good a humble clanrat unit can pull down a BT under the right circumstances and prefer the way warscrolls are handled in AoS.
As for which system is better, I left 40k because I got fed up with the direction it is headed (rules bloat for the bloat god!). I think you are right in that AoS could do with some more interesting objective play as the auxiliary objectives feels kinda tacked on. Neither system is perfect though. I'm not fanboying for AoS, just happen to prefer it more right now.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, stratigo said:
40k is dominated by elite melee infantry, not heroes, at the moment. And since stratagems are hero agnostic, heroes play less a role than they do in AoS where command abilities are hero linked.
Both games have some issues with big face kicker heroes.
That's what I don't want that for AoS. I want larger blocks and elite units to have teeth and to be able to drag down bigger targets. Without them all you have against big scary characters are other big scary characters/monsters. I'm also not terribly happy about how insane some characters are in AoS nor how obviously better some are than others. God-level characters should never had gotten rules other than for narrative games but it is what it is.
-
31 minutes ago, Battlefury said:
1. Take strength / resistance values like in 40k ( because, why can a little skaven rat wound a heavy armoured Blood Thirster in melee with the same chance as Spirit of Durthu? ) Just an example here.
2. Redesign the Warscrolls & books from old armies ( more than 1 year old )
3. Calculate the point cost a new
4. Actually test he rules in a representable way by releasing beta rules and gather data from those results ( communities are more than likely willing to help with that )Looking at 40k have S & T doesn't actually help, we'll just see another meta. Having each warscroll balanced like in AoS means you won't have to radically change your entire army just because GW decide to arbitrarily nerf one option over another. Also, a skaven rat doesn't have the same chance to kill a BT as Durthu unless we're talking about being able to chip off wounds which happens all the time in 40k. Personally, I think the AoS way is a nice way to stay away from hero hammer and have large infantry blocks fill a purpose. I like to imagine it as the skaven turning the BT into a pincushion rather than personal skill and the combat playing out in real time as opposed to taking turns. So it wouldn't actually be a lone rat doing the killing but a combination of everything.
I'd really like to see them adjusting points cost more frequently (and especially for order battletomes). BoK is such a bizarre example because despite being all about glorious close combat and powerful warriors they're all just a mess of mindless berserkers. You don't even get a feeling like they're a threat to anyone but themselves.
Better testing process to catch obvious nonsense, yep, no argument there. Though judging from both AoS and 40k I think what is really needed are more rigid design guidelines for what and how things will be done in each edition + a standardised process to update and/or adjust older battletomes and codex.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, dicebod said:
I suppose you could build a list with big bombs of 10, but they're just too expensive that it's probably not that feasible.
10 of them with whips + Lurid Haze CA could be pretty annoying to deal with or at least tie up units the opponent wants to be elsewhere. Not the tankiest unit in the game but speed helps with getting there before numbers dwindle too low. If we assume Seeker Cavalcades this could help you dictate the game further.
The extreme choice being to cannibalise and kitbash them into a Slickblades. That said, it be hilarious if one of BR books then makes them more viable again.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, TheArborealWalrus said:
A bit of an odd question for you all. So I have a lot of hellstriders back from when there weren't any other themed slaanesh stuff. Do you think it's possible to build a list around them? I realize that they aren't an ideal unit ... I just have 25 of them after shadow and pain.
For reference, my area is currently in some sort of competitive arms race. (I have no idea why) Like the kindest list I've fought (outside of the couple of newbies) is a Khorne bloodthirster spam.
How about a low drop Seeker Cavalcade list with something like 4x5 hellstriders, 2x5 slickblades, Glutos, Bladebringer on exalted chariot. This should end up at around 2k points. If room, there's always room for more seeker chariots in the Seeker Cavalcade to maintain a low drop. A good mix of spears/scourges gives you a mix of utility and offence.
-
1
-
-
I've been sitting and toying around with different kinds of lists (as I like to do... too much) and I haven't really looked past allies bar the obvious (warriors or even marauders).
Previously in this thread there was a list with Fomoroid Crushers (which adds some muscle , MWs, extra ranged attack, and terrain disruption), Mindstealer Sphinx (for bravery manipulation), and so on. I've seen Archaon lists too but at that point I think the list becomes an S2D list.
I believe someone mentioned Blightkings too.
Have you all explored any allied units and how did you use them? If so, I'd like to hear more! As usual, it doesn't have to be tournament viable stuff, cool and creative stuff too.
-
1
-
Discussing balance in AoS
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by pnkdth
I'd like to stick up for GW a bit here. 25 armies + extra armies (Chorfs, LoCA, etc) + expansions. Now add in sub-factions, battalions, allies, relics and traits, and you got the perfect conditions for the player to tinker and find the broken combos. Even the smallest of changes will cause ripples. In a perfect world they'll be able to update and test everything extensively. Though I would not say the game is in shambles either, I really really like it, but it is worth giving constructive criticism so...
All of this takes time, time costs money. My question is, what are we prepared to give up to, subjectively speaking, have better rules? Should they get rid of the unpopular armies? Merge certain tomes and tighten up the schedule (KO + Fyreslayers, SCE + CoS, a single chaos tome, etc)? Perhaps simplify the rules for and update them in a fashion similar to Chorfs?
Or is it simply enough to have an updated PDF with new points twice a year/each quarter between BT releases?