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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Lord Celestant

About Falandris

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. What I am always asking myself is how does the playtesters influence the actual written rules and how does that affect the decisionmaking of GW? Is it something like - here are our suggested rules, dear playtesters - what do you think about them? And what is the general approach going into playtesting. Is it mainly from a competitive point of view in mind? Is there such thing as trying to avoid powercreep? And how is the general level of other armybooks considered while evaluating the new rules? If thats a thing that is considered in the whole process - how comes there are such big differences between books like Gloomspite Gitz and for example Tzeench possible. So if we look at the recent releases that had a huge impact on the meta like DOK, Slaanesh Tzeench, OBR and likely Lumineth - so in these cases the playtesters came to the conclusion that these set of rules were a great way of extending the at that time actual way of playing and increasing the overall enjoyment of the game? Or is it more like that a lot of suggested changes didn't make it into the book. Im really interested to hear more about the whole thought process to get an overall better understanding of the decisionmaking. If some of the playtesters could give some insights on this i feel like this would avoid a lot of grudge and misunderstandings. If it doestn't really fit into this discussion here I can open up an independet thread for this topic as well. I feel like a lot of people would be interested though.
  2. Salamanders are quite broken will will get a nerf sooner or later. Till then ask him to play without Salamanders and his winrate will drop drastically. If he isnt up for that go full tryhard with Tzeench urself.
  3. Hey, I like the Idea of sharing experiences with all the armies you play and play against. To give a rough framework – I tend to play solely games of 1250 points - I could play way more but for mee it seems to be the perfect level. Experiences with Armies that I play: Orruk Warclans From my point of view a book with the potential to compete on every level and maintaining the fun for every player involved. I personally tend to fill my lists with a little bit of everything available and feel like these are great for casual play. Bringing a Maw Krusha in a game of 1250 points can be frustrating for several armies, though – so you might be right in your assumption that you could face similar problems as with FEC. In my opinion Ironjaws and Bonesplitters don’t mix particularly well (visually and gamingwise) and most of the time it’s better to concentrate on one of them, leaving you with lesser options than with other armies. Gloomspite Gitz There are so many ways to design your lists, it’s crazy. Therefore, it should never get boring with these guys. Depending on your subfactionchoice you may struggle to compete with the more potent armies like Tzeench, Slaanesh, OBR, whatever. I would say the effectiveness behaves like this: Mixed > Moonclan > Squigs > Trolls > Spiderfang. I played all of them and can say that while not the most potent they are all extremely fun to play, this army is amazing. And these models… stunning with an extremely high degree of lovely hidden details. Seraphon I like the variety of lists they offer. The community of this army is so unique and amazing as well. But since you excluded them because of their visuals I won’t get further into detail here. Mentionable experiences against armies I played against and which might interest you: Skaven Before their actual tome they were on an average level and everyone seemed to play Stormfiends-heavy which wasn’t much fun to play against. With their new book I agree to what @Neverchosen said: depending on your list they can be a bit frustrating to play against. When I played against them it was a lot about Verminlords, Jezails, Plaguemonks and such stuff... I guess there are ways to build less frustrating lists but to be honest I never faced one of those. Tzeench + Slaanesh It seems to be an impossible task for players to create a list that doesn’t feel way above the curve. It’s just so frustrating going up against these guys whithout optimizing your own list. From my point of view I wouldn’t recommend going into them since it won’t help you in your current situation. Khorne: Their tome is similar to the Gitz-one since there are so many ways you can play them. You mentioned that you like the big monsters so they could be very suitable for you. From my perspective most of their stuff is playable which includes the greater daemons as well. For example, I don’t read too much positive things about Skarbrand but in the games I faced him I always got crushed relentlessly. The other Greater Daemons feel strong as well, there is even a list consisting only out of these greater daemons, which even was fairly competitive – maybe not the right one for your group though. Over the time I faced several different Khorne lists and most of them were pretty fun to play against. SCE: There are so many ways to build your army but most of the time you only see one specific build which abuses some weird rule. I feel like there is much potential but haven’t played them in a while. Sylvaneth: Before their actual book book they always felt so annoying to play against since nothing died, there always was a special rule for everything and their woods most of the time felt like a negative playexperience to me (including discussions about pre-deployed scenery). With the new book they seem to struggle a bit to compete, though. To conclude: From what I've read so far, Gitz or Khorne seem like the best fit for your request.
  4. @Overread While I can see the point on number 1 and 2, I don't think teaching is the right recommendation in this case (see "Since I'm new to the game - I don't know all mechanics"). There is nothing more awkward than a dude who is playing several month starting to give lessons primarily based on the fact he luckily chose an army that's some tiers above the others. Calling it greater skill on number 1 would sound quite arrogant to me as well but maybe wasnt meant in that way. @pbL` I share the attitude about finding a balance between you and your gaming group /gaming partners so that everyone is getting an enjoyable experience. So here would be my take on improving the situation: Maybe you could tone down / tailor your lists. I'd imagine that some machups will be quite daunting anyways, though - no matter how much both of you tailor - its a warhammer-system after all. Adittionally OBRs and FEC are both armies with little variety so there shouldn't be too much room for tailoring. Go for a mid-tier-army while not trying to copy the most successful netlists. Tiers change minimum twice a year, though... but if you aren't chasing the actual meta it should be fine. For me it would be gloomspite gitz since they are a great contender for the fun-spot. They are a blast to play and there just aren't many things in it that generate negative playexperiences. Overall the book is well written on an enjoyable powerlevel (the latter depends on your expectations obviously). Furthermore Seraphon were always a fulfilling army to me. Most of their warscrolls are kinda meh but their streghts come from synergies. Because of that you are always in a good position in terms of tailoring and therefore you are able to control the powerlevel of your lists fairly easy. The look of that army is not for everyone though. Honestly I guess most armies with a greater variety of different units should do the trick (SCE, CoS, Khorne, etc.). In the end only you can decide which army is suitable for you. Do you have any preferences?
  5. Hey guys, I decided to finally give my dust-gathering Shadespire box a try and realised that me and my wife are having surprisingly much fun with this set. Since playing fully painted is always more fulfilling I painted up both warbands. And here they are: Tbh though, I'm quite hesitant about investing more into this system since im not interested in buying every warband to get card xy. But time will tell Cheers! Edit: I realised that I've painted some more warbands in the past. Not necessarily because I planned to play them in WHU but rather because I tend to collect everything that's WHFB-Greenskins alike where everything fought under one banner. So here are my other Warbands as well: That should be everything I got laying around Cheers!
  6. Dankhold Trogboss for me, but it's a hard choice since the whole git-release was amazing und most of it would be a worthy contender for the spot.
  7. Allegiance: DestructionLeadersMegaboss on Maw-Krusha (420)- Boss Gore-hacka and Scrap-toothOrruk Weirdnob Shaman (120)Orruk Warchanter (80)BattlelineUnits5 x Orruk Brutes (170)- Pair of Brute Choppas20 x Orruk Ardboys (280)3 x Orruk Gore Gruntas (140)- Pig-iron ChoppasEndless Spells / TerrainBalewind Vortex (40)Total: 1250 / 2000Extra Command Points: 0Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 96 This List is absolutely great to play, since there is so much synergy. Every part of it feels somewhat important and has a purpose. Having a lot of fun with it.
  8. Thanks for this comprehensive explanation. Weird stuff ^^
  9. Could one of you guys explain the "Grot Spear 16+ Damage" thing?
  10. Even as an IJ-Player I don't think it's broken. Khorne and IJs are easily screened so it wouldn't change much and most of the other armies seem to have the tools. You also pay a premium for the Vortex. So from my point of view: keep it like it is, there are a lot of other things which are much more worthwhile nerfing atm.
  11. I disagree on that one. If you feel your opponent who is obviously lacking experience and is very new to the game ("He made several blunders during set up and beyond") - maybe don't exploit it like a douche. Give him some tipps and try to win without the doubleturn. I guess he wanted to try the game as a whole and was not going into it with such a tryhardmentality like you did. For me it's not about doing always the best and tactical supreme choice - it's about both players having a fun experience. If it's not a tournament game and you are ahead (or feeling superior because of your overall experience in general) it's way more pleasant to me to try a different route. Make the game more exciting - tabling your opponent in 2-3 turns is no fun for both sides will only result in weird feelings towards you and why would he be offended by you not taking the optimal choice? He is new to the game, so he won't be able to compete on the same level as you do. Dont't you think you can also generate insights and improve your game while taking a sub-optimal route - therefore playing out of a weaker position? Wrecking newbies is quite dishonorable, as you noticed yourself. Dunno I would be quite scared off about another game in his position. What new players coming outside of AoS complain about the most is often times the doubleturn. Letting him do his newbish mistakes (maybe give some hints) and then rubbing the questionable doubleturn-rule right in his face isn't the best way of getting someone into AoS.
  12. why taking the doubleturn then? Had the same situation with a newcomer one week ago: I won the priority roll twice, but i didn't take the doubleturn - because of obvious reasons (new player just introduced to the game, old army - Imperium, he won't learn anything while getting bashed, etc.). Since we were not playing a tournament game and he wanted to learn the game it just felt so wrong using the Double. Maybe on that one you were stuck a bit too hard in your tryhardmentality - at least it reads a bit like that. No offense though
  13. For me it's max. 1-2 armies per system (AoS/40K/Warmahordes). Considering a normal day at work + family there just isn't the time to play varying lists and being full painted with more armies than that. Maybe more armies can work for you if you're the "I'm fine with playing one list" guy. But I don't think you can really get into the feeling of one army while playing 7 different ones at the same time. You will never truly unterstand and master them.
  14. I just want the option for the old Orks&Goblins style. Orks kicking Grots around, bringing Trolls and Giants (because they are "fightin' gud") without breaking some kind of keyword synergies.. I really don't like the split into X different subfactions, which all together were a coherent army before. Playing the old style nowadays is even in low-lvl friendly games not competitive at all. I don't want to be restricted to just one subfaction of greenskins or grots... I want all the variety which made them special and attractive to me... and no guys: playing them under mixed destruction rules is not working at all, especially against books with new tomes. Balancewise they need a boost as well: for the cost of 20 Orruks or 1 unit of troggoths I can choose from the whole Ironjawsarsenal, which is superior in every way. Additionally the new mixed destruction traits are complete garbage. Under the last GH the old style worked in low-lvl play - mainly because of the items and traits, bringing some kind of punch into these weak, sub-optimal lists and making them playable. But with the GH17 and the lack of any good items and traits (mixed destruction) you really struggle to justify bringing anything thats like the old concept. To make this clear:I nearly got the complete Orkrange at home, including IJ and Bonesplitters, but to be able to compete I have to play mainly one subfaction (for me the new allypoints dont fix this problem good enough). O&G was always a heavy mix of races, maybe the book with the most racial variety as well... I would really like a tome that would allow me to represent the old style without throwing all my chances of winning overboard. To me it seems like I will play IJ only with this GH, because the rest even struggles to win in restricted non-competitive games nowadays. But obviously that won't happen
  • Create New...