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

firebat

Members
  • Content Count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

firebat last won the day on November 21 2018

firebat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

142 Celestant-Prime

About firebat

  • Rank
    Decimator

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I don't really think this argument holds up because there isn't any kind of standard terrain or layout for the terrain. Sure your conversion of a dragon might fit behind that wall but also at the same time the wall could have been higher, or lower so your conversion doesn't fit at all, or something else entirely. Are we now arguing that no conversion's should be allowed? Obviously this is where the social contract comes in for you and your opponent (or an event organiser) to decide what is acceptable on the table but AoS is a game of perfect information. Your opponent can see how big that model is, can see how big the terrain is before the game starts and knows how far those models can move. If they fail to act on that information accordingly that is poor play on their side, not gaming rules that don't exist.
  2. A lot of issues with terrain come about now because they gave in to the complaining without thinking it through and moved over to only measuring from the base. It essentially forces onto a 3D game a 2D mechanic. The AoS rules were initially written as "model rules all" where everything in the game was based on the model and it was great and fluid. Measuring only from the base however is an abstract system and it requires just more abstract rules to resolve. We have a situation where actual placement and movement of the model is treated as the model but the measurement is all completely flat and a Bloodthirster is treated as being the same height as a grot. You can have that grot stood on top of a 4" tower and the Bloodthirster can't touch him despite the model towering over him. So we need some abstract method of the model being able to scale the tower despite the model not being able to be placed there and we get some messy system instead of doing it the straightforward simple way. Personally I think people need to get over their fears of some slight imbalance as a crutch for their own ability. Stop looking at the game as if every encounter should always be some equal chance of winning and look at it more like a sport which are all inherently unbalanced and unfair and yet people compete all the time even if they know they're chances are tiny. In a game with a lot of analogue systems such as measuring and fancy models that people are encouraged to convert there is always going to be a fundamental imbalance there unless you move completely to a system of token and counters and totally bland, always the same battlefields like a chess board (and back to WHFB and it's corresponding rulebook size essentially and being good at the game is as much knowing how the rules interact than any strategic ability).
  3. The mausoleum can be garrisoned so it's not like you can't game it for advantage already like that to try and use it to teleport troops across the battlefield or have your spells or shooting cover everywhere. I can also deploy a Bloodthirster as a pile of bits on it's base but at some point you just have to decide what kind of game you're playing.
  4. No but there's certainly a contradiction in replying to this in a way that it deserves and getting in trouble with the mods
  5. He's wrong, but not because of your reasoning. The wording of the ability is that "you can immediately" not "you must immediately" or "The DP immediately...". 'Can' makes it a choice.
  6. It really doesn't sound that bad to me. Watching the GMG video it assumes a large terrain piece is at at the largest 10"x10" which is pretty big and you're supposed to use 1 of those for every 24"x24" section of board. The small pieces are assumed to be at the most 6"x6" which is also large for things like barricades and in fact many of the pieces people use as large ones they could probably fit into the small piece bracket. If you assume an absolute worst case (depending on your outlook) scenario then yeah there would only be a space of 2" at the closest points between 2 of the large pieces if each was in the very centre of each 24" square section and each was the absolute maximum size. That's never going to happen though. Even the biggest pieces they sell simply aren't that big in every direction.
  7. Yeah I was waiting for this. There isn't a contradiction between 2 rules where one says you can't place it within 1" and the other says 6". It makes one redundant but you can absolutely fulfill the requirements of both rules.
  8. Well the placement rules are part of the allegiance abilities.
  9. People not reading the things they're complaining about? Now that would be silly. How is one thing saying they can't be within 6" and another saying they have to be within 6" not a contradiction. What's more if there isn't actually a contradiction how can there be an issue?
  10. You keep making a whole list of assumptions based on how you think it works that isn't actually covered in any of the wording. The only relevant part is that the DP rules say that wounds done by spells cast by a Slaanesh Hero count for DP generation. Any attempt to say that the spell stops being one cast by that hero once a model is on the board or anything else is you applying rules you've made up on top. Did the Endless spell do a wound? Was that endless spell cast by a Slaanesh Hero? If both of those are a yes then it counts until they say otherwise. They are also clearly spells because any items or effects that provide protection against spells work against endless spells so they don't just become something else they haven't defined after they're cast.
  11. I don't think i've ever seen it used in the context of actually making something unusable. The only time I saw that as a stated goal was when Blizzard nerfed Demonology Warlocks in Warlords of Draenor to disincentivise people from playing the spec because it was complicated to play. It still wasn't useless though. Any competent player could still do well with it and do all the content if they wanted. I mean there are always people that just take any nerf what so ever as making what they like unusable but that's not usually the actual case (Like in this thread the Look Out Sir! rule making shooting useless). It's not like any of the talk in this thread is about making DoK worthless. Also it's entirely possible to nerf something to make it weak compared to what it was before and it still be very strong. Google's definitions are apparently from the Oxford dictionary which actually says: As an aside my personal peeve is the term "viable".
  12. But it's simply impossible for them to just buff stuff up to your level. I already addressed that. They buff every other army because the people with the most OP one are sensitive about being nerfed and then a couple of armies will inevitably end up overshooting. You're just shifting the problem around and you end up being nerfed anyway because everyone else gets better. They just did it by buffing everything else. It's exactly the same end effect on your army, but it's shortsighted and doesn't make the game any better other than making it even more catch the latest broken OP nonsense.
  13. I'm sorry but that's your problem by only buying what is currently the most OP in a game where there are always new things coming out and they've committed to making yearly changes. Them only buffing the stuff that isn't performing will still make your choices not broken and is better for the game than you trying to game the system and then complain about it when it no longer goes your way.
  14. This isn't true at all. If you both nerf and buff the outliers then you're always shaving off the edges to approach a common centre. You're never going to reach it obviously because perfect balance is impossible but you're still always working to some kind of average. If you only buff the weak stuff because for some reason some players can't handle it then all you're doing is introducing an arms race. No matter how careful you are you're inevitably going to overshoot the currently most powerful thing and because you're pandering to this attitude of "don't nerf my stuff" you then have a bunch of stuff that you can only buff again and so it just repeats. The stupid thing is that if they buff everything else but your stuff it's still really a nerf for what you're using, it's just been done in a way that doesn't result in patch notes saying you've been nerfed. There's also this weird psychological fallacy that seems to go on where if something is nerfed the player distrusts the developer to get it right and the nerfed thing automatically becomes the worst thing ever and useless (even if they got the nerf right) while at the same time, the same player will trust the developer to be able to buff everything else because that will only ever bring them up to the same level as you.
  15. I've been using it as a KoS for at least 15 years so a KoS it's staying. Just on a bigger base.
×
×
  • Create New...