Hollow
-
Posts
522 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Hollow
-
-
I played a "final game" of AoS 3 the other day. We met at 6 (chatted, went over lists, set up etc) and the game officially started at 7. The game concluded at about 9:30. (We stopped for around 10 mins for smoke, snack, bathroom break) Once finished we packed up and he left at about 10:30.
So even though the game ran pretty smoothly between 2 people who knew their lists, that is a pretty big chunk of time.
-
1
-
-
I have suggested this might be something that could be explored in the future of AoS and was shot down as it "could only be done with Marines"
I can seriously see GW trying to release a large Battletome for a faction and then supplement tomes for sub-factions. How does GW make more money from a person buying publications? They are pushing the absolute limit in terms of per-book price.
GW beancounters will be salivating at the idea that players will purchase a Battletome, Index Cards and a supplement to play their faction. It's standard to see how more money can be made for supplying essentially the same thing. My prediction is that we are going to see Sub-faction "mini-tomes" for factions across AoS 4.
-
1 minute ago, The Red King said:
Again I don't think they'll go but I think GW deserves not to be trusted after what they've done.
and what exactly have they done? Remove models that had a big flashing neon sign above them that screamed "NOT LONG FOR THIS WORLD". The fact you didn't use your eyes or brain isn't GW fault. Also, I thought you were done with the hobby now that Beasts are gone?
-
3
-
1
-
27
-
-
3 hours ago, KingBrodd said:
This is a real problem woth BOC and BS being axed. The uncertainty causing anxiety and fear mongering.
From people that don't have the slightest clue about GW or how it's product lines work. Not only are Ogres safe, they are more than safe. Everyone with eyes knew this cull was going to happen. The only surprising thing about it is how light it has been.
-
3
-
-
I would love a "Necromunda" style game set within the Mortal Realms. As others have mentioned I think Warcry has pivoted to be a way for units to be released for factions outside their AoS release windows. The mechanics of the game are solid and with the removal of some of the Chaos Warbands, it frees up space to explore other units.
I have nothing against Underworlds but just see it as the logical area that might see a "replacement" if it's the case that Gw would rather replace a system than start up another one.
A Necromunda-style system with different seasons set in renowned cities across the realms would be cool.
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Aeryenn said:
If GW would really discontinue Underworlds it would be another heavy strike for their credibility.
I don't see how. I suppose it would depend on how they did it, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the Design Studio to want to explore new space. I don't like the idea that nothing can ever change, or because GW releases a product or game it needs to be "supported" forever. I can only imagine how stifling that would be for a group of creative people. I have no doubt that there are dozens of ideas for new games, systems and concepts set within Warhammer settings swirling around the design studio. I think it would be a shame if GW never explored any of them outside what they already have.
-
14
-
-
1 minute ago, Gaz Taylor said:
If only GW made a game a bit like Warmaster so you could have giant Godbeasts stomping around and hills trying to eat you.
If Gw were to expand the production of mini-minis then I think I would prefer them to expand upon LI and have full EPIC. If something like Underworlds were to be retired/replaced I would love to see a new fantasy naval game although it has next to 0% happening due to the Dreadfleet debacle.
-
I think the 2024 July half-year financial report will be an interesting read. The previous couple of quarters had the launch of 40K 10th edition. In July we will see how a six-month period with two specialist game releases (Imperialis and ToW) compared to a period with a new 40k Edition.
GW has been expanding what "Warhammer" is, they have moved towards having 4 clearly defined "Warhammer Settings" - 40K,AoS,HH and ToW with 40K and AoS having 3 "other" games within their settings. Kill Team, Necormunda and Quest for 40k. Warcry, Underworlds and Quest for AoS.
If there was a particular system (Underworlds for example) that was deemed to have "run its course" I could see GW removing a system to make space for a new one. An "AoS Necromunda" type game.
-
2
-
-
The answer to piracy is to make legit media better quality, more accessible and convenient than pirated content. Imagine they still published much smaller runs of physical books in the future but a Warhammer+ subscription came with access to PDF's of all of GW material, with new digital publications released each week. Rules updated, FAQ's implemented and all fully integrated with army-building apps.
The value add to the app would be insane. Combined with current content, having Warhammer+ as the primary hub for releasing "content" through a $10-a-month subscription service is a future I can easily see.
-
8
-
1
-
-
I wonder how sustainable GW's approach to publishing is in the medium to long term. They have the numbers and nobody can say they haven't pumped the publishing bandwagon for every penny it is worth. However, I feel that more and more people (% wise at least) are forgoing the purchase of Battletomes/Codexs.
I do not doubt that the AoS design studio probably has most (If not all) of AoS 4 already planned out and are at the conceptual stages of AoS 5 and beyond.
Will we just see a continuation of the status quo with how "Factions" are presented? I could see GW wanting to try and consolidate publications in a few years so that a single book appeals to more people (Campaign books) rather than splitting up the publications as much as they do now. I can see rules becoming ever more digital. What do Battletomes become if you remove the printed Battlescrolls and Rules? 50 Odd pages of lore and unit descriptions?
If digital ever becomes the main delivery system for rules and updates (which I can see happening by the end of this decade) then the whole concept of "faction number" might become almost irrelevant.
-
I'm a visual learner, so the colour coding and icons are fantastic. The 7 Ability icons are pretty intuitive. I think I could have told you what each of them is without being told exactly. Maybe the Special and Control Icons are a bit more abstract. I also find the "Portrait" layout of the Warscroll (as opposed to a Landscape layout kinda interesting) They seem a bit too long to print 4 to a page in a Battletome.
As with the Icons, I find the colouring of Yellow>Grey>Teal>Orange>Red>Purple to be pretty easy to remember. So the UX design for me is so far so good. I do still think that GW is too wordy when it comes to rules.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:
while i'm sad to see so many stormcast squatted, it is a strange day indeed when the biggest community joke is "stormcast range is so bloated i don't bother learning any names lol!!!" and now the general playerbase is angry they've been culled. Not unwelcome anger for sure, but major whiplash
Probably gonna get some blow back from this but I smell a whole lot of faux outrage online. I bet 90% of the people screaming to the high rafters don't even own a single of these kits or play them.
-
It could be interesting if "Beastmen" were approached more as a "race" in AoS, which could be seen across all of Grand Alliances in the same way as humans are. You could have Bestial units that fight on the side of Order (Sylvanneth wolf people, More Cow people for Lumineth, even a furry-CoS unit), Chaotic Beasts in the way of Slaangors, Tzaangors, Khorngors and Pestigors. Have Kragnos lead a Destruction Beast faction based around Centigors and explore Werewolves and bestial bone constructs more across death.
-
3
-
-
Just now, Snarff said:
We had huge releases in 3rd.
Exactly. As @Chikout said, if the system continues to receive "huge releases" (and all rumours are pointing to AoS having a lot) then there needs to be some space made in the range. I'm saying the game would stagnate if there was never any room made.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Chikout said:
Maybe the answer is to keep the old models playable for much longer. They promised to balance the older factions for a year. Why not the whole edition or indeed forever?
I think the solution is staring the player base right in the face. To recalibrate the rigid adherence to how units are represented on the tabletop. If you have Bonesplitterz, use them as IronJaws, If you have BoC, use them Darkoath. I would rather a situation where 10% of the existing line was "cut" annually to make room for new stuff, than the range to stagnate and only receive 1 to 1 updates and eternal support for the entire existing range. I really do not think that is healthy for the game big picture. Not at all.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Pizzaprez said:
GW would tell me they should really be on squares within a year.
and? Not to be overly flippant, but unless you are only playing in official GW tournaments and events I'm not sure what GW "Says" means anything in regards to modelling.
1 minute ago, Flippy said:Maybe it would help if GW openly stated that some armies are here to stay forever and some are temporary only with guaranteed 10-years support.
I think what they have said is actually pretty fair to be honest. Rules, A year, Legends. 3 months before the edition even drops.
-
Stormcast Eternals - Range reduction pending a large update.
Skaven - Rage reduction pending a large update.
Beasts of Chaos - Range remove from AoS and move to ToW
Blonesplitters - Range removed
11 Warcry Warbands removed from Slaves To Darkness
7 other models removed from the AoS line.
-
Just now, Pizzaprez said:
My cursed city models are now only frostgrave NPCs because GW doesn't want me to play with them.
My cursed city models are used in my SBGL and CoS armies.
-
2 minutes ago, Pizzaprez said:
How is it not? I'm in a uniquely awful position that this is the fourth army of mine that GW is dropping in the AoS ruleset alone! The legends Chaos Duardin, Slaanesh-marked beasts, the Legion of Grief, and now a Horns-centric Slaves army are all dead. My combined human-wood aelf army was killed before I'd even got halfway.
We are fundamentally different in how we see miniature purchases and what GW as a company should be expected to do in regard to "support". You have approached super niche esoteric armies and are acting "surprised Pikachu face" that they aren't getting full support? Also, how are any of these projects "dead"? you are clearly motivated by the lore, background and modelling opportunities for these projects. You can easily convert, model, paint and proxy any of those aforementioned projects and would be actively encouraged to do so by all. What's the problem?
-
5
-
5
-
-
The fact that AoC already has Tzaangors and Slaangors in Disciples and Hedonites makes me hopeful that we will see Pestigors and Khorngors for Maggotkin and Blades.
With the new rules for how armies and built. Having a single Beast character and a god thematic unit in each of the mono-god books would allow for a Beast Regiment to be taken.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, sandlemad said:
Anyone outright quitting AoS over this is taking a pretty reasonable response tbh.
lol, no... no it is not.
-
8
-
3
-
-
Just now, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
We were supposed to be out of the "full armies getting squatted" phase of AoS at this point.
Says who? I could easily see the removal or consolidation of existing factions in future editions of the game. I think when it comes to support, 10 years is meeting expectations.
-
3 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I agree that the full BoC/Bonesplitterz removal is pretty hard to justify.
The current BoC range is fairly generic, the faction was never super popular but has a core of followers that has kept the range in service for the last decade with minimal support. ToW studio feels that there is a space within their range to support the kits and have the models service the game (they came from)
Bonessplittez are a fairly generic, dated fantasy troupe in a game with 2 other well-supported Orruk "factions".
I feel like of all of the product lines across AoS the ones that have been listed are the easiest to justify.
-
I wonder if this means that Endless Spells are going to be sticking around?
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
To play devil's advocate, there are numerous examples of when orders from high command dictate that there is a high-priority target on the field. The eradication of said target would be seen as more of a victory regarding a larger war. The BT is simple and clear. Not sure why people would want to have it be needlessly complicated.