Chikout
-
Posts
2,920 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Chikout
-
-
Anyone know what this short story in the new white dwarf might be referencing?
Shards of Divinity – The herald of an ancient aelven deity is born in this short story. -
11 minutes ago, Garrac said:
So, then launch box gets revealed on 18th of may, and preorders for the 9th of June? That's barely 22 days of marketing. It's utterly insane, AoS (nor any other game for the matter) isn't 40k, it doesn't have the privilege of a large fandom instabuying every release. But, oh well, I'm not an executive...
They've been marketing the release this whole time. The pre order window is also still marketing time. Especially with a product like this that will be aimed at new players. They want people to walk into stores and pick up a box.
-
4
-
-
9 minutes ago, Mutton said:
This does seem to penalize anyone who didn't buy the big box of endless spells. This is basically telling me I have to buy them for my armies without personalized endless spells whether I want to or not.
As I said above, that isn't necessarily true. Every time you choose to summon an endless spell you can't cast a regular spell. If you choose to run an army without priests or wizards, you can't do anything against regular spells but you can destroy endless spells.
-
1 hour ago, The Red King said:
Did I miss something or these all "free" meaning you get a big handicap if you don't spend real money on whatever the best endless spell is?
And since it looks like they'll come in themed boxes we can expect one or two in each to be really good to force you to buy multiple kits you don't need just to be on a level playing field.
Also can't be certain but there's a real chance khorne can't ignore endless spells now because what would that rule look like?
It's all about the opportunity cost. Is it better to try and summon the swords or just cast a spell that does d6 mortal wounds? We'll have to see everything. It's possible that there will be some inherent advantage to endless spells but there are lots of ways of dealing with them now. They can be unbound like a normal spell, banished in subsequent turns and damaged normally. If you fail to unbind a normal spell there's nothing else you can do to stop it taking effect.
-
17 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
Even while they are dope, I could understand events not allowing that army because it adds an extra complication layer for the opponent to remember which minis are which from the army they are playing.
That's the whole point though. GW are allowing this army at their own event. The key is to submit a list early that clearly explains what each unit is supposed to be.
-
Ricki is a great example of what's possible. He got permission to run this army as Ogor Mawtribes at a Warhammer world event.
It rather gives the lie to the idea that GW doesn't like proxies or kitbashes at their events. It's really just 3d prints they don't like and even then a 3d printed helmet or weapon is usually fine.
-
6
-
2
-
4
-
-
18 minutes ago, Dragon-knight77 said:
In my personal opinion i don't think we going to get the Lord Vigilator tomorrow. That model seem to be the big centerpiece of the box like Yndrasta, The Winged Tyranid Prime ect. they probably wait for the entire box reveal
I predict it going to be the Prosecutors/Knight Azyros or a hero model like a new herald
We'll just have to wait till tomorrow to see if I eat Crow
......Literally
Yeah I'm with you. I think they'll save the two centrepieces for the full reveal. I'm expecting a minor Stormcast hero and maybe the Skaven warmachine since it already leaked.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Whitefang back me up said:
Who's exited for Skaventide then?
Box set name??
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Tonhel said:
We did one time try a whole day PtG campaign. We were with 4. I played StD. The three other armies were SB, NH and Idoneth. It was an unpleasant experience for the Idoneth player. Everybody did 3 battles. My StD did well (it was before the new StD battletome) lol and in the summer. The rest I forgot. 🙂 I liked it, although the general conclusion was to stick with matched play and that we would have had a better day if we just played matched play with winners vs winners.
So sadly I can't force my group to play PtG only, as I think it would be indeed more my kind of game. We still have to see how PtG will be in 4th.
Spearhead sounds something I would try with my 8 and 11 year olds, but not with the gaming group. Although again, we don't know how Spearhead will or how dumbed down it is.
I'm not suggesting trying those modes wholesale rather that you look at how they do scenarios and scoring in 4th and perhaps import them into matched play in place of battle tactics. It's sounds like you've got a group who actually talk to each other. That's the envy of many players who are limited to pick up games. Why don't you try a few practice games with various adaptations of the rules and find something that makes all of you happy?
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Boingrot Bouncer said:
The more I think about the alliance BT the more they feel unequal. Especially the destruction feels like an extremely hard one.
You need to:
*Have three of your units wholly in your territory (which can be very small)
*Successfully get them wholly out of your territory and in range if charging.
*Then succed in all three charges (hello redploy!).
*And not be killed before you have successfully fight with the three units.
I mean, even a newbie player can see so much possibilities to counter play this tactic it's ridiculously hard to succeed in it.
Compare that to the death one, which unless you have some very special match is kill a five wound hero or a ten wound unit.
This feels like a themed tactic more than a fair one. It's definitely the hardest but we've literally seen half the picture when it comes to battle tactics. Does death have a second harder tactic and Destruction an easier one? On first glance it would seem fairer to move both those tactics to two units, but perhaps time will prove us wrong.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Tonhel said:
I am certainly in favour in having secondary objectives and I am happy that faction specific BTs are gone. I just don't think that those 2 Alliance factions are a good solution. As imo it already creates an unbalance, that isn't imo necessary.
That said I also have no good idea/solution to keep secondary objectives in these case BTs balanced for all factions.
I am hoping that there is a easy way to ignore BTs and still play matched games. For our group these are still the easiest to play.
Path to glory and spearhead won't be including battle tactics. Even if you don't play those modes it might be worth looking at how they do scenarios and possibly importing them into matched play. If you've got a regular group who plays together it's a perfect opportunity to play fast and loose with the official rules.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Tonhel said:
Which is really unfun when you have that match up. So it's either easy or impossible. This isn't good game design,. No matter how people try to explain it.
Well ignoring the fact that I had that rule wrong, I feel like you're arguing both sides of the coin at once. All Warhammer except perhaps 1st edition adeptus Titanicus has fundamentally different factions. Some are good at shooting, some at moving, some at combat etc. Unless you change that basic premise of Warhammer you are always going to have missions and objectives that favour some factions over others.
The job that GW has is to avoid pushing those differences to extremes while still keeping the objectives tactically interesting.
I don't think there are any tactics we've seen so far that are impossible for any faction and aside from the player going first in turn one I don't think there are any that are automatic. Even in the first turn scenario, you can prevent take the flanks by stacking your army on one half of the board during deployment and blocking access to a flank.
The first instinct is that a high movement army would be good for reclaim the lands but a really good way to make sure there aren't any enemy units nearby is to kill them. A Fyreslayers army might be going for that tactic in turn 4 instead of turn one.
A valid complaint about the tactics is that they can be a solved system where you pick the same tactics in the same order every game. A set of tactics that have some way to counter them should help with this. Refreshing the list once a year should also help.
-
5
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
It looks like that at first glance, but the condition is "pick a unit that had no models slain", not "pick a full-health unit", so going up against hero spam makes that tactic easier if anything. It really seems like the designers want to enable very free list building, but are definitely making it most optimal to run fluffy mixed arms lists.
Oh right. That's down to me being stupid then. The opposite is true. Targeting a weakened gargant is easy.
-
12 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Still feels like the variation in difficulty is within reasonable bounds. That could change in the future if they are not careful and write a "destroy a unit with shooting" tactic or something, but for the ones we have seen it seems fine.
IMO, having a faction that is less mobile struggle with mobility-related stuff (be it picking engagements, objective scoring or BTs) is just part of the expression of faction identities.
Yeah. Every unit moves, every unit fights. One way to stay away from enemy units is to kill them. I think they've struck a reasonable balance so far.
That said AoS and indeed all Warhammer games are fundamentally assymetrical by design. That death battle tactic looks easy unless you're up against 4 megas. Having to take one down from full health in a turn is going to be tricky.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Tonhel said:
If they wanted to keep the BT, then it was better to just keep the universal ones.
The problem with Alliance BsT instead of Faction ones is that for some factions its much easier to succeed in the battle tactics than others.
I.e I think the BT "Reclaim the Realms" is so much easier to achieve with Idoneth or Sylvaneth than it is for Fyreslayers.
If Fyreslayers can still tunnel it won't be that hard. The obvious counterplay to this battle tactic is to zone out one quarter of the board. The best way to score it might actually be to take out a unit in the centre of the board to clear some space. A big hard hitting Fyreslayers unit might be well suited to that.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, OkayestDM said:
I agree with the general consensus here. This isn't what I wanted, but it is an improvement.
I don't know if they're piling too much incentive on not taking the double turn, but there won't be any way to know for certain without actually playing games.
Overall, I can live with this, so long as they stay true to it.
With a more limited pool of battle tactics, there will be plenty of cases where taking the double will allow you to deny a tactic to your opponent. If neither of you are scoring tactics that turn, the benefits of the double remain.
-
4
-
-
In Japan all third party stores charge full price. There isn't a discount to be had anywhere. They do this for everything. A six pack of beer costs the exact same price as six individual cans of beer.
-
1
-
-
The article directly says the ghb tactics release faction specific ones. Here's hoping they stick to it. Also adding flavour text makes a surprising amount of difference.
Now that the rules jargon has been tightened up, I really would like to see gw add more flavour text back into the game, especially on the warscrolls.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, MitGas said:
I really don‘t like the battle tactics. If I want to play a game in a game, I‘ll play FF7 Rebirth where I can at least look at Tifa. I hope that the modular nature of the rules will truly let people not use that aspect.
How can you say that when we haven't seen today's article yet? The concept of battle tactics isn't a problem, the way they were executed in 3rd was.
Take slay the warlord. There's nothing uninteracive about that battle tactic. It reinforces the narrative of the game rather than going against it like some of the book battle tactics do. If the article comes out and it's all the same as before with tactics for doing non interactive nonsense then I'll be right there sharing my disappointment with GW but it's not time for that yet.
6 hours ago, JackStreicher said:It‘d be a lie to say I am not looking forward to playing the new edition, these previews however have taken away my excitement. I want to play an immersive battle game, not compete for a meaningless trophy at some tournament.
I'm not sure what is so lacking in immersion about the rules we've seen so far. I admit that battle tactics is probably the most important aspect of the game that's problematic but I'm at least going to wait until I read the article before I make my mid up. Praying is more thematic. The list building is narratively logical. Interactivity looks to have been improved. AoS has always been an objective control game. That hasn't changed.
-
2
-
-
During lockdown I made a chess grid for a warcry board and played warcry over the internet with my sister. It worked surprisingly well.
-
2
-
-
I went back and listened again to the Warhammer weekly episode about battle tactics and read a few Reddit posts about it. The most surprising thing I saw was that it was mostly new players defending the system. As a long term but relatively inexperienced player it's the sequencing that I find problematic as the phases got broken up into more and more pieces. Choosing battle tactics to go for is a minor issue.
The real problem are the lack of counterplay and the inequality of the book battle tactics. The easiest mitigating solution is to remove book battle tactics and to ensure that the core battle tactics they have all have some kind of counterplay that lets the opponent have the chance to deny them.
There is potential in the system, it's just that the first stab at implementing it was poor. I'm sure they've been bombarded with emails and comments. I'd be very surprised if the design team didn't watch the Warhammer weekly show about battle tactics. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now especially as everything else they've previewed so far looks pretty good. Of course it's entirely possible that if they are bad, the community just ignores them. We did that with the old scenery rules after all.
-
5
-
-
18 minutes ago, Ragest said:
Tactics now have a value of 4 victory points.
If they release the tactics article and I read something about "Faction battle tactics" I will just close the tab and start painting marines.
They're worth the same proportion of victory points as they are in every current battleplan. In the new version it looks like there will usually be 10 points up for grabs rather than the current 5. I definitely share your concern about the battle tactics article though. I have a feeling it's going to to be the most debated article of the preview.
-
It's weird that we've had all this talk but noone has mentioned the ways in which AoS attempts to make heroes unique, namely heroic traits and artefacts. We know that command traits are being changed to heroic traits but we still don't know what they are or how you choose them. Is it still one per army? We also don't know how artefacts are chosen as the battalions are presumably gone.
If you take your slaughter priest then give him a heroic traits that grants a 4+ ward and a weapon that adds 3 damage to his attacks, you've suddenly got a pretty decent blender.
-
I use citadel because I'm colour blind and switching to another brand would mean learning what all the colours are. More tutorials use GW paints than any other. GW paints are easier to get hold of than other brands where I live and apart from the white paints I've been pretty happy with them over the years.
Ricki is a great example of what's possible. He got permission to run this army as Ogor Mawtribes at a Warhammer world event.
Your First White Dwarf Issue?
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Does this age me?