Squirrelmaster
-
Posts
613 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Squirrelmaster
-
-
The crypt horror thing seems like a good idea, I might end up with a whole lot of these and I wouldn't want them all looking the same.
-
Thanks guys, those pictures really help me see the size difference. It looks like I'd have to bulk out/elongate the models with a lot of greenstuff, maybe even bash two flamers together to make something big enough.
I'll have to think about that…
-
Yeah… from close inspection of the GW pictures, it's the flames they're shooting that make the most obvious difference, but that kinda feels like it's just a question of posing. The "real" difference is the extra arms (regular flamers have 2, pyrocasters 4, and exalted flamers 6). If they're not too different in size (that's my main worry), I could probably get away with larger bases, left-over bits, and greenstuff.
-
So, given the difference in price I can't help but wonder:
How difficult would it be to convert Exalted Flamer of Tzeentch models from a "normal" Flamer of Tzeentch kit?
I realise the rules difference is minimal, I'm mainly thinking of 40K where the rules are completely different, but are there any AoS players out there who have both models and can compare them? Any advice or suggestions on this, purely for the sake of saving me money?
-
Honestly I still find terrain very relevant, even when all it's doing is +1 to saves for models inside it. That said, I actually put my characters in the terrain, where they do get the save, rather than putting them behind the terrain and then complaining that it offers no protection.
With that in mind, allowing my characters to claim +1 save for intervening terrain or models wouldn't really affect me, since they're already getting it.
As for some shooting units getting a penalty if enemies are within 3", we already have that — it's just down to individual warscrolls instead of being a global rule. For example, skeleton archers only get two shots each if there are at least 20 models in the unit and no enemies within 3".
There could perhaps be more warscrolls written with this type of mechanism, but I don't see any need to implement a global rule on top of the penalties that these units already have.
-
1
-
-
I guess it's a question of how complicated you want to make the rules, and what you are hoping to accomplish. Is this about making terrain more relevant? Making lone non-monster characters more viable? Making positioning more important against shooting? Improving "realism"? Nerfing shooting in general?
-
"In front of" would not only be very hard to define, but very difficult to just "common sense" in many cases.
You could measure a straight line from each firing model to a single target model (chosen by the attacker, I guess?) (since normally you target a unit, not a model), and then see how many other models that line "passes over". That would be easy enough to write, but a pain in the neck to put into practice when dealing with unit-to-unit shooting. (Especially since you could then fire through the gaps between models in a unit.)
It would also be possible/make sense to talk about that line passing over an intervening unit, including the gaps between models, and you could potentially rule that each intervening unit gives +1 save to the models behind or some such (in fact I believe there's already a Stormcast unit that works this way?). But deciding how many "rows" that unit has would be extremely difficult to do, without invoking some very complicated wording.
-
On 20/01/2017 at 0:07 PM, The Jabber Tzeentch said:
Yeah it's definitely not perfect, and never will be for everyone. But this rule in particular, even though it doesn't use perfectly clear terminology, it's still layed out step by step format that if followed, you can't really go wrong.
Except for stuff like the Spirit of Durthu's "Solemn Guardian" rule, or the "Black Amulet" Death Artefact. At least one GW author seems to think you can make saves against wounds, even though the core rules disagree.
-
Regarding summoning, I think the main problem is that you have to go all-or-nothing. If you only take 1 or 2 fragile summoners, you risk losing them before your first turn even starts, causing all your reinforcement points to be wasted.
What if you had some guaranteed (but not especially useful) option to bring reinforcements on, even if your casters were dead? For example, you could rule that each player is allowed to bring on up to 10% of their total points as reinforcements, minus anything they've summoned that turn, and only if they have the points set aside, anywhere within 6" of their own table edge, in each of their movement phases. Maybe with the added restriction that you have to note down in advance what unit(s) you want to bring on, and when.
Or maybe a cheap, indestructible terrain feature (like an obelisk or something) that sets up in your own deployment zone and has the sole purpose of casting up to one "summoning" spell per turn, as if it were a wizard. Available to all armies, limited to whatever grand alliance you are using.
-
1
-
-
Regarding battleline, you could remove the required minimum on battleline, but provide a discount on the first "X" battleline units taken, possibly dependant on faction.
For example, in 2000pts, Death players could get a 40pt discount on each of the first 3 battleline units they chose, if they included any in the army.
It would allow players to take an army with no battleline, but would provide them with an incentive not to.
-
1 hour ago, Arkiham said:
Not really, a sentence saying
"Shields: non mounted units equipped with a shield use it to try and block ranged attacks, add +1 to the units save against shooting if not in melee combat"
Would be enough
Would that include bucklers? What about Iron Fists? You do realise Elven Shields already give a bigger bonus against shooting than combat, right?
I think by the time they'd gone through and re-pointed everything to take this rule into account (and clarified any special cases), it wouldn't be worth it.
-
2 hours ago, Baardah said:
This one I really like. One of the things I miss most from older versions of the game is the ability to customize heroes..the trick is to keep it from enabling creating "unbeatable" and therefore in-fun heroes...
Improving the balance of the existing command traits and artefacts would be a start.
-
I'd rather see new lores of magic, giving every wizard additional spells to choose from, than a change to the Rules of One.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, tolstedt said:
I also have an idea for battleline. Let's call it "general's battleline".
There could be a system where if you take a model as a general it opens up some options for battleline. This could be written on the warscroll for the hero. "If you take this model as a general in matched play, the following units become battleline: x,y,z. Toss it on the bottom of the warscroll.
Many will be against muddying up the warscroll and that is a legitimate concern. As is the thought of making printed warscrolls "outdated".
But I'd propose that if anyone wishes to discuss the "general's battleline" idea that I propose here they ignore those and focus on the idea as it relates to gameplay and list construction. It does add one more thing to consider when list building, but does not ask too much more than is asked now. And please understand I don't propose doing this for every hero. Maybe 2-3 per grand alliance.Skeleton Archers already have "Battleline if army has Tomb Kings allegiance and High Queen Khalida is the army general". They aren't the only ones. Karanak makes Flesh Hounds Battleline, various other non-named characters make units battleline.
They could do something similar for other units & characters, but why put it on the warscroll when the GH is already the authority on what is/is not battleline?
-
Hmm… completely ignore "Evocation of Death", because it's not worth the investment trying to trigger it, and you still have a model that can dish out a potential 10 wounds per turn has 7 wounds and a 4+ save, movement 10…
Plus it's a hero, so it bubbles Deathless Minion and can take an artefact, if you don't have anyone better to carry one.
It's also Nighthaunt, and a Leader, in case you want to run something bigger than a Cairn Wraith in a Nighthaunt allegiance army.
If it was 60pts I'd happily take one in a Death army, if I wasn't so dedicated to my Tomb Kings. For 80pts I'd maybe consider it, if I really wanted to run pure Nighthaunt, or an wizard spam army (not really viable with the current "Rules of One", but drop those and maybe). Probably not, though.
-
Maybe a more nuanced points system? A unit could be, say 80pts for 10, 200 for 20, 360 for 30, 560 for 40. Rather than just a flat number of models x points-per-model.
-
43 minutes ago, Andreas said:
I have to reply. Sorry off topic again. ?
The corruptor deals mortal wounds, that was probably a typo. Please name one abillity outside the spiteshield that deals wounds. The reason for that you wont find any is because you determine the number of wounds after the save roll, before that there are no wounds here lays the ambiguity of the wound roll that actually is a damage roll.
There is no RAW way to solve this, you have to go to the most important rule or TO if that is the case and get some arbitrary ruling. But in practice it woun't really impact the game other than create minor disagreement and one wound or two taken or not taken.
The reason I gave you this example was just to point out that this part of the core rules are not as cristal clear as you might think, I think it could be improved. It took (some) people like a year to figure out if you save damage or wounds ie when to do the save roll.
But that is probably not for the GH to do if they dont use the opportunity the update the core rules.
The Black Amulet (Artefacts of Death in the GH).
FWIW, I would say by RAW you don't get saves against wounds, which makes them like mortal wounds only better. Possibly both rules were meant to say "mortal wounds", possibly someone at GW just doesn't understand how their own game works, and intended for armour saves to be applicable.
-
1
-
-
Trouble is, they've already printed all those books with a “to wound” characteristic on the warscroll. No amount of re-wording the core rules is to going to change the fact that a roll using the “to wound” characteristic doesn't actually cause wounds, and that's just going to cause confusion until they completely re-do the game.
-
29 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:
Who determines what the top, middle, and bottom are? Is it objective? By what measure are they 'top'? Is it damage output? Damage soak? Maneuverability? Command ability access?
1. Whoever is responsible for determining the points, by whatever metric they use.
2. No, it's probably not objective. I suppose they might have some statistical data based on tournament rankings, I don't really know.
3. Probably they would be ranked on overall effectiveness and value-for-points.I'm well aware than no points system is perfect, but if you're trying to balance the game then that implies you have some measure of the relative value of the units. A Necrosphinx costs the same as 50 skeletons. Someone, at some point, decided that was "fair". If someone now attempted to make that judgement, using the same criteria, they might decide that it should be worth the same as 45, or 55. By that measure, you can decide the top & bottom for over/under-costed warscrolls.
-
I think maybe they should try to nerf the top 25%, buff the bottom 25%, and leave the middle 50% where it is.
If you try to fix things either with all nerf and no buff, or all buff and no nerf, it causes the average power level of the game to creep one way or the other regardless.
I would much rather see some gentle tweaking that doesn't quite go far enough, than a massive re-point that just throws things further out of balance.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, N_Watson said:
I disagree. I think it is intended that they buff the abilities you mention. It says in the retributer rules, "hits of 6 or more" for a reason.
Agree 100%, especially when you look at the Tomb King spell, Righteous Smiting, which was already heavily nerfed by the rule of one, and would simply be worthless if it only triggered on a natural 6.
AoS is a game of synergies and combos. A properly built unit with the right support can kill just about anything else in the game, if you get the initiative — look at skeleton warriors, who can easily exceed 100 attacks and attack twice in a single turn. The trick is to control which units fight, and when, and with what support. Put expendable units out front. Take out support units first. Plan to press the advantage if you get the initiative, and mitigate the damage if you don't.
Don't be put off when your strongest unit gets wiped out by an "insanely powerful combo", because that is meant to be part of the game, and it's really not so bad once you start to get your head around that.
-
4
-
-
You could rule that some of the more expensive models take up 2 leader or behemoth slots instead of one — write it as behemoth(2) or something.
That, and/or maybe tighten the restriction on behemoths further - maybe down to 1 in 1000pts, 3 in 2000…
Actually, I kinda like the 40K approach of not tying it to points, but having one or more "detachments" — you could have a maximum of 1 behemoth for every 2 battleline + 1 leader, for example.
Something like:
1-4 leaders
2+ battleline
0-2 artillery
0-1 behemoths
0-4 other unitsis one detachment, take as many detachments as you like.
I'm not sure, I'd have to play around and playtest it a bit.
-
The main problem I have with summoning at the moment is that it's kind of all-or-nothing. If you don't have enough summoners to reliably ensure that you can get your reinforcement points on the table, you risk those points being wasted. If you don't have enough points set aside for taking advantage of a lucky roll (eg. 20 skeletons if you roll a 10+), your summoning ends up being weaker as a result. If you're going to do summoning at all, you are usually better off building your whole list around it.
Now, I think when you do build an entire list around summoning, it becomes fairly well balanced, but I'd like to see a change to make having just a little bit of summoning in your list more viable.
For example, you could introduce a rule in some scenarios that from turn 2 onwards, in each of your hero phases, you can select a single minimum-sized unit, then roll equal to or over its points cost on D6 x 100, if you succeed you can automatically summon that unit (paying for it as normal) entirely within 3" of any table edge. Or something like that, maybe slightly different rules for each scenario.
AoS 2 - Daughters of Khaine Discussion
in Daughters of Khaine
Posted
Heartrenders have better rend than Prosecutors, if my mathshammer is right they have higher damage output vs 2+ saves normally, and vs 3+ when they set up, Prosecutors being better vs 4+ or worse.
Heartrenders have slightly lower points/wound, making them more resilient vs mortal wounds and high rend, but not by much. Obviously Prosecutors are much more tanky vs low rend.
Heartrenders hit a lot harder in melee than Prosecutors, not that I'd recommend putting them there in the first place if you can avoid it, and the bucklers can deal some retaliation damage though again, it doesn't make a huge difference.
Heartrenders are faster but I think the Prosecutors' longer range wins out there.
Heartrenders have higher bravery but being single-wound counts against them, I'd say that cancels out though.
Cheaper minimum unit means Khinerai are better for grabbing objectives I guess.
If you want to run larger units than the minimum, the Khinerai scale up slightly better on damage output — but then why would you?
I guess strictly speaking I should look at how the allegiance abilities compare and the role each unit plays within their respective armies, but I don't know Stormcast well enough for that.
In conclusion I'd say they're about the same? But like I said, Khinerai are more specialised in taking on armoured opponents.