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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


firebat last won the day on November 21 2018

firebat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

156 Celestant-Prime

About firebat

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Why would anyone in their right mind be buying the mess that GW had put High Elves in? Why would anyone sensible be buying armies that GW had given little inclination they were still actively supporting? Why would people be buying battle line troops that weren't available to buy except in some legacy starter set from a previous edition? Why would anyone be buying tiny factions with one unit and one character and that's all you get if you need to use those troops as battle line? Gosh it's amazing these kits weren't flying off the shelves they weren't even on to begin with. What a silly argument lol
  2. The thing is, when AoS first came out, this was fine because it was so freeform. You could have an army of undead, elves and daemons if you wanted to and it was one of the things I really liked about the game over the restrictive nature of fantasy battle. The problem is that since then we've moved back to the more restrictive army book format and needing battleline troops and the like with limited configurations and the customers have proven they are willing to pay for GW's poor planning/mistakes in re releases of army books in short time periods. I've no issue with stuff cycling if an army is really just a small battalion or unit you can slot in anywhere but as it stands it's some form of commitment that is starting to feel very much one way. I'll keep saying it, but the rules should be free and army books should be collectable art/fluff books and it would feel a whole lot less than some attempt at a p2w mobile game. The funny thing is in a way it's not entirely GW's fault. I have no issue using my Lion Guard or Silver Helms as something else and i've said for a while that people should just use the Dark Elf rules with High Elf models since there is a lot of redundancy there in some ways (although clearly the High Elf models are better :p). Many issues comes from players demanding stuff needs to be official and thinking they're going to get robbed of some game because the silhouette of a model isn't identical to the proper model when in reality it's going to make very little difference.
  3. Well thanks GW, I won't need the Cities of Sigmar book after all it seems. At this point i'd have rather they just had axed High Elves at the same time as Brets and Tomb Kings instead of this giant mess they've made of the army that largely got me into fantasy to begin with.
  4. 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.
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. No but there's certainly a contradiction in replying to this in a way that it deserves and getting in trouble with the mods
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Well the placement rules are part of the allegiance abilities.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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".
  • Create New...