pnkdth
-
Posts
648 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by pnkdth
-
-
1 minute ago, Beliman said:
If the main issue was keyword incompatibility, absurd mechanics, boring sinergies, meh battle-traits,... that would be a problem. But if it's just points, yes, it sucks, but we already know that points are going to change every few months, so, there is a lot of room to improve.
I remember such optimism on the HoS boards. Only took them about 2 years to get around to fixing it (the battlescroll wasn't in effect back then though). Moral of the story, just because they can doesn't mean they will. Even if they do something doesn't mean they'll actually fix the right unit(s). It seems it takes *A LOT* of convincing, in addition to crashing spectacularly in the meta, for them to admit to mistakes.
Though as you say, the book might just work out once things are put into practice.
-
I think they knew HH sales would be boosted by 40k players. In that regard, they're probably banking on the same thing for AoS/TOW too. Where there is a will, there's a way and it won't be very difficult to create multi-purpose bases/movement trays with magnets.
I'm thinking rows of 5 (assuming they'll go for the standard rank bonus) to fit 5 round bases. That way you can rank 'em up which not having to re-building them. You might have to forgo building hyper dynamic poses where everyone is jumping around and/or onto of tactical rocks/ruins... Then again, you might just create really cool trays with those incorporated to make everything fit. People used to get really creative with how they formed up, based, and trayed units.
In other words, I am not terribly worried about cross-compatibility. Some units might be more difficult than others but unless your opponents are extremely conservative and adamant about using exactly the right GW miniature there's a way around that too. GW might want us to buy more but they sure has heck won't stop me from kitbashing units I want from TOW.
Ah, Life, uh, finds a way. 😁
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Koala said:
So first of all you clearly never read the "old" Slaves to Darkness Battletome.
It had horrible, unfluffy rules but enough different units that some of them were broken ( 13" Charging Barbarians... Deepstriking. Because reasons)
The fact you think it was just slightly tweaked just shows how much the new rules allign with how we always expected the army to play. Well done GW!
Since i have not read ANYTHING out of the (few) previews that didnt sound reasonable and fluffy i am optimistic about the final product.
I would also like to use this moment to give a general statement about the tone of dialoge - not a specific comment on your post:
It is perfectly fine to disagree with the direction of rules writing in certain books (or in general). And you might or might not be able to find reasonable arguments for this opinion.
But self - victimizing and hyperbole is exactly the kind of toxic behaviour that has plagued most gaming/online forums.
- of course AoS is one of the three main systems for GW
- this does not mean that at any given time those three systems get exactly the same amount of attention.
- the same applies to any (sub) faction
- the rules are written by hobbyists
- often their rules will work well, sometimes not so much. Usually because of bad ideas or bad testing, never due to bad intentions.
- noone is out there to discrininate YOUR pet peeve faction (!)
- GW does indeed want you to spend money for their product
- therefore they want you to be happy with/about it.
- If you are unhappy try to reasonably communicate the why and how to them. ( Read: not here and not this way!)
- please always remember this is a hobby and people visit this forum to share (or increase) their positive hobby energy.
( I should probably put this in my sighature as Well as: tabletop gamers hate two things: the state of the game and change)
I guessing you've been holding onto something cause... wow. Not even touching that one. Maybe reflect on what is/isn't toxic behaviour when you read that incoherent rant back to yourself. For example, AoS isn't GW's main game. 40k is, no matter how angry you get about it. Second, I'm advocating for the opposite of victimhood... But I realise that I was only a vehicle to express your rant at this point, so have at it.
-
8
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Beliman said:
Imho, it's the best AoS book.
I don't care about how good it is, but their main mechanics brings a lot of tools for players. I think it one of the most customizable armies.
I'm a bit upset that armies with few units didn't recieve the same treatment. I can't understand why fyreslayers, with only 3 units, can't take runes as "marks of chaos" to give their players a lot more variety to their gameplay.
S2D is a good example where updating the book works since the foundation is already there.
15 hours ago, TechnoVampire said:I think it’s ok to hope that the devs are capable of recognising issues in tomes that are as old as 3 years, and applying a little knowledge and creativity to change the core mechanics, making them better and more interesting, without breaking the game. Gitz have consistently been one of the worst performing armies, so it’s clear they have issues. I would hope that they could solve some of these issues with more than warscroll upgrades, and try to address the core mechanics. It’s been years. I don’t think that’s too much to expect. I’m optimistic that the new Gitz tome will be more than that, but copy pasting old tomes like we’ve seen with factions like skaven, without doing anything new where necessary, just feels lazy.
...And Gitz is the opposite, where they really do need to get properly updated. Skaven is another which should have gotten more out of their updates.
14 hours ago, Ferban said:I think the tome updates should, more or less, be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It should update the rules to comport better with 3.0. It could add in some heroic actions or monstrous rampages when warranted. And it should align with the new philosophy that choosing a sub faction no longer locks you into an artefact or command trait.
I think the meta shakeup is mostly seen with the GHBs. And I'm OK with that. If you want a highly evolving game where good units become bad and bad units become good, I think the GHB battlepacks seem to do much of that. But if you are just playing with your mates and having a good time with your army, you probably want some level of consistency.
Seeing the squig movement change is a great quality of life improvement. That's the kind of thing I want from new tomes. That, and making the army feel like the lore. Not every 3.0 battletome has been a banger, but the majority have been improvements in those terms (even if they aren't giving significant power improvements).
Yeah, more or less that. With the previous two replies in mind it is quite clear we cannot just do updates, just as we cannot (or shouldn't do) just do massive revamps every time.
Overall, we need to accept the fact AoS isn't their main game but like @KingBrodd wrote in an earlier post AoS need a few more editions to truly become established as a setting. Having a reputation as being GW's balanced game with a healthy competitive scene is also extremely beneficial in the long run. In addition to quite a few 40k content creators picking AoS up it is looking pretty hecking good. I mean, it doesn't help the factions who needed more attention but at the very least the game is improving (least from where I'm sitting).
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
-
Though it looks like an update for Gitz it is what I'm expecting for the remaining AoS tomes. For example, the HoS one is probably similar to LRL in that it will consolidate all the various warscrolls into a single tome + either integrate or remove the sub-sub-factions + and (possibly) update the 'revel in pain' to seem less of a band-aid. Nothing in the development of AoS for many tomes in a row now suggest or even hint of a new and impactful update.
I do not think I'm being "negative" either since it is what we've been getting. Even S2D who got models didn't exactly WOW us with new and exciting mechanics, did it? What I'm actually saying is to stop expecting massive updates for AoS time and time again because they're not happening. The system is not big enough in GW's eyes for that yet.
When you accept that the AoS team's goal has been to update the game things, even though lacking bombastic releases, start to make a lot more sense and seem less bleak. I mean, listening to THW he keeps saying that the game is looking better and better... Even "the best its ever been."
So my question is, do we want huge shake-ups and, most likely, a significant increase in power creep each tome or do we want the dev team to improve the game as a whole first? In other words, we're getting frequent updates at the cost of significant and substantial ones.
A part of me want the bombastic upset of the meta but another part of me is coming around to the updated tomes. At least for now.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, DinoJon said:
So this was part of the article.... What are some reveals we wouldnt be expecting?
BoC model refresh or fully plastic line for existing armies? Joking aside, I'm just going to say Chorfs because my brain is broken from all the hopium (and copium) as of late.
-
4
-
-
5 hours ago, novakai said:
the B+C write up on the GW financial report indicate that HH outsold AoS when the AoD editon launch (not surprising to be honest)
Cheers. Had completely missed the report landed.
Their description of 40k compared to AoS hurt. 40k is their "most popular and recognisable brand" meanwhile AoS is their "unique fantasy setting." Even HH got described as a success and followed up by this:
"The release of Warhammer: The Horus Heresy - Age of Darkness box set in June was enthusiastically received by both
existing and new Horus Heresy collectors and marks a step change in our development and output for this rich and
popular IP."Which is corporate for HH made us a lot of money and we're going to push it even further.
The only mention AoS got was lumped in with WarCry and Kill Team. At least we got significant releases in those games...
"The rest of the period saw significant releases for all our main IPs including new miniatures and environments
for WarCry and Kill Team (our Warhammer: Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40,000 skirmish games)."However, looking at content creators I've noticed AoS growing in popularity (and therefore reach). Channels who only covered 40k are now also doing frequent AoS content (such as book reviews, battle reports, etc). So while there isn't anything amazing being mentioned about AoS in the report it is also good to see there's no dire news or negative implications there either. The fact AoS often being spoken about as "being in a good place" competitively is positive as well.
-
3
-
-
58 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:
Good to see updates for TOW but I think fans need to manage their hype (I know, funny coming from this bloke!!) when it comes to releases.
Dont expect range refreshes, like, at all.
Maybe a new character here and there and almost all Armies being the exact same models as WHFB.
Cathay and Kislev will probably be the only 'newer' fuller ranges.
I'm setting my expectations similar to TW series. Each release will be a campaign gradually adding in new factions as the story and/or campaign dictates.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
Are Battleforces time-limited? (FOMO?)
They are time-limited but since you can get every single mini outside of these boxes I wouldn't classify them as FOMO. Judging by their contents many of them offer a really good starting point or addition to existing army (even if you play a different chapter than what's represented on the box). Plenty of rumours about an incoming SM codex update too so I expect these to stick around for at least awhile longer.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Jetlife said:
Really? This reason is why I gave up on stormcast. I wish they did break up the parts of the army into separate stricter stormhosts. There are so many options that it is maddening trying to pick and choose units. Especially since there are enough units for each chamber to look and feel different. I'm curious to where people stand on this.
One book is enough but I'd like to see each stormhost be elaborated on similar to SM chapters rather than making me choose which kind of gold trim I want on their cloaks. That's easily the biggest weakness with the army and the AoS setting in general, the main "good guys" are so generic I barely care enough to learn more about them.
Imagine if each host had a distinct feel and look so new and old players could more easily find something to relate to? Not only would that be good for SCE but for CoS too. Then also for the rest of the setting because when it is easy to understand who is who and why they are the way they are, allies and opposing factions are also easier to grasp and relate to. More importantly, I should not have to read books upon books to get hooked, that's something for when you have already swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
That said, the main issue I have with SCE is the bloated mess of warscrolls. The army has 40+ warscrolls of heroes, 40+ more units... That's enough to rival the entire Death faction. 😆
-
GW is gearing up for a big release for the marines too and I'm pretty sure those boxes won't rest on the shelves for much longer. Especially since the new ones are looking a lot better for both starting out and adding to your army (the UM/Sallies/WS boxes in particular).
-
3
-
-
Many weapons used in fantasy are not really weapons of war to begin with. Most one handed or hand and a half swords were, in fact, sidearms. Much safer and efficient if you and your mates stick together with longer weapons such as spears. That being said, the scenario of Glorious Close Combat™ with two expert duellists using finely crafted swords captures the imagination and inner nerd.
Rule of cool is more fun than realism.
21 minutes ago, Koala said:Dwarves with halberds were called Chaos Dwarfs.
And to bring back the discussion to rumours. Chorfs is DEFINITELY one of the chaos tomes coming later this year. My source is me, myself, and the voice of Hashut speaking through me.
-
7
-
2
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, MitGas said:
In general I agree with you. But I found the tales of a Tantalus or Niobe more interesting than just exclusive stories about the Gods themselves. So a second „tier“ of named characters isn‘t bad. It‘s also not completely missing and thankfully the writers, as novakai pointed out, try to show the realms not just in the typical over-the-top style but I‘m dead certain that AoS will get much more love when the setting is better defined in the general fandom‘s eye.
many people loved how defined Warhammer was after all. More room for creativity is definitely good but a healthy mix of the two extremes will help the setting I bet.
One thing I really do miss in AoS is the ability to create interesting/powerful heroes to represent my slice of fantasy land in AoS. Nearly every single interesting hero unit in AoS is a named character which means there's almost no room for, well, fantasy and player-driven world building. You COULD run with unnamed units, of course, but they ironically lack character and soul.
There should be interesting unique characters AND be possible to customise unnamed heroes (AoA doesn't count). I think that also connects to what you said about both extremes. A sandbox is always more fun if there's a solid foundation to play within and create new cool stuff. Freedom within a framework (setting with established rules and guidelines since otherwise it just devolves into a bunch of Gary Stu/Mary Sue Power-fantasy nonsense).
-
8
-
-
1 hour ago, KingBrodd said:
I swear down if we get ANOTHER 40K themed Advent Engine Ill scream.
GWS bias towards 40K is actually getting on my nerves. Even during Preview streams theyll speed run the AOS releases to talk about the next 40K individual mini for 10 minutes.
That being said, we did get a clear indication of commitment in the road map. AoS isn't as huge as 40k and we should expect this to be the case for some years ahead.
Also, MajorKill (40k YT creator) out of the blue made an AoS video (and seem to be considering to start doing AoS content because the lore has matured a lot since he last took at look at it + praises the quality of the minis), Tabletop Titans do AoS for awhile, and Tabletop Tactics are rolling out more and more AoS content.
What I am saying is, we should temper our expectations a bit since if we compare AoS to 40k we will always end up being disappointed. Look at me, once again, seeing the sunny side of things. What the heck is going on? 😆
-
8
-
-
For now I'm going to huff hopium cause I didn't even expect BoC or Gitz to get anything until late 2023/early 2024. It also gives me hope that the Death tomes are actually going to be FEC/OBR. Worst case, we can all enjoy a round of mopium together as is tradition.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:
Saw this on Dakka. As if the Storm of Chaos and End Times weren't bad enough...
New theory: Sigmar became a beastman and the current "Sigmar" is a lizardman/illuminati puppet. Wake up, everyone!
Edit: Age of Sigmar -> Era of the Beast... It is all connected!
-
1
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, Marius au said:
A fun preview, but sad for my beastmen. Only one model, and given the track record for AOS so far, expecting nothing further.
Not really sure if GW has a plan for all of the finecast in AOS at this point as there hasn't really been any evidence that they intend to remove it or phase it out.
I expect gloomspite to get a nighthaunt sized release (so another kit or 2, one of which will be a character).
They did mention several releases though. It is also very un-GW-like to show everything at once unless a massive leak forces their hand. They probably do not want to distract from the S2D release either. Personally, I wasn't even expecting another chaos release so close to S2D for the same reason. To that end, I was pretty excited to hear that the release is happening early 2023.
I am also quite keen on learning about how the ambush tactics will play out in practice.
-
2
-
-
On 11/18/2022 at 10:35 PM, CommissarRotke said:
It does very heavily depend on your area and the people inhabiting it! Plenty of places have vibrant AOS scenes.
I do worry about the self-fulfilling prophecy of this, however, it does also come down to "people can and should try non-GW games" when they're unhappy with GW as a whole. This is why anyone's frustration at AOS should absolutely NOT mean just go buy into 40k.
Secondly, (temporarily) leaving for other games unfortunately hits AOS harder than 40k, and like I say earlier in the thread--the interest issue is less about having new models to buy and more about GW barely supporting AOS in secondary and tertiary media. I truly believe a lot of the dissatisfaction after 3.0 settled is because we have nothing AOS-specific in WH+ aside from a model, we have ZERO news on any AOS games in development, we have much fewer BL releases, and even the specialist games lean more towards the 40k universe. Soulbound is a fantastic TTRPG but even they can only hold up AOS so much without GW's full backing.
I'll end this out by making it clear that most of the issues presented in this thread were/are *also* problems in 40k and WHF; they are overall a problem within GW itself and not at all unique issues to AOS. They are also not unfixable issues
Yepp, and in most groups I've been in games go through cycles of popularity. Personally, I enjoy AoS and 40k more because of other games since I get ideas on themes and how to play differently from other systems. It also prevents burnout.
AoS, while not really a new game any more, is still doing world-building and establishing its setting. 40k has decades worth of lore and closing in on its 10th edition. Much like 40k AoS will go through growing pains, ups and downs, but I do not think the game is any danger of dying (quite the opposite). Just like how groups and gaming communities will abandon games they'll adopt others + cycle back to previously played games.
I've recently cycled back to FEC (the faction which got me into AoS), for example.
TL;DR: It is easy to get stuck in negative spirals and just like how you can find stories about groups abandoning AoS you can find stories of groups adopting AoS.
-
2
-
-
Big DBC/CoS and then HoS/FEC/BoC/BoK get low effort updates with no new models. Followed by a bigger OBR/Seraphon second wave (in whatever order). GW forgets entirely about Gitz till 4th edition. Chorfs gets legended again (because why not). 😅 Insert some random warcry stuff.
-
22 hours ago, Bosskelot said:
A lot of what I'm hearing in this thread is that AOS really does need its own Tempest of War.
ToW has been huge around here. Perfect fit for those who want to play in a sort of "casually competitive" way. Having to create a more balanced army to respond to randomly generated objectives is a lot of fun and reminds of the good old days (depending on where you stand) when TOs and players got really creative with their own tournament packs and composition scoring.
-
3 minutes ago, EntMan said:
My point was that as the new book won't be usable for a while, why not delay the release of the limited edition, take the opportunity to reprint without the errors, instead of putting out a knowingly defective product?
Because GW products are neither premium or luxurious. We've just reached the point where we're all stuck in a sunk cost-fallacy and pointing out that fact means you're being negative and/or toxic.
-
4
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, chosen_of_khaine said:
I find it weird that peoples' interest in playing the game is so tied up in how much release hype there currently is, especially when - odds are - the releases have nothing to do with an army that you play. I play the game because it's fun, not because a random army I don't play is getting a tome in the next month. And if you're tired of the current GHB (as I often am), you can just play last year's missions.
Excitement for what to do with a new army isn't just hype though. What I mean is if I have owned X army for a couple years a new tome should feel like a refreshing experience rather than a glorified errata with some warscroll changes/steamlined sub-faction rules. On the other side of that, facing a new army rather than the same old one is also fun and exciting.
I think this is what could have been a contributing factor in reinforcing the perception of a lack of AoS releases, since even though there's been more of them they've felt less impactful. It is at least true for me, as while I try to live by the rule of cool I admit having rules that are also cool is more fun!
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:
Because I have no clue who or what a Lord Solar is I am able to appreciate it on face value. But conversely someone might love Archaon's or Teclis' models and they are pretty cool in places, but I have gripes with both because to me they should look a certain way or have a certain presence.
I think it is funny that I chose one model where the mount/monster is my issue and the other where the named characters is my issue. Maybe because I like Lord Solar and the robo horse.Lord Solar Macharius (or something like that) is one of, if not the greatest, commanders of the guard's history. He was famous for leading from the front, sharing hardships, and pushed all the way out into empty space where the "emperor's light (the astropaths) was nothing but a dim flicker. Macharius was also clad in quite heroic looking armour so I'm guessing this character carries on his tradition (and position).
For reference here's the old one:
-
2
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Gitzdee said:
I am starting to see all these "sidegames" and the main game as a parts of the same thing. Its all AoS and it gives me the chance to add awesome looking models to my armies. I own a few warbands and i have never played Underworlds. Warbands like Mollogs Mob and Rippas Snarlfangs have been a blast to paint. Cant wait to see whats in store for this new one. I already know i will instabuy it when its released without seeing the models though XD.
I am 100% with on them being a good supplement for kitbashes and the hobbying aspect. Rules-wise they're a bit hit or miss which is why I don't see them as AoS releases. I am more than a touch disappointed with seeing factions who really needed a boost get the hero + tome maintenance mode treatment too.
A growing worry is that most of the rumour engine pics will turn out to be just another warcry war band since it doesn't seem to matter which factions needs a new wave of minis or rules. That said, I think it is high time we start to adjust expectations since AoS isn't nearly as big as 40k so constantly comparing 40k releases to AoS is inevitably going to lead to disappointment. I've even started to dip back into 40k because of hobbyist reasons (even if I think AoS is a better game).
The rules are quite solid and seeing channels like Tabletop tactics who average 40k views starting to enjoy AoS is a nice boost in visibility and interest. They've also inspired me to try 1,5k more games since those seem to strike a really nice balance between army size and time. Indeed, it has poked a massive hole in the argument that you have to play 2k games since "it is balanced around that."
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, W1tchhunter said:
Where's the damn battlescroll, how late are they now with this?
"I know, I know! It was something about releasing the rest of the AoS factions with a hero + battletome, right?"
Beasts of Chaos 3.0
in Chaos
Posted
Good points. Now if you will excuse me I'm going on a crusade to gather as much hopium I can for the new (supposed) hedonite book later this year. 😅