Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

60 Celestant-Prime

About Equinox

  • Rank
  • Birthday December 25

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry Infeston, my comments are more in response to all of his TGA posts on the topic of ME. The joys of the internet in that we can both read a post and interpret it differently. Like yourself, I am finding the format to be a positive one and personally the breath of fresh air I need to "possibly" re-engage with the hobby. I get the format is not for everyone, which is totally acceptable. I am personally done with 2000 point games and the matched play format at that level for a list of reasons, but don't feel compelled to spam every discussion about said format just because I don't think it works for me.
  2. With regards to the OP, stuff is out there, just not at the levels of the default format (2000 points). The fact you already have a group that is playing ME is a huge leap ahead when compared to others. I also agree with other posts that there is lots of stuff on TGA, it just moved mostly to the faction specific threads. I am hoping a podcast or two appears that embrace the smaller formats (Warcry, ME, etc...). I really feel there is a market for smaller format AoS, it just takes a couple driven and talented folks for it to gain more exposure.
  3. At this point your posts have become textbook confirmation bias. You dogged the format before it was released and once available you jumped on the points that supported your views. Everytime someone talks about meeting engagements, you respond with how basically it is not a valid option for tournaments and other such dribble. You have made your opinion clear about the format, so now your posts are coming off as redundant and frankly a poor attempt to badger others into sharing your viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with disliking a format, game or whatever, but actively discouraging others from exploring something that is intended to be leisurely activity is just bad for everyone.
  4. Yeah, the FAQ does not answer the battalion question. I would still weigh on the side that they cannot be used. Same with the Nighthaunt battalions.
  5. Exactly. Nagash has keyword Deathlords and LoG can use units with the keyword. None of the rules for LoN apply to an army using the LoG rules, so the Nagash restriction in LoN doesn't apply.
  6. https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/age_of_sigmar_forbidden_power_designers_commentary_en.pdf https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/age_of_sigmar_forbidden_power_errata_en.pdf And with that, Nagash is legal in a Legion of Grief army. 😂
  7. https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/age_of_sigmar_forbidden_power_designers_commentary_en.pdf https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/age_of_sigmar_forbidden_power_errata_en.pdf And with that, Nagash is legal in a Legion of Grief army. 😂
  8. Just a suggestion, but you may want to post the information for your event here as the Facebook group is a closed one so folks cannot read the details.
  9. I would prefer it was limited to 1 unit can be summoned during the game. I feel like that would be a better compromise over just completely removing it from the game. As a side note, it seems like the issue would be FEC and Seraphon when it comes to summoning. Other factions that can summon (like Hedonites, Tzeentch, etc...) seem like they would be a bit limited in the format. Could be wrong however, so curious what others think.
  10. I believe you are misreading some of the reactions people are having to this new format. I have yet to read anyone claiming it will replace 2k Matched Play. Instead, it seems those like myself are excited because it provides a format within a point level that we enjoy. I am sure those that are inclined to do so will break this format. How is that any different from what is seen at 2k? Why? If someone wants to invest the time and effort to run a 1k tournament, how does that make it any less of a valid option? That would be like saying little league baseball tournaments are not as real an option as those held at the collegiate level (or MLB level). Speaking for myself, I have driven 4+ hours each way for the last couple years to attend a 1k tournament held in another state. In comparison, I don't even bother with the 2k tournaments that are closer because I find them to not be a good fit for me. Just because something doesn't fit what you are wanting out of a hobby, that doesn't mean it cannot be a valid option for others.
  11. One thought I had this evening was whether or not Meeting Engagements will see a surge in grand alliance armies. It seems like a good format to build small "teams" for each element that fit together as a GA.
  12. Agreed. It seems you need a minimum of 4 units in a Meeting Engagement army because you must drop at least 1 unit for each element and the main element must contain 1 battleline and 1 leader. Agreed as well. If someone sets out to break the system, I am sure they will find a way to do it. It does seem upon first read however that more variety in army builds will be encouraged using the system. The system also seems to reduce the impact of taking battalions without flatout banning them from the format. While not exactly what I was expecting, I am quite pleased with the reveal.
  13. Not really as that player can still use those models in their army by simply choosing to include them over other models they already own. In contrast, an army that is now ~200 points deficient in models only has two choices, play with a deficiency or buy more stuff. I agree with others that rules changes are the preferable route, but I don't think point drops are a good bandage either for NH. (Sorry for sidetracking the topic) Returning to LoG, I feel like there are some viable builds that I am eager to try, but nothing I feel is going to be meta changing or the second coming of NH. I love the concept of an army that attacks through bravery, but FEC can do the same and maybe better (speculation on my part). I think for me, the joy in LoG will be that I can mix death models (skeletons and ghost) in a fashion not possible outside of generic death before with some decent rules to support the army.
  14. The issue with reducing points is that you create "model" creep with armies. I would prefer GW raise the cost of the major offenders instead of just making the poor stuff cheaper. In a 2000 point list, someone like Lady Olyander or Kurdoss should have a cost appropriate to their stature in an army. By lowering their points, it sends the message that GW knows the model is not comparable to something else at the same cost, but that they are going to fix the problem by punishing players by them needing to buy more toys to fill the "free" space left by the point reduction. Granted it could be argued raising points is a form of punishment as well, but the key difference is that a point raise doesn't require a player to buy more models. A point reduction does unless they want to be handicapped in a different fashion.
  15. I would hazard to guess that is more of a Warcry board size than a vanguard (1K) size board. 4x4 is really the money at 1K. Another thing I would like to see are battleplans that lean on battleline units to score points. Something like a capture the flag scenario where only battleline units can carry the flag. Putting a little more emphasis on the importance of battleline at this size "may" help to mitigate abuse (wishful thinking and not based on anything substantial).
  • Create New...