pnkdth
-
Posts
645 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by pnkdth
-
-
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!
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:
All I know is the lines of some Factions blur their Alliances. Darkoath may as well be Destruction as they venerate no members or the Big 4. (6).
I hope that Silent People are slotted into Destruction because they clearly dont worship Chaos and have been described as Sentient, Patient and Violent. Their appearance alone would not allow them in most Free Cities so Order seems off the table.
It comes to Death and Destruction. With cocooning and husks and other Insect related abilites the arguement could be made for Death.
But for me Destruction makes the most sense.
Instead of capturing Souls like the Idoneth they could capture people whole and take them to their Hives to be cocooned in Amberstone, think Xenomorphs from Aliens, drained of their life force within the confines of their sticky prison to feed the Hives Queen who in turn lays more eggs. Eggs which Bonesplittaz steal.
They dont eat to feed themselves the capture to feed their Queen. They dont barter for goods or trade with other races.They care not for ruling the Realms only to make sure the Queen is Protected and the Eggs are kept safe.
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.
-
6
-
2
-
-
20 minutes ago, Ledgington said:
GW: You said you wanted more Beastmen and we heard you. Get ready for Goose Guy(tm)!
The honks are stonks!
-
3
-
-
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."
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Snarff said:
This makes no sense. Developing AoS characters, introducing entirely new characters and armies and developing the high fantasy aspects of the realms and lore is doing the opposite.
What is making the connection obvious is continuously ignoring new characters and stopping their development just to force yet another old world character into the setting. For a few examples: Sigvald practically overshadowed Glutos and Glutos basically gets to do nothing in lore, Grombrindal is being used to the detriment of other Duardin characters who were already doing something similar (like Brokk Grungsson who is basically gone now instead of being a unifying point among skyports) and Gotrek still having a stranglehold on Fyreslayer lore (with him being the Avatar of Grimnir and having the most powerful urgold).
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.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
The problem for me is bringing back new characters is not as easy as moving from one continent to another. How do you justify that they appear now and not earlier? Also, if you wanna keep doing it, how many interesting solutions for that riddle can you prepare before they start feeling again something we saw?
In the end the key IMO is that bringing old characters had to be done earlier.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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, KingBrodd said:
If we want AOS to grow into its own identity we need it to have its own identity.
Relying on characters from TOW doesnt help AOS.
Its like WWE. People love the Rock* but when he recently returned people werent happy as it takes away from the new generation.
*The Rock boils my blood.
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!
-
14
-
1
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, Malakithe said:
40k is in a much better spot then it was in 9th. Now the whole tossing out super expensive rule books every couple of years is getting real old but what they did for the state of the game is better.
If they do the same for AoS 4th it wont be as bad as people think.
Of course if GW would go full digital the transition from edition to edition would be much faster and smoother overall.
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.
-
1
-
-
This makes me want to try a "beseech the gods" type of list. Quite a nice lil' glowup.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Ogregut said:
Dwarves and tomb kings are 2 armies I never collected back in the day.
I have been eyeing up the Highland miniature dwarves, they are beautiful sculpts.
And my gobbos will need someone to fight!
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
).
-
2
-
-
From a gameplay standpoint I do not think BoC fits with S2D at all. BoC in S2D would just be a bunch of cultist level units with barely any reason to exist and the rest is already represented in one way or another bar some big monsters.
The flavour and style of the current BoC battletome, i.e. the raider/skirmish and sacrificial themes, would be completely lost. Especially since BoC would, at best, get some watered down sub-faction where X unit becomes battleline.
-
BoC is going to become an order faction and be integrated with Cities. I think that would make the least amount of sense and anger the maximum amount of people. Let's gooo!
-
Chorfs wave one, two, and three!
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Garrac said:
I dont buy It, Im totally convinced its to just blurr their authors fames for corporate branding.
Yeah, the Matt Ward situation has been debunked numerous times but it keeps popping up. GW is afraid their own talent getting too talented so rather than using that kind of individual draw they do the corporate thing and try to "protect" their IP. GW haven't quite caught on with how social media works and that influencers draw in new customers yet but they'll get there in 5-10 years.
For example, Blanche's style of drawing is iconic and is heavily associated with warhammer. If you google his name the first thing you find is 40k art work. That kind of recognisability is fantastic since GW doesn't have to lift a finger to get exposure. Fans of X will get exposed to Y(GW) simply because of being interested in X.
Protecting your IP is important, for sure, but I think we'd struggle to find even a single person who doesn't understand the minis being produced by GW is a part of the warhammer IP.
-
5
-
2
-
-
I usually trim the hedges because I noticed when trying to spin my 'pile of shame' into something positive like 'pile of opportunity' I was just deluding myself.
These days I try to strike a balance between buying and hobbying. The only excess stuff I keep is used for kitbashing or the odd terrain piece. The rest goes one way or another.
In other words, I'm thinking in terms of 'good enough.' Both in terms of plastic pile and ongoing projects.
-
2
-
-
44 minutes ago, Sception said:
Eh, longer potential charge range is just giving frenzy more rope to hang you with. I played some dark elves back in the day and my singular witch elf unit constantly had me pulling my hair out, even with dark riders and harpies to help focus their attention. More than that, I played a lot of wood elves against various frenzied units, and they always felt like free wins.
So long as your army is fairly maneuverable (or at least has access to maneuverable elements) then you can use the opponents own frenzy blinder units to protect your vulnerable targets from the frenzied unit, and as long as your army is fairly shooty (or at least has access to some shooty elements), you can clear those blinders right when you need a frenzied unit to make the worst possible charge. Lizardmen are not my faction (despite my apparent decision to die on the hill of 'saurus warriors don't suck in TOW'), but just from reading their pdf they seem to have access to both maneuverable units and shooty units enough to really punish frenzy hard. If I were a lizardmen player, I don't think Khornate chaos warriors (or witch elves for that matter) would be high on my list of troublesome match ups.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm basing too much of that opinion on experience with a different army (mostly wood elves, admittedly probably the best faction for punishing frenzy in most editions of the game) in different editions (mostly 5th through 7th, 8th is when I switched over to all undead all the time).
Eh, also a longer corridor to set up a charge. Depends on how you deal with it and some armies are better than others (both for and against). I also played 6-8th. I'm not arguing there's no liability but getting it right will hurt. I also remember using the Slaanesh spell which gave frenzy to great effect with HoC and, for a limited time, Cult of Slaanesh (DE campaign faction which was tournament legal).
-
7 minutes ago, Sception said:
And I've spoken of khorne warriors in two other posts already. They have frenzy, which makes them bad. They will charge out of position, waste charges on tar pits and distraction chaff, charge into things that will beat them in combat (causing them to lose the frenzy rule that they paid extra for), charge into forests and be bogged down half the game, block off lines of advance from other units in your battleline, etc. To have any hope of using them in a reasonable fight you have to buy entire separate units just to block off line of sight to units they don't want to charge, which you then have to consider in their points cost. To the extent that warhammer fantasy is a game of maneuver and positioning, and Frenzy is one of if not the worst penalties you can hand yourself in that aspect of the game, essentially handing control of your unit to your opponent.
It is a challenge but it you played Witch Elves or similar you'll get used to it. Not sure if chaos will get furies but if they do (or something similar) it is a decent way to ensure the unit cannot charge the wrong unit. If desperate, simply blocking the unit so it cannot voluntarily charge.
That being said, chaos warriors are fairly slow and wasn't the competitive choice most of the time. Khorne cav should have play though. Even hard hitting units seem to have a fairly low number of attacks so the +1 atk from frenzy is more valuable than viewing it from an AoS lens. Assuming you still get +1 atk from it that is.
-
13 minutes ago, Hollow said:
It's ok for a company to make money yah know! I want GW to have massive cash injections. I want the company to be successful. I want people, to want, to spend money with GW. I think it is a great company.
That's a pretty bad take on what I said and a real tired take on "don't you know GW is a business?" I mean, of course bloody of course, they want to make money. Yet here you try and say I don't want people to be excited to spend money on GW when you know exactly what I mean. I mean, I could just turn the argument around on you and claim GW should triple their prices because people would be even more excited to spend that much! Just think of the massive cash injections!
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Hollow said:
Really? As someone who still playes multiple different editions of 40k and Fantasy I quite like the idea of an edition being a "complete" thing before moving onto the next. I was never really a fan of having some factions not getting an edition update. I don't see it being that problematic if the PDF's are avalible at the start of the edition for free like in 40k 10th.
That sounded a lot less cynical than you first framed it, i.e. massive cash injection, which lead me down the path of assuming not so free rules but rather to wring as much as possible out of each new reset/edition.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Hollow said:
As was 9th. I might be completely wrong about this but I suspect GW has pivoted to "New Edition = Reset" for 40k+AoS. It just makes so much sense from a financial perspective. Everyone goes out to buy new indexes, cards, etc and it allows for the edition to be approached holistically from the outset. It's a massive cash injection, that I think is too hard to pass up. Again, I may be wrong but I think we will see a full AoS 4 reset (I also think this is why they have released all the Battletombs with several months to spare to minimise backlash from books only being viable for that edition for a couple of months.)
That's one heck of a depressing thought. I don't think I would buy a single tome ever again if they go that hard into monetising their players. I probably would end up selling off everything I own and boycott GW. I understand that "GW is a business" but that's miles past the line of what I'd find acceptable.
Then again, much like the video gaming industry their preferred target audience is, let's put it politely, very 'resilient' when it comes to be offered worse and worse deals.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Hollow said:
I really don't see why not. Infact, I think it would be cool if Black Library branched out and did more exposition and lore based books in collaboration with established fantasy artists and writers (rather than just focusing on novels)
This is an off topic tangent so I will leave it for now, although if GW/BL were to release a series of 9 super ornate fantasy style tombs detailing the realms I would be more than happy to fork out a bunch of cash for them and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one. Imagine a 9 book series in a similar vein to what I just knocked up using Bing Image creator below. It would be so sweet. Drools*
I love this stuff. Have them contain maps and time-lines detailing important events and how they connect with each other. Other wish-list items I have is an updated Liber Chaotica for AoS. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.
Back when I was deep in 40k I used to get all kinds of adjacent books like the tabletop RPish game Inquisitor simply because the book fleshed out just how not at all unified the imperium is and there's lots of competing ideas and, well, corruption taking place. On the very surface level 40k might appear kind of "GLORY TO THE IMPERIUM OF MAN! SPACE MARINES KICK ASS!" but once you take a slightly deeper look below that it is quite clear the imperium is losing or, at a good day, holding the many enemies back. Furthermore, the common saying "everyone is evil" is a similar oversimplification because it is the setting which is the real enemy (the desperation, greed, short-sighted incompetence, bureaucratic indifference, vast machine which has to go on, etc, etc).
In other words, I love these world-building & RP books. This is what really gets me invested in a setting since I prefer to write lore for my own armies and characters as opposed to reading about X or Y characters. That said, I am not opposed to those either, just that those stories feel more weighty when I have a better understanding of the setting they're in.
-
7
-
-
20 minutes ago, Jator said:
Maybe remove/replace the "Confused" reaction? It's only ever used passive agressively when you don't want to bother with a reply. (In B4: Confused reactions).
100% agree. If you have a point of confusion or two you should have to articulate them or remain silent.
-
4
-
-
24 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:
+++ Mod Hat On +++
Back to Age of Sigmar rumours please!Age is just a number. #grindset #sigmarmale
-
5
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Hollow said:
ToW sub forum please! (I'd also suggest getting rid of the faction forums and just have Order, Chaos, Death and Destruction sub forums)
This. Having a TOW forum would focus the fantasy inclined hobbyist to this place rather than splitting the community, i.e. having people look elsewhere for TOW discussions. I know I would certainly appreciate not having to run across more forums.
-
7
-
Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
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).