firebat
-
Posts
138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by firebat
-
-
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
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Clan's Cynic said:
I remember when the initial rumours of AoS bled out regarding WHFB's squat'ing and The Bubble 'Verse (which later turned out to be the Realms). One of the plans mentioned was for a constant cycling of models every few years, so nothing was truly permanent and to 'encourage' people to keep picking up new armies and not having to commit to them long-term the same way they do for 40k.
As happy as I was for Cities of Sigmar, I'd be surprised if they received long-term support.
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.
-
8
-
1
-
-
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
-
-
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.
-
1 minute ago, Belper said:
So can i stack gnawholes on top of a Loonshrine, on top of a Korne tower? There's a contradiction between the book saying not to stack terrain on top of each other and the Gnawhole not saying I can't do that.
No but there's certainly a contradiction in replying to this in a way that it deserves and getting in trouble with the mods
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, carnith said:
if the daemon prince is within 3" of a unit that activates, he automatically gets to activate. Now nothing says he must move towards the activating unit, and nothing says his attacks have to go into the unit that is activating. If your DP is within equal distance to 2 units, as per faqs, you can decide who you wish to pile in to. You could pile in away from the activating unit in this case. Simply put your friend is wrong.
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.
-
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.
-
Just now, King Taloren said:
Well cool I’ll be happy to put my Ethereal Vortex within an 1” of any terrain feature and on top of objectives again.
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.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Melcavuk said:
I keep seeing the phrase "its printed on their warcroll" gettting thrown about, I have the app and GW store scrolls for gnawholes up and neither specify setup restrictions. By "On the Warscroll" do you mean in the battletome on the adjacent page like the Hedonites placing restriction for the Fane? If so the question would be "Does Battletome overwrite core rules" as I cannot locate it on any actual warscroll.
I could be wrong, if the warscroll that comes with the Gnawholes themselves specifies differently. Just struggling to fact check when neither I can locate specify the rule that keeps getting said to be on the scroll.
Well the placement rules are part of the allegiance abilities.
-
22 minutes ago, mikethefish said:
This. The Gnawholes' rules are printed on an actual warscroll. In AoS, Warscroll rules always supercede rulebook rules - that's their whole point. People worrying about Gnawholes being unplayable simply haven't thought things through completely.
People not reading the things they're complaining about? Now that would be silly.
7 minutes ago, AverageBoss said:Warscrolls only override rules when there is some sort of contradiction, they don't ignore rules. So unless there is direct contradiction, you have to follow all the rules.
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?
-
4
-
-
9 minutes ago, Hebroseph said:
The spell creates the model, the spell doesn't deal any damage. The hero casts the spell, end stop. The model moves by itself and is its own entity.
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.
-
6 hours ago, RuneBrush said:
I double checked the definition of nerf before I actually posted as I wanted to make sure I had it right in my head (I've excluded the foam rubber dart gun manufacturer 🤣 )
I actually think how we use terminology and phrasing is a hugely inconsistent across the whole of our hobby 😊 I also know that I'm a massive pedant when it comes to terminology - which I do attribute to working in a Quality Assurance department for a few years! I think nerf is a good example of how it can cause confusion - to my eyes if a unit is nerfed then it's going to be unusable, whereas for you it's that unit is no longer as strong as it was.
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:
QuoteVERB
[WITH OBJECT]US
informal-
1Cause to be weak or ineffective.
‘the constant zone running nerfed Michigan's pass rush’‘the government is nerfing our upload speeds’-
1.1 (of a video game developer) reduce the power of (a character, weapon, etc.) in a new instalment or update of a video game.
‘ever since they nerfed the shield, the game just isn't as fun’‘the most used rifle has been subjected to nerfing’
-
1.1 (of a video game developer) reduce the power of (a character, weapon, etc.) in a new instalment or update of a video game.
As an aside my personal peeve is the term "viable".
-
-
22 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:
I was stating my preference given the choice between buffing everything around me, or nerfing the powerful stuff to bring it all down.
I don't think that warranted the nasty response you gave.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
4
-
-
19 hours ago, Overread said:
Also it doesn't actually matter if you "bring everyone up" or "take every one down." The direction doesn't matter, what matters is really the balance of the scaling up and down. Ergo if everyone scales up to the same point it is identical to if everyone scales down to the same point in terms of game balance. However if you keep changing the target and moving it continually further up or down then you end up with a continual mess of balance because the goal posts are changing position the whole time.
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.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, azmodan said:
Damn,
Wanted to stop this topic, but I just added fuel to fire. Learn how to Internet :p.
Anyway after preview, slaanesh look like A unique army with many interesting abilities. And your opponnent may react to them somehow. I really like it,i imagine I will have a lot of fun playing with plastic soldiers yay
Stop trying to backseat moderate then. This probably would have died down already if many of the responses to the complaints weren't either deliberate misrepresentations of the complaint or little more than "Not my army, I don't care, stop talking about things I don't care about".
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Sleboda said:
The previous posts had moaned about the lack of mortal stuff compared to some of the other chaos books. Then folks pointed out that there was really very little truly new stuff created for mortals in those books. Then beast options were proffered as support, which is shifted goal posts.
Being willfully ignorant contributes less than the criticism. This has been addressed multiple times that you're the one latching on to the word mortal as the be and end all when the Arcanites and Clan Pestilens have been mentioned multiple times. I'd argue that the whole reason that the Disciples of Tzeentch was such a great release was because it included the Arcanites as a whole extra faction on top of the mortals and daemons and if it had just been an update to the daemon models then there would have been far less interest in them.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Sleboda said:
And again, if a player wants mortals in the book and they are left out, they are 100% available as an _optional_ yet totally compatible set of warscrolls found elsewhere, likely not even breaking allegiance benefits.
No you can't because they don't exist.
No one is talking about mortals as in Slaves to Darkness. You're completely missing the point and latching onto the word mortal as somehow being the important bit when it's not. No one cares about Chaos Warriors. Everyone can take Chaos Warriors. I can take them in a Tzeentch army. They play largely the same regardless of how you mark them. The issue isn't if they happen to be a daemon or not. It's cult troops. It's like them releasing a Slaanesh book for 40k and leaving out the Emperors Children and the Noise Marines but you'd be saying it's fine because they can still take Chaos Marines despite the other god specific legions being included in their own books.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Sleboda said:
Is it really all that incomplete, though? Just as we're seeing with Khorne, there are many options found outside of the book that can be directly added without the need for allies. Won't that hold true for Slaanesh? Plus, when Slaves gets updated, it'll bump Hedonites up too.
Like I mentioned a while back, I think GW just needs to do a better job of letting people know that an army is not just what's in one Battletome.
Khorne = Daemons, Bloodbound, Mortals.
Tzeentch = Daemons, Arcanites, Mortals
Nurgle = Daemons, Maggotkin, Mortals, Skaven
Slaanesh = Daemons, Mortals
-
2
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:
I think the lack of Slaanesh mortals is probably to due to the Emperor's Children. It's possible they want 'Pleasure Cultists' or whatever we get to be compatible with 40k, but also don't want to put out Emperor's Children-only rules when they're still part of Codex: Chaos Space Marines. Thus Hedonites will get their mortal/chaff units, but in a future wave.
With the storyline moving to Slaanesh/Elves now however, they didn't want to leave them as the only Chaos God without a Battletome when they're going to be such a prominent part of the plot.
This isn't going to happen. There aren't going to be a bunch of new rules for units, characters and battalions that there are no models or images for just because they're going to turn up at some unspecified future date for the other game.
-
1
-
-
The Daemon Prince model is even in the style you'd expect for more mortal followers that fits in with the Hellstriders.
-
Well rules are quick and easy to throw out compared to models. They have most of the art and the lore and rules already, it's just a matter of laying them out and tweaking the bits that need tweaking. Compare that to models that will take a lot longer to design and paint for stuff they don't already have a library of.
They're a bit damned either way. People have been clamoring for rules updates and have shown they're willing to pay for fairly minor updates just for some attention for their army so if there is a big enough backlash we'll be able to buy another book next year with mortals in it but it being Slaanesh probably not.
The Warcry deflections simply don't fly because that will either have an undivided focus or all the gods will be getting attention anyway. If I was feeling especially petulant i'd half expect Tzeentch and Khorne to get some new stuff and Slaanesh can use the undivided stuff 😛
-
Well it's only what anyone who has been playing Slaanesh for a long time expects really. Looking at it the Nurgle release was actually pretty similar with the only new models being character models. The Blightkings, much like the hellstriders were from the End Times period. At least nurgle got access to Skaven for a bit more variety as well though.
I think ultimately people can make excuses all they want but some models where it was about time they got an update (no matter how good they are) doesn't make up for a release that ultimately doesn't stand up to the expectation they set with the Tzeentch and Khorne releases. It's effectively half as much.
-
Well I was a bit disappointed in all. Khorne getting a 3rd book before Slaanesh gets one is...well about what I expect honestly... but it does confirm my feelings that all the rules should be free. Ultimately in the case of Khorne itself it will amount to being expected to shell out for a few extra special rules that cover your army build. Does this also mean re releases for any army that doesn't include those things currently? So are we now going to see a new edition of the Tzeentch and Nurgle books? How about Khaine? They don't have endless spells or a terrain piece so I expect they're on the new book list too. Could start to feel like some kind of annual or bi annual subscription cost
I've no problem with them changing the game and introducing these new elements but does it now mean that whenever they think of something new and cool to add to an army that it's going to be a re release of every book that doesn't include them? It also makes it really confusing and not a great investment for new players when one of the offsets of it being relatively expensive is that the stuff you buy is useful for a long time. Why buy this Khorne book when there will be a new one out next year? Sadly I bet it's because the rules team has to look like it's making money separately from the models to justify it's existence. It does start to feel like an early access game where you're paying for the lack of development early on rather than great additions later.
tl/dr new book for substantive content is good. new book for a few extra rules is bad.
Squatting Watch: Alerts for Discontinued Models
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
You seem to have entirely misunderstood.