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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

334 Celestant-Prime

About Aginor

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. My initial thought was Aelves, too. But might as well be some weird Necromunda gang or something.
  2. Hmmm not sure about the Ogors and New Death. Ogors might be just a battle box and no tome (yet), didn't we have something like that before? And the new Death, yeah it might be this year. I just didn't include them because we don't really know anything about them. The others are confirmed to be Battletomes. Either way: GW is really producing quite some books this year! 2019 is a new record for AoS releases. Edit: As for the Tomes released shortly before 2.0, like LoN, IDK, DOK and Nurgle : I think they are fine. Back then GW said that they designed them with 2.0 already in mind, didn't they?
  3. IIRC GW released 8 or 9 Battletomes in 2016, that was the maximum so far. This year there are 9 if I am not mistaken (counting Orruks, CoS and Sylvaneth already), I admit I'd be kinda surprised if there were more than two additional ones. It would be a pleasant surprise though, especially if something scaly is involved.
  4. I would be happy to use all those rules more often, and thus encourage building more versatile lists that can cope with all of them. But unfortunately the game is not balanced to do that. And that's especially true for tournaments IMHO. In a story campaign that I run for/with my buddy I sometimes say stuff like "your scouts say there will be a lot of obstacles on the battlefield" and thus enable him to build his list for that. But that's where the second problem comes into play: "one trick pony" armies. If you play Kharadron Overlords then some realm rules (those good against shooting) outright kill your list. You don't even have to play, you know you will lose. Something that slows down armies will kill Ironjawz as they will be shot to pieces. Realm rules working against magic will be really bad for Teentch but the Kharadron player will only laugh. As Seraphon I have it good. I can mitigate those effects using summoning, I also have good unit variety to choose from. SCE will also be fine because they have a huge choice of units and even their shooty stuff isn't _that_ bad in melee. But many armies will struggle with some of those rules. And that means that a roll for the battlefield's attributes might decide the match. Which isn't exactly fun gameplay. And even if the realm rules are known beforehand: some armies will not be able to compete. Those players have to pick another army, allies (which is almost the same), or just don't go to the tournament. Of course there are ways to mitigate those problems. But they won't work for every army either.
  5. I think 24 or so is a good number, mainly for product life cycle and production time reasons: If they renew their rules with new editions every 3-4 years or so, they will need to put Battletome releases of most factions into that timeframe. So if they release two BTs every three months, that is 8 books a year. Thus all factions would have a new book every three years. They will do other releases as well so they might not make it in three years for everyone. That's where rules updates in the GHB come into play (like for Seraphon, still playable with the Battletome from 2015. Well, mostly) If the rules in the new edition don't drastically change they can maintain a faction playable with those small updates, so they might only have to release 6 Battletomes a year. So yeah that is what I think. They make ~8-9 books a year for AoS, of which 6-7 can be Battletomes. If they want to renew their game every four years they can sustain ~24 major factions. Edit: If I didn't count wrong we have 32 Battletomes since AoS release, making it 6.4 per year on average. Sounds like it could fit my above theory.
  6. I am torn about the Seraphon changes. Some are cool. Our most overpriced stuff like Saurus Warriors, Knights, Guards, Troglodon, Stegadon, Kroak, Starseer, Chameleon Skinks and Kroxigor all got a bit cheaper. But for example for Guards or the Starseer I still think they are probably not worth it, they need warscroll changes. The Razordons got an expected increase, same for the EotG. Not severe IMO. The Skinks point increase hurts a bit more. Overall I am a bit disappointed because I think Saurus armies are still not worth it. But who knows, probably GW surprises us with some more changes that make them more worthwhile.
  7. Same here for the Salamander. Sure, it isn't the greatest looking model, and it hasnt aged well, but it isn't as bad as some others IMO.
  8. Nooo, those are awesome!! I mean these guys: https://www.games-workshop.com/de-DE/Skelettkrieger Clunky, horrible proportions, just ugly. They are plastic, but they look like old resin models. And they are not that much cheaper, so IMO they are not worth it. Next to regular Skellies they are so obviously worse, it hurts.
  9. For me comcerning the Empire units it is mainly their faces. The clothes and equipment look OK if you like renaissance armies, but their heads and hands look... bloated? Kinda weird.
  10. IMO the easy to build skeletons are dire. But Zombies, Razorgors, Swordmasters, and Saurus Knights (especially their mounts) also qualify for Legion of Derp. Honorable mention: Almost all Empire units.
  11. I do not collect them myself, but several people I know report that indeed the Nighthaunt models are a bit on the fragile side.
  12. Nice lists! Happy to see armies like Ironjawz and FEC having some degree of success.
  13. I still hope that Slannta Claus brings us a new Seraphon Battletome for Skinkmas and a Seraphon box with it. Not likely to happen though.
  • Create New...