[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

1 hour ago, pforson said:

Dangerous to the game? - we're discussing toy soldiers, not the Pentagon Papers.

Yeah, dangerous to the game. Which means it would make playing with my toy soldiers (I spend a lot of time and effort building) a whole lot less fun.

If I see I put my cup on an unsteady table, that is dangerous to my coffee. I like my coffeee and my cup, so I try to prevent that. Doesn't mean its an act of state if I fail. I'm sure no presidents will step down and nobody will die.

Not everything dangerous to something is a huge deal.

1 hour ago, pforson said:

In fairness, I was simply responding to someone else who suggested the strengthening of weak, boring, unusable units in order to bring them more in line with everything else. Something which I wholeheartedly agree with, as there's nothing worse than having a load of beautifully painted paper weights sitting on the shelf.

Point taken. Consider me to have answered to the previous poster as well. I didn't mean to pick anyone in particular out by quoting, I just quoted to make clear what particular stance I am refering to.

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

1 hour ago, pforson said:

But this is not Powercreep.

Powercreep is when GW releases a new army - the ClementWeather Eternals - and proceeds to make them better than everything else that already exists.

I'm suggesting that weak units be improved upto (not beyond) the power level that has already been established.

I realise this kind of balance is not easy to achieve, but it should at least be the aim.

Yours is just an particularly blatant example of power creep, I'd even call it a power jump. There is no dictionary definition of “power creep”, but, going by the compound words , I'd say we can fairly define "power creep" as "Any scenario in which the overall impact of individual units on the game increases over time, however slowly this happens".

This would be fulfilled, if all weaker units where brought up to the established power level, as currently formations like Kunnin Rukk define the established level of damage output. Let us say once that is done and everything has been brought to deal with such a damage output appropriately to its point cost, I have no confidence in even the greatest game designers to ever walk the earth (none of them, where game balance is concerned, are GW) not to regularly bring out something that pushes over the established power level unintentionally. Should we buff everything else each time that happens, rather than weaken that one unit? Do you think that couldn't happen or wouldn't be power creep?

 

Semantic arguments about gaming buzzword aside, my argument stands. Your initial post on the issue, as written, stated that only ever should units be increased in power or lowered in cost to balance the game.

If that was not what you meant to say, fair enough, but I can only answer what I read. And I read a suggestion that I considered dangerous to the game. I am not looking to pick a fight here, I just saw a critical flaw, that, to me, warranted pointing out.

 

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

45 minutes ago, pforson said:

But some units are simply unplayable (and also downright boring) as it stands.

I'm not advocating that everything should be super duper über powerful, but that weaker (boring) units should be improved in order to give them a purpose.

Improving some units is fair and square. I'm just trying to advocate for an even hand here. Powercreep has sadly proven its destructive qualities repeatedly.

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

31 minutes ago, pforson said:

I think this is a key point.

Don't ruin the fun of people playing with powerful units by increasing their costs, instead improve the effectiveness of units that are currently not being used - this way everybody wins.

I have to disagree here. In the short term, the effect of leveling the playing field is the same (barring the small passing morale boost of nobody feeling "Nerfed"). The Big Hitters are just as devaluated by weaker units being improved as they are by Nerfs and point increase.

 

However, the long term effect of only ever boosting units is absolutely cathastrophic for a game. Decreasing point costs require bigger and bigger armies. Boosting units through abilities and improved defense results in rules bloat, as abilities, to counter abilities, to counter abilities and so on are added. Improving offensive capabilities leads to casualties mounting up faster and faster.

 

Just look at the state of 40k for the end point of that (not saying there aren't Nerfs in 40k, just that there is far more uppowering and point decreasing than nerfing). Warhammer 40k armies have become huge. At the same time, the staying power of most units has dropped to nearly nothing, even the 2+/5++ save of terminators is considered to little by competitive players. Entire Detatchments can be deleted within a single turn. There are armies depending on 2+ rerollable ward and cover saves on multiple or nearly all units. Not all of these are even the highest teir. Most top teir units (like Wrathknights) have multiple ways of surviving the insane firepower flung around can still be brought down turn 1.

Not only does this arms race make for poor gaming (neither narrative, casual or competitive gamers are exactly fond of the state of the rules) it really closes the game to newcomers. Just try to figure out how to collect a Genestealer Cult army right now. Most of that army is made of chaff units, you need a lot of boxes just for 1000 points. And even at 1000 points against a non optimised opponents, a few of those units won't make it past turn one. That is hardly motivating.

 

A wargame needs Nerfs and point increases to stay healthy.

[The Rumour Thread]

59 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

A bit off here but I'm hoping the Arcanites won't be ALL shredded shirtless man birds and at least one or two in the box will be female 

I'm afraid it will be like Bloodbound (minus Valkya), one or two female leaders in the backkground and not one generic female model.

I just hope there will be a Chaos Warrior equivalent unit (like Bloodwarriors) and it doesn't throw around magic bolts. But at this point, we are wishlisting, really.

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

I just want to say, heroes not being able to join units is one of the greatest things about AoS. It would be nice if heroes could be a bit easier to protect from ranged attacks (they are fine in melee), but deathstars, additional complexity and other issues of joining units are not a price I am willing to pay.

 

I think the real issue here is the near impossibility of screening models with the current Line of Sight rules.

[The Rumour Thread]

5 hours ago, Changer said:

The arms have the chest piece on them. It looks like they'll fit to the front of the back. Seems to be a similar setup on the basic weapons too.

Yeah, I thought it was the shoulders yesterday and it didn't add up. Looking at the sprue again with rested eyes and assuming it includes the chest, all pieces seem to add up.

41 minutes ago, Turragor said:

From my PoV it's simple - I think it's a simple matter of it being too tricky to launch both 40k and AoS Tzeentch at once and hit their sales targets for each. They prep'd the models that can work for both at the same time but they can't launch both at once and promote each as effectively.

Each is also part of a much larger product release plan. For 40k you've got Magnus, Thousand sons and some more Fenrisian stuff (probably books?).

For AoS you might have the Arcanites opponent - most of the rumouring we've been doing focuses around the Arcanites launching with an opponent.

Maybe the Tzaangors aren't coming in a separate box for a while? Maybe they're coming in a starter kit with a bunch of other stuff first.

Also, perhaps the AoS paraphanelia isn't fully ready yet. Maybe all Tzaangor stuff is ready but the rest of the arcanite release isn't.

 

 

I never said I expected a full Arcanites launch, I know they don't do it like that. However, I did expect them to not leave AoS players hanging, if the Tzaangor kit ended up being dual purpose. Individual kits being released outside of a factions main release, either before or after a full launch, has hardly been a rare event from GW in recent years.

This is hardly a big deal, but with the kit containing options that don't have rules seems odd.

[The Rumour Thread]

Anyone else wonder whats up with the arms on the third sprue?

[The Rumour Thread]

I think the weirdest part about those Tzaangor is that they aren't marketed for AoS at all. No warscroll or mention of using them in AoS in the new White Dwarf, that I've heard of (will get mine tomorrow). Not added to the AoS area of the NZ webstore. No full pictures of the (clearly existing) fully painted AoS version of the unit. Nothing.

 

And yet, those sprues clearly looks like a full AoS kit with some Autopistols and Chainswords thrown in.

 

Still, this makes me really happy. Those sprues and the 360 look so much better than hoped. I'll get myself two boxes asap, alongside the Exalted Sorcerers just for the bits and Disk of Tzeentch. I'll find some use for the Marine Parts sooner or later.

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

Something that has come up a few times, though it would also require reviewing some Warscrolls:

Fix allegiance and keyword confusion.

By all Rules we have, wether a unit has allegiance depends on its keywords. However, not all units have the keywords of their faction. A few factions don't have keywords at all (rotbringers, bloodbound). And then, some Warscrolls have keywords that give them allegiances that are a bit questionable (both the Harbinger of Decay and Verminlord Corruptor are technically Nurgle Demons).

And then there are the support unit Warscrolls and factions that can only be taken in grand alliances, that many seem to wish could be taken without breaking allegiance (looking at you, Monsters of Chaos).

 

Basically, take a good hard look at allegiance, because it is very messy and in some cases, unplayable by RAW.

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

10 hours ago, Nico said:

This would be a disaster - it's the main reward for sticking to allegiance.

More particularly Kunning Rukk with the +1 to hit from Bellowing Shout and the +1 to hit from the Bonesplitterz spell would be game over turn one - except that shooting phase would take an entire hour.

Sylvaneth with Order armies would be broken with their spells.

It is only a reward for armies with Mages. Kunning Rukk needs a number of adjustments. Still, I can see how making allegiance spells always available has to much potential for unexpected and overpowered combos.

But then we need Grand Alliance allegiance spells. Having an extra Spell known on every wizard, makes a huge difference. Taking Grand Alliance allegiance shouldn't be a punishment and it certainly shouldn't be a greater punishment for armies with mages than it is for everyone else.

[The Rumour Thread]

This may be my Tzaangor obsession acting up again, but that looks like a bestial blue hand holding that staff.

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

Turn the point lists into an online living document. Don't just add points for new releases, but regularly review all point costs. This doesn't just allow the fixing of overcosted and undercosted units, but also keeps the meta fluid, though, without doubt, at the cost of great Nerdrage.

 

Either make allegiance spells independent of actual allegiance or add allegiance spells to the Grand Alliance allegiances, otherwhise breaking allegiance with a wizard heavy army becomes way too punishing.

 

Keep a strong line between Matched Play and Narrative Play. Give good support to Narrative Play.

 

Measure from Base as Standart, at least for Matched Play. Ideally for the entire game. A lot of players and organizers are already doing this. Arguments for this are plenty, but my particular issue is that I hate the idea of one minis base plased on anothers and sviveling minis around to see if they fit through when moving.

[WiP Wednesdays]

I've continued working on my giant. I've mostly worked on the head and the basic shape of the helmet and face are about done:

Lots of cleanup and detail still to do, of course. I've also started on the arms, though nothing worth showing yet.

 

The greatest progress has been made with my free SLAUGHTERPRIEST WITH HACKBLADE AND WRATHHAMMER (Wrathhammer not added yet)

I've also started on 10 Chaos Warriors of Tzeentch. Not my favorite kit of all times, but they came with the start collecting box and you can't have Chaos without at least one unit of these. I ended up modifying far more than planned (it was supposed to be some simple headswaps). Here's the one furthest ahead, to show the direction I am taking:

I hope to get all these ready for paint by the end of the year, with priority on the giant and 10 warriors. If I get those two units painted by then, even better.

[The Rumour Thread]

30 minutes ago, Changer said:

Just thought I'd throw this up here.  Tzaangors can be made with JUST close combat weapons, which look very similar to those from ST.

I've just spoken to my gaming group, they've said they have no issue should I want to use the Magnus model as a Lord of Change.  My poor wallet.

Looks like they have more options than it initially seemed after all. Maybe the painting team really didn't get them finished before the box went into production. Damn it, I really need to see those sprues, this Tzaangor obsession really isn't doing me any good.

[The Rumour Thread]

I sincerely hope those Tzaangor aren't monopose after all, there hasn't been a monopose release unrelated to a box set in a loooooong time, so that would set, in my oppinion, a very concerning precedent. Together with the monopose Blood Bowl teams, it feels like GW are testing the boundaries here, which would be a developement quite contrary to the good way they are currently on.

 

On the positive side, I think that Exalted Sorcerers kit is, bits wise, of great use to AoS Tzeentch players. I know I'll get one (unless it is Varanguard level expensive) and I have no interest whatsoever in 40k Tzeentch.

[WiP Wednesdays]

11 hours ago, loki said:

Great Blightking conversion with the bell ringer.

Thanks. When I got my free slaughterpriest I just new what had to be done. Attatching the bell to the chain was a pain, though.

[WiP Wednesdays]

I've got my first blightking, the sonorous toxin, theoretically ready for paint.

Well, except for that moldline that slipped my attention until I took the pictures. He turned out as imagined, but looks far bulkier than the rest, who are also more WiP.

I am really out of my comfort zone on the amount of conversion and greenstuff modelling I am doing. But while flawed, I'm still very happy with them so far.

I hope to finish modelling on them soon, but it will be a long time before they see any paint. For one, I have this idea for heavily weathered bronze on the armor, that I want to test and practise before I paint these. Also I want to focus on my generic and Tzeentch Chaos first.

 

On that front, I am continuing work on the Gargant that I've had half assembled for a long time now.

Another object way out of my comfort zone, as I am sure is evident from the rough appearance of the sculpting. I consider him mostly a practise piece, though at the moment I think that he will at least be presentable once finished. He has got priority currently, as I also want to do my first painting in about half a decade on him.