Mayple

I've always prefered the idea of Stonehorns over Thundertusks myself. I tend to see Thundertusks as a more glass cannon-type thing, but who knows where they'll take them this time around

I assume the movement buff works on their Beastclaw raiders as well, so Mawtribes might end up as a surprisingly speedy faction, limited only in that they have less speed if they want to pull of retreat-move shenanigans.

That would be pretty neat, yeah I was surprised it wasn't open-topped to begin with.

They needed that! Very happy that GW acknowledged the difficulty of playing the objective game as a super-elite style of army like Ogors Good stuff!

You want to elaborate on that? I don't want to argue against it in case I've misunderstood your meaning

- 3x Celestial Hurricanums (1-3 with mage as points allow) - 1x Lord Arcanum (on Tauralon if desired) -- Unlock Stormcast endless spells; buy comet. Stardrake hero with wizard artifact if hallowheart and want to go big. - 1x Black Ark Fleetmaster general. - 3x3 Scourgerunner chariots battleline -??? (whatever else you can squeeze in there. Phoenix temple comes to mind) Drown your enemy in mortal wounds. Lose all your friends. Profit? Edit; Don't forget to blast the mad max soundtrack while your crazy magic men and their chariot buddies roll up the field in a mana-fueled trainwreck of a convoy.

Perhaps Rocktusk is the name of the sub-species, and Prowler is the primary name. So there could be Rocktusk Prowlers, Waterfur Prowlers, Sandstone Prowlers, etc. Or Rocktusk Prowlers, Rocktusk Sneakers, Rocktusk Jumpers. ---- Somehow I don't think this would be the way to go.

May I introduce you to the glory that is clanrats/goblins?

Huh. Having GW tell us how scary and spooky these guys are supposed to be has made me think they're anything but. And now I can't stop thinking about how that warband must be skulking around the mortal realms trying to spook people, and people play along because they feel bad for them having cut their faces of.

I absolutely agree! I also think the sentence "So many players defeat themselves by..." really hits the nail on the head regarding a vast majority of losses players experience. It is rare to truly be defeated by the opponent, and much more common to be ones own worst enemy, so to speak. I'd go as far as to say that if you can avoid defeating yourself, in whichever shape or form that comes in (Poor listbuilding/ bad mentality/lack of a plan/defeatist attitude/etc) -- One would increase their chances of winning every single game drastically.

As many as I can feasibly get without compromising the strength of the army. I always prefer to outdeploy rather than fish for first turns (Gloomspite/Skaven)

My Gloomspite (Largely consisting of a strong midfield of 60 goblins, big juicy troggboss, some troggoths - and supported on the flanks by squig knights): - Don't try to kill my super tanky general (Troggboss) in an attempt to remove my command point generation/battleshock immunity shenanigans. He's specifically there to draw attention to himself, and then promptly survive whatever you throw at him. Kill my regular Troggoths and/or Boingrot Bounderz instead. - Don't charge my center, hoping to be able to dish it out because "they're only goblins" -- There are fanatics, troggoths, and an angry troggboss all in position to punish that exact maneouver. - Don't leave gaps in your frontline. That's what the Boingrot Bounders (commonly reffered to as Squig Knights) are for, and they will punish you. - Don't chase lone units of Squig Knights that are way off on the flanks trying to bait you out of position. If you have no business being there, then you can safely assume their job is to die to pull you that way. - Don't abandon backfield objectives. I can teleport, sometimes. - Don't try to win by being a camping gunline. Goblins are -really- tanky against that strategy. - Don't expect an honorable, straight-forward fight. I will do the unexpected. - Do distract me by making conversation. I have a horrible attention span, and a social attitude, and will play worse as a result. I will approve of such underhanded tactics. Nice topic

I've been wondering about this myself. Well, not the tilting of a model on another model, but tilting of a model in general. I haven't seen any mention of anything saying they should remain completely level, and there are many situations where tilting them is the logical solution (a behemoth going over a fence, or such for example) - But I have no idea what one is "supposed" to do in that cases, nor if it can tilt itself on another model. I'll do say that my instincts say that tilting a model's base on another model is a big no, just due to how models normally don't interact with each-other on a physical level, so treating another model as a piece of terrain to tilt on would seem a bit out of the blue. That's just speculation though, I'm sure someone will come along with some hard facts!

Just gotta get some of that OG with the OP for the OC. What. No, I agree with you

So he's Primaris. Adds up!

I second this. Mentality is everything in a competitive setting, and a lot of the time matches are decided by one of the players reaching the conclusion that they are losing, and starts playing worse as a result (not on purpose of course), leading to the winning player winning even more, and removing the potential for a comeback. Not the exact point you were making, but expanding on what I got from it now for some digression. "I will lose this" - bad. "I am winning this" - bad (leads to losing sight of what can be done to make you lose) "I can win this." - Good. "I can lose this." - Eh? Needs outside point of views.

You'd have a surprising amount of content as long as the way you present it is open enough that you can go into details and variations down the road. For example, there's a big difference between having a mindset of playing the objectives, and having the mindset of playing the objectives while getting tabled//playing a specific faction. (The current approach I tend to advertise when facing tabling is the "slow death", where you'll push the most out of your models before they die, and just be a pain to kill) -- but I digress. You'd have enough for at least a year, and then GW updates the GHB, which gives an additional half a year, assuming you don't have to go then also go back and adjust a majority of the earlier things you've talked about. Assuming 4 videos a month. Edit: Oh, and Jack has to be nerfed. There's no way to beat him. Broken player. Deals a gigabazzilion objective damage over the course of the game, and there's no counterplay. GW has clearly written his rules to get as many people to buy the Jack Armstrong model as possible. Booo!

I'll second this. Appealing to the "Well, obviously you're going to win, so let's make a challenge out of it" part of him should make it much more interesting for both of you, @Paladork. I highly suggest taking the route that @ChaosLord suggests, as well as making yourself available for crazy far out experimentation that your competitive-minded opponent wouldn't normally be able to do if he were to go 100% for the win. For example, if he plays, let's say Skaven for sake of familiarity, and he was ever wondering if stuffing his list full of clawlords would be a good idea, against you he could be free to do so. Remove the consequences of losing from the equation entirely, and just play for fun, and more importantly for the competitive mindset; to try new stuff out. If he's not of a mind to experiment , then he's not very competitive minded anyway, and I don't know what to tell ya Best of luck!

You and me both It'll happen. Have no fear.

@Battlefury That's not a new thing though. It used to be much worse. Age of Sigmar is in a better place as far as balance goes than it's been in a long time. It's simply increasing it's gap from Kharadron/bcr, which will catch up eventually.

Not to say that Gits players in general are uncompetitive, but I agree with this. A lot of the reason I was happy with Gloomspite when it came out was that it was pretty clear how internally balanced it was, and by extension, it wasn't broken in any clear way. This allowed me to retain a sense of pride when I brought it to a competitive event, as I wasn't bringing an army that would win on it's own, but that required good piloting to achieve victory. I'm a "Johnny" player by heart, for those that know that MTG stereotype, so it appealed to me a lot. I went 5/0 on that event, but I had to work really really hard for it, and was completely exhausted by the end of the two-day event. As a sidenote, I've been very hesitant on getting back into Skaven, who I played a lot during their time without a battletome, since it is currently overachieving, but I've noted that it seems to be due to the warplightning vortex abuse, which I'm planning to hold off on to avoid that trap. tl;dr: You're right that certain factions draw certain type of players, and top-tier armies tend to draw top-tier players, which in turn makes their overall win statistic go even higher.

Incorrect. I was at one of those events, and it included everything from bottom to top tier players, which all counted towards the statistic. Not to say none of the events are "top tier competitive only", but it certainly does not apply to all of them, which skews the statistic if you treat it as a representation of that.

I agree with @whispersofblood on pretty much all points there. Was going to write a thing, but it's been covered neatly.

Shot in the dark: Actual Cthulhu-aelves

Anyone got any idea when exactly Warcry should be starting to show up as a whole? Do we think the overly long release time is tied to the Sylvaneth problems, or is it just gw building long-term hype?