Galas
-
Posts
631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Galas
-
-
I don't understand the problem people has with this stormcast being better and stronger. I mean, it only makes sense with a moving storyline, is like Phase I star wars clone troopers vs Phase II clone troopers. The armor is just more advanced and better designed after years of warfare.
I see this evolution of the stormcasts as the same. Actually, it would be cooler if the new fluff was that all old stormcast are phased out in favour of this newer, more darker, stylized stormcasts. That doesnt mean old units need to disappear of course! Just like in legion you have phase 1 and phase 2 clones. They are just historical units. And the proper stormcasts would be the same, they would just change equipement.
-
9
-
-
Probably deluding was too strong of a word. I apologize for using it, english is not my first lenguage.
For me AoS was like the Warcraft movie. A guilty pleasure. I love the warcraft movie, I'm a warcraft fanboy for life (even if in years past, blizzard has lost me). But the movie was, at best, a high 5, but not even a 6.
One can absolutely enjoy Age of Sigmar. I did. And theres nothing wrong with that. But the objetive quality of the game is very low. Specially as it is right now.
-
1
-
-
I have to be honest.
The last times I played Age of Sigmar, the game itself was a miserable experience.
I mean, I had a blast because I was playing with my friends after more than a year of no playing tabletop related stuff for coronavirus, but the game itself? Nobody was barely paying any attention. (Archaon dying under the spears of 15 morterk guard and 9 of my 25 skullcrushers banishing to morale thanks to the morale lumineth lady were some of the most "xd" moments)
I was hard in AoS pre Coronavirus but the state is into right now is as bad as 1.0 AoS with no points. I don't care about tournament results, whatever. The game is so imbalanced, that is just no fun. We have moved to play MESBG. At least there you can play with your army before being completely obliterated.
I introduced 6-7 friends thanks to TTS to 40k and LOTR (I'm talking friends with no wargame previous experience). They all bought physical armies to play those games, are painting them, etc... but I could not with a clear mind recommend them AoS. We tried to play it. But the game is just so bad. And I'm gonna take a ton of hate, but tbh I don't care. I really liked this game and I have no problem playing it with my friends if they want, and if they fix it, I'll gladly play again by my own initiative.
But anybody defending, right now, Age of Sigmar is in any way, shape or form, a "good" wargame, or even a servicable wargame, is deluding himself. Theres no fun in a game were even the weakest units in the game fighting each other delete themselves the moment they touch one another with help of one buff or power, and a mission design as boring as 40k competitive ones.
If you are curious, I play heavy foot ogres and mortal/bloodbound khorne.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
What destruction needs is a industrial race based around... destruction, but not destruction for pure chaos but destruction of everything by pure design, be it for greed, or whatever. Stop making destruction the "ugly people with prehistorical technology" alliance.
Some could arguee a faction like that would fit "Order" better. But thats easely fixed by making their obsesion for destroying the enviroment part of their race, and is society just "orderly" enough to function to accomplish this goal. As others have pointed out, goblins and ogors can have "functional" civilizations, like any mercenary ogre kingdom based around protecting caravan routes ala old world with Greasus Gooldtoth.
-
4
-
-
When I spend more time unpacking my models and talking about the mission with my opponent than playing then thats the kind of game I don't enjoy.
-
3
-
-
Nobody would support a double turn like the one AoS has if it was something on a less well known wargame and not GW-endorsed.
Calling a so tactically shallow game as AoS (Even if I like it) more depth because it has double turn is just... no, please.
But this thread was not to discuss the double turn.
-
5
-
2
-
2
-
-
"My army is so bad I need two consecutive turns to have a chance to win"
As a guy that played a full khorne-minotaur army for a year and ended up last in a couple of 40+ people tournaments I can say that it never feels good to get the double turn when you are behind and win with it, it feels like you need a special help to even win.. And when they get it agaisnt you then... yeah.
-
10
-
-
I would like for shooting, movement and damage to be toned down a bit.
The good and competitive stuff shoots too much, is too fast, and hits way too hard. But even the "bad" units do the same. I miss the action starting in turns 2-3, and units being engaged in meele for 2-3 meele phases instead of "Oh I touched you, you are dead". It feels less like a battle and more like playing catch. If other kid touchs you first you lose.
-
2
-
1
-
-
The only thing I agree is with the Aetherquartz. I don't really think it works for them and is a lazy copypaste.
I like their morale mechanics, and the implementation of a "morale mage". The elemental and animal themes... eeh... I don't know. They are a slighly inspiration, yeah, cow helmets and those warriors are from the "earth" element but you don't see any kind of indication that they are part of the mountain spirit religion. If GW would release tomorrow a earth themed army with earth elementals and things like that I wouldnt step on the toes of Lumineth.
And I believe thats a good thing. Thats how you make a believable race and faction, giving it inspirations and background without being too obvious. In India cows are sacred animals but that doesnt mean everybody wears Cow-themed clothes. The Lumineth have a religion based around elemental spirits but that doesnt mean they are literally elemental-benders from Avatar and are based around the elements, the same goes for the Cow and other future animals.
-
2
-
-
Blood Bowl is the best example. When the computer is making all the rolls and remembering all the rules for you the system can be as depth and complicated as it wants and the game to remain easy and fun to use.
-
1
-
-
You are right, 36" until he receives 3 wounds. Still, not the same. Hes a 600 point model with a 4"move.
-
10 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:
... You know everyone will just switch to Mortis Praetorians and get +1 save from Katakros, right?
Being wholly within 18" of a pretty expensive model is not the same as "lol +1 unconditional save for all of the army lol"
-
7
-
-
Good ridance.
-
3 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:
I'm not saying they have a gender policy. I'm saying the imperium is a straight rip-off, hierarchy, titles, beliefs and all, of medieval Christianity at it's most hate-filled and intolerant. Calling for greater diversity doesn't make any sense in that context. The gender segregation referred to sisters and marines, not the whole imperium.
Yeah the imperium is hate-filled and intolerant with every non-human, even slighly different humans like mutants, but not based on sex or human "race".
Is the old saying of "When orcs and elfs exist, being brown, white or black became much less relevant"
It makes all of the sense to call for more diverse ranges for Imperial Guard and other imperial organizations because that has been their fluff since forever, but it is not represented in miniature form.
-
6 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:
You know- i half agree and half disagree. I really like diversity in armies just for the different aesthetics, totally separate from any social/political agenda.
But at the same time, what makes 40k interesting is it is a riff on medieval christianity. GW have toned this down in Space Marines quite a lot, but it's still there in sisters and the inquisition. A super vicious, ignorance-encouraging, hyper-violent, other-hating religiously fervant group of soldiers, with a ludicrous hierarchy of men in silly hats. I mean penitent engines are something straight from the inquisitorial imagination of 16th century catholic spain. Part of this imitation is it's attitudes to "others" (xenos) and it's strict gender segregation. In that sense, a male-only army makes perfect sense in that lore and i don't think it needs to be made diverse, save for racial diversity perhaps. I don't want a racially and sexually diverse Imperial Inquisition. It's like saying WW2 wargames should have a racial and sexually diverse german army (for some reason the shorthand for nationalist socialist democratic party is censored on the forum?) .
Like I've said before, AoS is great because it leaves fantasy tropes behind and there's huge space to include diversity without going against the narrative of armies. After all, Khorne cares not from where the blood flows. I'm just not so sure the same can be said of 40k.
You have no idea about 40k lore if you think the Imperium has any kind of general racial or gender based policy. Actually the Inquisition is probably the most diverse of the empire's organization with a ton of female inquisitors since Rogue Trader, the same goes for his army the Imperial Guard, the navy, the Assasins Temples, etc.... The only gender-based organizations of the 40k Imperium are space marines and sisters of battle, Sisters of Silence and Adeptus Custodes.
The same goes about race. Why would a 40k human care about the colour of your skins when theres a thousand worlds with all kinds of people coming from everyone and you have actual aliens that want to kill you?
-
1
-
-
I'm the whitest of whites (Really I cannot be more white even if for many people for being from Spain I'm a latino lol ) and male. And I have always loved playing female characters since I was a boy. And I just enjoy brown and black skins, I find them fun to paint and aesthetically pleasing. Most of my miniatures are painted with brown skins (My dark angels) or dark and black skins (My khorne barbarians and warriors for AoS). And I love things like buffed females in proper armor like the For Honor ladies.
I assume someone could come and tell me is some sort of fetishization or something? But is not something like that. I just like how it looks.
I'm saying this to give visibilization to a group that I believe is probably the biggest one, and the most silent one: A male dominated customer base that just enjoys other stuff and aesthetics, not only white buffed dudes or mega sexy ladies. Basically the 1º group described by @MaatithoftheBrand
Why in MMORPG theres nearly a 50/50 split between male and female characters, but then most female characters are played by male gamers? Because people enjoy things because they find them aesthetically pleasing. A more diverse range is a bonus on itself not because any kind of agenda or representation but just because it looks better.As other poster said, Warhammer Online had things like female Sigmar Priest and Female Imperial Knights and nobody saw that as a bad thing because for a MMORPG that was expected. And even had some classes gender locked like Witch Elves or Chaos Barbarian/Chosen. But I can assure you, if with the Old World they make any kind of female imperial knight miniature a very vocal minority will lose their mind, when in 2009, in another market were that was expected, nobody saw anything wrong with it.
And thats the sad thing: Both extremes in this conversation work based in asumptions about what somebody likes or wants based in their race and gender. When Icegoats (Or Aeryenn,etc...) says that warrior females are aisthorical, even being correct, he is assuming (Just as he accusses the other extreme of assuming) that based on their race and gender, white males can't just want female warriors because they think they look cool without any kind of other implication or really caring about historicall plausibility in their fantasy setting.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, HollowHills said:
I mean you could ask, if ethnic minorities and women generally aren't interested in warhammer then why does it matter if the models aren't diverse?
I strongly doubt that adding more female Stormcast is suddenly going to make an inherently masculine hobby more appealing to women.
GW has adopted a left wing position though, so I'm sure we will find out if that works in the next 10 years or so.
A more diverse range just looks cooler. I mean, the best stormcasts are the sacrosant ones. Female stormcast are just better proportionated than male ones.
-
2
-
-
What I have learned about this thread is that theres a ton of people that has never read a piece of lore about how Chaos society both in AoS and in Fantasy worked. Chaos is much more than heavy metal cover-like armies marching south to rape an burn down everything, guys.
-
2
-
-
I didn't tought today would be the day I saw someone defend Slaanesh pre nerf, but here we are. And because they were "future proofed" just because other insane combos and armies have become after them. Wow.
"Future proofed" and GW is just incompatible. They change design philosophies mid edition all the time. The thing with AoS is that everything is broken so nothing is. With the difference that actually 60% of the armies of the game aren't broken. Theres no problem when a Army can make lists that counter specific lists. It becomes a problem when you have armies that totally neuter other armies. Thats very bad design.
I have to say that I'm really tired of the typical "git gud" players that comes on the internet after a extremely OP army like Slaanesh or Iron Hands in 40k has been nerfed and says "Do you see guys? You only needed to learn how to counter it to win!"
NO! When an army makes 6-7 of 10 places on top 10's month after month and only AFTER it has been nerfed it comes down from that pedestal, is not because people LEARNED how to play agaisnt them. Is because they have been nerfed.
Thats a reality nobody has a problem accepting in videogames but for some people it is so hard to understand in warhammer? Why is that? Is people that plays those armies offended because their victories are undervalued for playing an OP army or something?
-
Whats exactly the problem here? That playtesters play the game and... win games in tournaments?
-
1
-
-
I don't even undersand why going factionless is an option. I mean what do that option gives , to the game, as a whole? When has been having less rules more exciting than having more rules?
"You can have LESS to be able to pick something different". It doesn't sounds good to me. And in my eyes it goes agaisnt what AoS stands for.
-
In AoS, units are just a stat block. Theres no rule difference between one model with 10 wounds and 10 models with 1 wound. As damage is split, and both degrade, mathematically is nearly the same thing.
Is because of that than an army of giants won't have the effect knights had on 40k.
-
1
-
-
It is just to have more room for variety. They can't reduce things much more without making the armies soo similar.
-
I believed I knew how this rule works, but after reading this thread I don't even know anymore. What is real? Is this all just a fantasy?
-
2
-
Discussing the quality of rules in AoS
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I mean. Look at this new revenant Sylvaneth musician. How can you have such a cool model and make such bad rules for him? 275 points for 7 wounds and his only "unique" rule is a bravery aura?
Compared that with the Lore Seekers that infiltrate your opponent and block objetives. I'm not even talking about the power of the rules but how inspired and interesting ones are and the others could not be more lazy.