Kramer
-
Posts
6,489 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
45
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Kramer
-
-
40 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:
Thudertusks work because the prayers have a role and in games with multiple objectives he can sometimes sit on one and shoot snowballs and hail. But for the points... ugh. Which is a shame because I loved Thundertusks in previous tome and have two non-Huskards now collecting dust. There’s just lose out to Frost Sabres ambushing with Icebrow as the faction that would let you use them better leans into those Thundertusks.
Yeah that’s so weird. A 300 pts support character that only supports on a 4+.... unless you spend another 300pts.
a MW shooting attack that gets better against hordes?
if they made the tusks better vs hordes as well. Then suddenly you have a horde killer. That would give it a purpose in my mind. Especially with the -1 to hit. It could fight a horde for two turns, better than a stonehorn could if done right.
and suddenly you have role for it.But I’ve taken this stand too many times 😂
-
1 hour ago, Ggom said:
As someone who mostly paints but would like to play in the future, this is a big thing for me. I love painting different sculpts, and would prefer if the stronger lists in my army rewarded something besides 30 - 90 of the same kit.
Also, massive props to @Kadeton for verbalizing an excellent theoretical framework for this discussion
Just need to find someone like @Greybeard86 or me to play against. And you never have to paint more than 20 of any model. 😄
20 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:They feel more like an army
I finally know why your posts in this thread occasionally grind my gears
btw outside of COVID times I would say this with a smile on my face while handing you a drink. So please take it in the tone it’s intended in.
but this ‘invalidates’ like 90% of my lists as armies. 😂
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:
As regards @Kramer comment regarding combining the Ogors in Mawtribes, or for that matter Orruk in Warclans, after a lot of play I’ve actually come round to seeing the books as a fully functional ally system, in contrast to how the GA stuff ended up working or the 1 in 4 max 400 pts of 2K actually plays on the table. As a result almost all the WS (sorry Gorgers...) have made it on to our table. Dozens of games with each on the table in our little Zoom League and I really don’t feel like either BCR or Gutbusters have lost their distinctness as lists tend to be biased one way or another with a unit or two of the other side coming in to fulfill a specific role (e.g. a Frostlord Hammer for the Gutbuster Ironguts Anvil or a Butcher to buff the BCR Stonehorns and trigger the Mawpot when needed while providing a dispel here or there). So I’ve gone from mild disappointment at Mawtribes time to a much greater appreciation
Good to hear.
I’ve now played all warscrolls as well. except yhetees and gorgers but the model quality plays a role as well.
the big exception was the thundertusk. I love the model. But there was never any place for it. Now I finally made a list I’m excited about with them in it, that I’ll only ever play on TTS I expect 😂In general I think mawtribes might be the best book they made. Lots of play styles, only 3 warscrolls that have no role. And two that are too expensive to compete. And all five can be taken without hamstringing yourself too much.
I think that book will age pretty well.
-
2 hours ago, Nacnudllah said:
don't end up buying units that then turn out to be useless to
Hadn’t thought about that. But that does happen a lot. Personally I don’t think on purpose. Just GW overshooting trying to balance things. But it does happen.
Probably a lot examples but thundertusks went tabletop extinct in a single update 😅
truly the mammoths of the mortal realms.
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, Kadeton said:
ut down the pitchforks
Does this mean I also have to put down the cake?
because I’m with you. Personally 1-5 is too small for my taste. But I agree with the reasoning.-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, SorryLizard said:
I'd be a fan of seeing either battalions or subfactions allow the 1/4 or 1/3 allying rules too and even see them going outside Grand Alliances. Perhaps as part of narrative focused books like Broken Realms.
We've seen a few like this already in places. DoK has a mixed Stormcast/DoK battalion for example so it would just be using already existing 'tech'.
Yeah absolutely. If that’s the way allies work (through battalions and sub factions) there is no need for grand alliances. except for GA armies. Which I would miss it they would go away.
-
this makes me hopeful for a new Warcry warband.
maybe something from death or destruction? Since khanite shadowstalkers opened that door? -
Personally I think 10-15 is a good number. I have a couple of reasons why I like them, but also some strong opinions on why more is a bad for the game.
The positive of 10-15 is that you have enough options to play around without it getting boring imo.
The current smaller factions feel much more cohesive to me than the bigger ones.
It makes it less of chore to 'collect' the whole army.
Kinda ties in to the collecting, I rather collect and paint 2 distinct armies than one massive one.What I consider the major negative about bigger factions is that GW already struggles to give everything a role in smaller factions.Which is even more noticable in the big armies. Lumineth will be an interesting one regarding this. As now they have a quite tight roster, which could double with the addition of Tyrion. I think it's likely that some units will rarely see play as two units will compete for the same role and one wins.
As a side thoughts:
The current bigger factions feel more like two or more looks combined. Which is not really fair because most of those are old world armies brought into AoS. But if I had the choice I would have kept Ogors split, but have done a Barak Thrying style subfaction in both books. Where both halves mingle but still keep the flavour of either Beastclaw raiders or Gutbusters.
same for cities, gits, etc.
-
A couple of recent topics already touched on this but were never about this. And because I was curious, I would love to hear your opinion and why?
I feel there is a lot to say for all options but in the end its down to personal preferences. So share them if you would.
(ill post mine in the first comment to the thread)
-
On 1/13/2021 at 2:41 PM, Saxon said:
To expand on personal experience. My opponents (2 in particlar) love the optimisation side of things. They get joy out of a combo coming off. 1 of them is a terrible loser. I would expand the social contract to ensuring that both players get to play their style even if it means getting regularly stomped. I've played a specific nurgle list about 8 times with 3 different armies and im 0-8 against it!
That sucks and I truly feel for you. But don’t let yourself be put behind just because two of them like a more min-maxing playstyle.
there’s nothing wrong with that, but they should also adjust their playstyle to yours. At least once in awhile. And I use playstyle but for a lack of a better description of what someone wants from the game.so if you occasionally tussle with their them for tournament prep. After the tournament they should also play that (narrative) campaign with you. Or at the very least a more matched list to yours.
-
5
-
-
Dead: vampire
devine : witch hunters
although it seems more likely to be a both 40k and AoS preview. But I don’t know what’s happening in the far far future-
4
-
-
23 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Warlorck bombardiers,
clawlords,
although they all look a lot different from each other in my army.
Almost no support from games workshop meant basically that my creativity went through the roof
I got around 9clawords and 4bombardiers, 2grey seers and a ton of weapon teams all converted up.
Oh yeah! I love my converted claw lord as well can we see your conversions?
Such great models to convert as well.
but yeah a Skryre/moulder/eshin would be amazing.
-
6
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, eciu said:
*true doughnuts are boiled in lard.
hahaha, i'll take your word for it.
1 minute ago, eciu said:Thats a big problem with AoS and reasons why probably some of the armies fall short in popularity.
An example:
As for dwarf Slayers. Them being quite awesome and interesting is showed off on their "bleak and standard" background of "standard" dwarfs (heavily armored, slow and purposeful defensive guys).It's like with cooking. Everyone loves the cake's crumble, but if you are being served only crumble, after few bites it's really not that good as an actual cake with crumble. Different things make of good meal/cake and quite often those things are very different from each other (fat, salt, acid, temperature etc.). You cannot give someone a kilogram of lard and hope he enjoys is only becouse he previously said he likes to eat doughnuts* .....
I agree. But just for the sake of the argument, why smaller faction could make sense.
It's harder to design a cohesive force if you have that big contrast and variety in an army. Kairic acolytes, tzaangor, horrors. We know they belong together, you have a paint scheme that ties it together, and basing. But will someone outside of the hobby see that they are one army? That's easier to do with only 10 warscrolls vs 15 or more.
Then from a rules perspective a small factions also make sense. It makes it easier to give everything it's own role and stuff within a faction won't compete as much for the same spot.
And from a business sense, I suspect armies with a specific theme sell better, and will lead to morge players having multiple armies vs. one big army which they keep adding 1 from every unit to.
-
13 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:
Yes they have most of the entire faction diversity in those 4 models, with better sculpts.
I disagree. The only reasone these are different is because they are. Build an army from these and nothing will have changed. More dynamic sculpt yes, but that goes for all underworld warbands if i'm honest.
Since the thread about the fyreslayer range i've honestly been looking at army pictures with that reference in mind. And honestly there are a lot armies that 'suffer' from the same. And i'm starting to blame paint schemes and the size more and more. Still a very limited range, don't get me wrong. But it's become less of an issue for me.
For example, today I saw an army shot of a KO army. New player did a slow grow league. And it looked awesome, cohesive and really well painted. But the shot was from a tabletop distance, and I could make out three distinctive things, foot troops, balloon troops, boats. I could not tell without zooming in, which boat was which. What heroes where in the list. Nor how many were thunderers and which were arkanauts.
Same with an all Sacrosanct army. Only on the second I saw it, I realised there were 2 incantors hidden in there 😅.Again fyreslayers are definitely limited in variation, but more variation in the paint scheme would go a long way as well.
-
3
-
-
40 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:
Honestly mate I had forgotten!! I love how the Leader is standing on a Mega Gargant skull, they were teased for so long without us even realising!!
Is that actually mega gargant size? I always thought it was just a random monster skull. I have it in a box somewhere waiting for a different project, but that would be exciting.
-
2 hours ago, KingBrodd said:
I really would like to see Duardin players recieve Underworlds units. I'd love to see new sculpts for Fyreslayers especially. Or even new Dispossessd as Underworlds is the perfect way to introduce new models without immediately create a whole Faction. Eg: Kurnothi.
I also like how some heroes that are taken twice in armies got an alternative sculpt. Like the KO khemist when every army took at least two.
or the beast of chaos shaman. Although he’s actually really good 😅so what heroes do people take multiple off?
also cities warband could be really cool. But mix it up IMO.
did you know fyreslayers already got one?
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
It's probably fair to say that alternate assemblies should not be required for a list to be diverse. I don't think most people would expect to see both Eidolons, both Arkhelian Kings and both eels in a list before they consider it to properly represent what a Deepkin army is supposed to look like.
Oh I agree. But we were having this conversation and he/she referred to the list as having X out of 14 units. So I ran with that.
just trying to figure out where those lines are because I genuinely find it fascinating.
@yukishiro1 and me don’t agree on this subject but I do find the opinion interesting. So I’m not trying to convince anyone. Just riffing of what is argued.
56 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:believe the problem with Deepkin was fairly easy to fix: You didn't see most of their units for a long time because their warscrolls were hot garbage. They got buffed and now you see them. That's really all there is to it in this case. They never really suffered a lot from keyword gerrymandering that discouraged mixing units of different subfactions, like in the case of Gloomspite.
Agreed. Which is why it wasn’t the best example of the game itself discouraging variety, the warscrolls made it the worst offender. (Or possibly the high tide ability overshadowing everything else but different side of the same coin I guess)
59 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:I think Gloomspite is not easily fixable if the goal is to enable balanced lists. While Gloomspite also has a bunch of bad warscrolls (Spider Riders...), but more than that the book excessively encourages you to only stick to a single subfaction through allegiance abilities. In my opinion, they need a new battletome. GW has done all they could to make every of the subfactions within Gloomspite playable in a pure list, but the tome just does not support mixing them without hamstinging yourself.
In the future, Gloomspite could follow the Cities of Sigmar model. Even though Cities has a bunch different subfactions, the synergies within those subfactions are usually limited to heroes buffing their subfactions troops and enabling "battleline if..." . There are also a few general buff units anyone can take and magic benefits everyone equally. The different sub-allegiances are also mostly keyword agnostic. All this combined make mixing subfactions e
Oh Cities is quite good for variety and gitz probably the worst. Don’t feel the game really encourages mixing of the 3 races in there if I’m honest. It’s just that humans have the best wizards and irondrakes the most output for example. But between cities and gits fall most bigger factions. No interaction between beastclaw and gutbusters. Very little between the mortal and daemon sides. You can mix warherd, brayhed and thunderscorn but you don’t gain anything from doing so. Etc
and in my mind that was what we were speculating about; how can the game encourage taking more variety?
(and the tldr of my opinion was, that if you just create interaction where, for example, the lord of change command ability works on tzaangor, mortal and daemon, for competitive play people will still sniff out which combo is the strongest and hyper focus on that. Which would create new lists but no more variety. At least that’s what I feel would happen.
it could be done through more through battalions or battlefield restrictions/reward but to me that would hurt themed list which I would find a shame. Again speculation on my part.) -
13 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
Personally, I would try removing the double turn on T1 to T2 only. I think that would mitigate a lot of the issues with it, by making sure both players get two full turns before someone has the chance to get two turns in a row.
Yeah, I suggested the same in another thread. It's not only practical but also very thematic imo. Battles becoming more and more frantic and less organised as it goes on. Also allows some great scenario play. But most importantly everyone gets 2 turns before there is a chance to get doubled, and by that time armies are so much reduced that it will also have reduced wait times.
-
On 1/14/2021 at 6:23 PM, yukishiro1 said:
I assume that's an Eidolon of the Storm on top? I think this list proves my point for me. There are zero zappy eels in that list. Not a single unit.
Pre-Morathi: Volty + soulscryer +zappy eels is the best list, hands down. Nothing else is really playable without gimping yourself. Maybe you take 3-6 defensive eels, but that's it. Maybe Aetherings for support, but that's not even an IDK unit.
Post-Morathi: Turtles, sharks, defensive eels, and Eidolon of the Storm are all highly competitive in addition to the above three. Eidolon of the Sea, Akhelian King and Thralls are playable competitively (Thralls admittedly only with a turtle), albeit probably not the absolute strongest picks. You'd only take a Tidecaster if you want to reverse the tides. Reavers and Soulrenders are marginal and not really competitive. Lotann is still terrible.
So IDK went from a book where the competitive lists had at least 50% of their points tied up in a single scroll to a faction where 7 out 14 units are properly competitively, with another 3 that are usable competitively, and another hero usable in a niche build. There's only three units in the book - two hero, one non-hero - that you'd really struggle to use in a competitive list.
Going from 3/14 to 11/14 is a massive difference in the options for building diverse lists. But maybe most critically, these units aren't subject to the same restrictive buff-stacking that most AoS tomes are built around, so you can actually see all of them in the same list, and you can mix and match with a fair degree of freedom. There are now at least 10 IDK warscrolls that are competitively viable, and they're all usable on their own merits, not only because of buff interactions, except Thralls which do require a Leviadon to work.
My competitive IDK list is now:
Volty
Soulscryer
Eidolon
2x Thralls
2x Defensive Eels
1 unit of 2 Allopexes
1 Turtle
2 units of 3 aetherwings
That's surely a diverse and balanced list by anyone's reckoning. If every battletome got a rework like IDK in Morathi that made more than 2/3s of their scrolls usable competitively and allowed you to take diverse lists like the one above (whether or not it's very slightly worse than a spammier list), you wouldn't see me complaining, and I don't think you'd see other people complaining either.
Well great news then. If this now constitutes a faction that allows encourages you to build varied lists then there is indeed no reason to complain. And i'll bow out.
But a couple of questions before then because I do enjoy this discussion with you, and i am very much not convinced.
Mostly because while you said before that a varied list uses '1-2 units of most warscrolls'. In the list I shared, which ended up doing great i think, still doesn't achieve that. 5 out of 14 warscrolls. And more importantly most of the lists I could find were more spammy towards the eels and still relied on doing the same trick as before. Except now they had turn 1 protection from the turtles and didn't need fight first across the board because fo the net launcher. So for me Idoneth isn't 'fixed' when you look at it with the goal of this thread in mind. It's definitely better though.
Even your list is 7 out of 14 and not most of the warscrolls, but yeah I would consider this varied even though it doesnt meet your own requirements
But back to the questions, are we discussing different things? Because this whole conversation started when the conversation was about the game encouraging more varied lists. But to me it starts to read like you are more after more units being an option in lists. Not necessarily being in the list at the same time.
(I found it hard to explain the difference so for example Tzeentch not just being effective as mono daemons/mortal/tzaangor but being better off for being mixed. Hope this is more clear)second question is what do you feel the new rules for Deepkin do to encourage you to take a bigger variety of warscrolls? And how could that be applied to @Greybeard86's Gits for example. Because that's the tough one to fix. Idoneth, KO, DoK are relatively easy because they have a small amount of warscrolls. But for gits to get spiders, squigs, trolls and the actual gits to be able to mix is a lot harder.
And I had a great third question but didn't get around to reply yesterday, and now i've forgotten it. I'll be back with that one hopefully.
-
4 hours ago, alghero81 said:
I’m with you
The only good ones are those that have little side effects against you like the Ossiarch ones, but those defile the purpose of endless spells...
The first ones like the Nighthaunt are pretty but not worth the cost of entire units... even 4 glaivewraiths are better (60 points).
REally good point. The great advantage of endless spells was effecting the priority choice a bit. Bound spells where the last nail in that coffin.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, KingBrodd said:
lly hope that eventually every Faction has either an Endless Spell or Terrain Piece. I'd love to see Orruk Warclans get something and of course the Sons of Behemat.
My idea for the Sons is still an overturned Caravan or Mammoth covered in gear and food that acts as a 'Healing Station'.
Why stop there. Why not an upgrade kit for the behemats for a priest model and endless prayers 😍
and yes that green foot of gork/mork endless spell should have been a thing.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, dekay said:
There are photos of this sprue floating around the internet, so it certainly existed at some point. There were rumours of the steel mould breaking, and deemed not to be financially viable to remake.
Edit:
Found it!
I’d swear I have some very, very similar bits to that. I’ll have a look tomorrow. But close enough to the point I’d be willing to wager they repurposed that top left axe for something (or the otherway around)
(probably wrong of course. But still 😅)
-
16 hours ago, KriticalKhan said:
The BCR/Gutbuster merge would involve all the old resin kits getting dropped and that they'd actually get Endless Spells (one of which would have just been a piece of floating meat, lol)
Could have been a concept but it ended up being dropped too close to the deadline to design new ones from scratch?
still find it so incredibly weird that not every magic wielding army got some. For khorne’s sake, two armies without magic wielders got them
-
5 hours ago, Icetea said:
Hey mate, this is a great response. I think your completely right. I hadn’t considered the rend!
I guess high armour saves would be leaning more towards the maw crusher. Dudes with ethereal, I would possibly go more gore gruntas with mega boss.
really appreciate your response!
Can I add access to fly to the list of advantages of the mawcrusha
-
1
-
how many warscrolls in an army?
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Reading the fyreslayers threat, I came away with the impression most people didn’t mind the number but that they are visually too similar.
which I personally agree with and would add that there is too much competing between the same roles as well. On the flip side I also think that at tabletop level more AoS armies have this problem and more could be done with the paint scheme.