someone2040
-
Posts
1,096 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by someone2040
-
-
13 hours ago, Tzaangor Management said:
Didn't the Lord Ordinator one have loads of compendium war machines in?
I think these may just be fun lists, rather than indications of new models, but fingers crossed none-the-less
No, it doesn't have any compendium war machines.
It has every single model from the Ironweld Arsenal faction, none of them being compendium.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Long time since this thread got any love.
Any progress on getting the columns to align a bit better? Would just be nice if it was able to keep the header + first part of content in the same part.
I also see some issues where Abilities get line broken on the lines breaks in the text entry box after re-loading it.
But mainly I wanted to ask. Is there any way to delete warscrolls saved to the server? I accidentally duplicated one of my warscrolls and it's annoying me
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, bsharitt said:
There's the Gyrobomber/copter.
That is true, hadn't noticed they'd been resupplied on rounds (I guess perhaps when they were included as part of the Free Cities they got a box update as well. Which is strange that the Free Peoples kits haven't).
That being said, the Gyro-kits aren't exactly super large to be centrepiece models, and probably were overlooked as something that makes sense alongside the Ordinator (Them being fast moving flyers ahead of the army).
-
It looks like the structures of those bundles are
Start Collecting Set
Herald
Centrepiece Model (Warshrine, Terrorgheist, Maw-Krusha).
The Ordinator doesn't really have a piece that makes sense for the Centrepiece. The Ironweld Arsenal stuff hasn't been repackaged for Age of Sigmar yet (So rules out the Steam Tank). Which would basically leave you with a Kharadron Overlords ship which doesn't really feel right in a Stormcast army.
So I think from a first look it feels weird, but once you kinda look under the hood a bit it makes some sense as to why there isn't one for the Ordinator.
Something I feel inclined to point out would not be an issue if GW just sold all their kits with round bases. Pretty sure almost all their square based kits are webstore only now, and even if they don't want to repackage stock they could always ship them with rounds outside the pack anyway given they're all on the webstore.
-
I guess the interesting thing will be at least Stormcast are kinda 'done' with their battleline troops from Age of Sigmar. They don't really have anywhere else to draw from in the current range, as a Judicator warband is unlikely to make sense.
Chaos on the other hand I fully expect after Bloodbound are done to cycle into another chaos god, most likely Nurgle or Tzeentch. I actually think a Slaanesh Seekers warbands would be the most interesting to go into, as the backstory obviously is they're hunting for Slaanesh.
That being said, we don't really know what Games Workshops plans are for Shadespire post Blood Warriors and Vanguard Stormcast. Given we get 60 cards each expansion, do we know whether or not those 2 warbands will finish off the full 400~ cards (or however many there were) for Shadespire?
Or can we expect something else to happen after those two are released? Such as card only purchase, or perhaps some other unknown warbands to round out the Shadespire set.
Overall, I guess we've probably still got a little while to wait. The Chosen Axes and Skaven came out a bit slower than I expected, and I wonder if we're going to have to wait another 3 months for the Blood Warriors and Vanguard Stormcast to arrive.
-
So looks like preorders are up on the NZ store.
I have to say, all looks pretty sweet and those dice in particular look like they'll be cool.
One super disappointing thing though... the Corpse Cart is shown on a square base! I really really hope that's just an oversight, because in this day and age, it's criminal to re-sell the kits in Age of Sigmar and not put round bases with them.
-
Really like the Fyreslayer warband. Definitely a lot of cool poses in there.
It's one I'm going to pick up for sure when it comes out.
-
So with LVO now over, I think an interesting point to take out of it is that GW aren't adverse to releasing 40k codexes with a single new model (Necrons getting a plastic Cryptec).
To date, we've only really seen no-model releases or full proper releases (Whether that's expanding an existing faction or a new faction). There hasn't really been a halfway where they release a new kit or character or two along with a codex/battletome apart from the Blood Angels/Dark Angels which basically got a variant Primaris lieutenant.
It's definitely something I would like to see more of in future as 'almost complete' factions transition to battletome status.
A great example in my opinion, would be Gutbusters. They're the kinda faction that already has a decent amount of different units and characters (especially if you bundle back in Firebellies and Maneaters). If you say remake the Tyrant/Butcher models in plastic (Perhaps without the Cauldron option), suddenly the faction is a complete plastic faction and has plenty of options.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Saw this pop up in one of the facebook groups
Really like the look of that Fyreslayer (Runefather?) figure. Pretty excited for the Chosen Axes!
-
2
-
-
Super excited to see where this leads.
Hoping it's basically the Daughters of Khaine + Tenebrael Shard + Some new kits. I really want to see GW take the lead an expand the factions they created in the great Grand Alliancing. So this seems like an awesome endeavor to me.
Just hoping that it comes with repackaged Witch Aelves boxed into 20's with a hefty discount. Otherwise their new rules/points are going to have to be dramatically stronger to afford such an army.
Overall hoping we see some previews at LVO, otherwise I think GW might cop some backlash if they just show off the Harbringers again with a little preview of Legions of Nagash (Stuff we basically already know about).
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, Graves said:
Hey guys, I just found out about Aos28 and I really like it! Couple questions, and I apologize if this is the wrong place for them.
1) Is the Hinterlands still the more common system being used? It looks like development stopped on it.
Not that I can speak on anyones behalf but...
AoS28 is more a concept than a set of rules right? So really if you want to play games, it's up to your group to figure out what rules work for you.
That could be Hinterlands, or Skirmish or the new AoS28 Warbands being worked on by @GuitaRasmus (Which is based on the Hinterlands ruleset).
-
1
-
-
Sweet!
Just one more thing to keep me distracted from doing real work at work. Might actually start messing around with decks now, as I can just flip around on the website.
Would be nice if you could see them in a tiled format with the actual card text without having to click the Is.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Cayseymax said:
That is your point of view! I disagree! This whole idea was to favor Bretonnians... But just disregard my comments then... I think putting a rule set out asking for comments and then brushing most of them aside is a moot point!
Im done!
I'm sorry If I've offended you in some way with my post. I am not one of the writers of these rules, I am just someone offering my feedback as well.
I think the point of the project is to make interesting and unique things available for Bretonnians, it's not to make them a top tier army (Another swift way to get house rules rejected).
And part of making good house rules is making sure they fit in with everything else in the game, for better or worse.
-
At the end of the day, I think 2 wounds or whether 160 is too high for them is a moot point.
When you write rules, you need to fit into the existing ecosystem of the game.
Foot Knights aren't dismounted Grail Knights. There's no justification for giving them an extra wound, as they're not really any tougher or any bigger than an ordinary Knight off his horse (and Knights only get 2 wounds because they are on a Horse).
There are plenty of other elite infantry in the game that are also 1 wound. Greatswords don't have 2 wounds, nor do Swordmasters, Black Guard, Executioners, Bestigors, etc. Chaos Chosen don't have an extra wound over Chaos Warriors. They all show their 'eliteness' by having a better weapon profile and additional abilities.
All of these 1 wound elite infantry units are all in the range of 140 to 200 points for 10 models. So Foot Knights while being 1 wound, have to fit into that also. They are clearly at least on par if not better than Greatswords, so can't really be any lower than 150 or 160 points. They are probably not quite as good as Swordmasters or Executioners due to not naturally hitting on 3's, so 160 points sounds right.
Even if all these 1 wound elite infantry units are overpriced in game (they might be), you have to fit the ecosystem. Otherwise it just looks like you're writing house rules that aren't objective, and favour your 'army'.
Also, even if it was justified for 2 wounds, they'd then need to cost at least as much as Blood Warriors.
-
Edit: Directed at CayseyMax
I think you need to be pretty careful about such analysis and be a bit more objective.
Ardboyz are a pretty competitive unit at 180 points, but they don't really have any special abilities other than the fact they can mix weapon types in the unit and having 2 wounds each.
There are plenty of other elite 1 wound infantry units at the 160/180 point price range that don't have 2 wounds but make up for it with a flavouring of special rules. Units like Swordmasters, Black Guard, Executioners, etc.
There's also no reason why Foot Knights should have 2 wounds. Similarly why should Pegasus Knights have rend -1? There's nothing on the kit that makes it seem like Foot Knights are tougher or Pegasus Knights lances are more special than regular lances. Those are things you need to consider and justify, and sometimes the solution is not to change statistics, it's to reduce points instead if necessary.
Currently, GW think 1 wound elite infantry should be priced in the 140-180 range. Foot Knights fit the bill, and should also be in that range, and being superior to Greatswords should probably sit at the 10 for 160 mark.
It's for similar reason you can't just say "Grail Knights are ******, they can't beat 5 Brutes!". Well, Grail Knights have a lot of advantages over Brutes. You can't just sum up combat profiles to determine points. Grail Knights are more than twice as fast as Brutes and have +2 bravery over them (a huge issue most people have with Brutes), those are not things you can easily discount and perhaps Grail Knights won't beat them in a straight up fight (Although, I suspect the Grail Knights would go in and skewer a bunch of them on the charge and cause a bunch more to flee.
Then you've also got to think that the allegiance abilities also provide some additional synergies to grail knights which makes them even better and have arguably fairly easy access to re-rolls in the damsel/enchantress synergy.
I can tell you now I'd love to have Grail Knights (possibly even Breton or current version) in my Free Peoples list.
-
8 minutes ago, Nielspeterdejong said:
also I added the suggestion of making the Foot Knight cost 150 points per 10 models, as they are similar in strength to the Greatswords. Again, we hope you will consider these changes, as we spend quite some time discussing this in our group, and honestly this should make them competetive enough without making them too powerful or even one of the top tier.
The Foot Knights are basically identical to Greatswords except they get 2 extra abilities and an extra point of bravery. IMO the musician/standard bearer changes really just balance each other out, where the Greatsword standard is better if you take larger units.
Righteous Indignation is reason enough to know they should cost more than Greatswords, as the ability to pile in and attack before removing a model with an elite infantry statline is super good.
The fact they get Holy Fervour is just icing on the cake which occasionally puts out some rend -2 attacks (Although even that can be buffed with the Enchantress spell).
-
Here are my own comments on the document:
Battle Traits
I like Protection of the Spirits (coincidentally, my version is pretty similar except units lose it if they retreat/flee due to battleshock). I think it's fine to have something that's situational, I don't feel it's the main focal point of the allegiance abilities anyway.
Personally what I would've liked to see (even if they are not the 'goto' trait/artefact) are ways to increase the power of the Protection. When I created my own Bretonnian ones, I had a trait that effected the General himself, while a one-use artefact which boosted all nearby units.
I have mixed feelings about the Lady Wills It. Something about it doesn't feel quite right to me. Maybe it's the name, maybe it's because it feels like one of the 'bandaid' fixes for medium cavalry. Dunno. Maybe it feels right when it's played in game, but on paper to me it doesn't feel right.
Really like the Favour token concept. I think if anything, what you'll want to do is make sure the wording is crystal clear. At the moment it's not clear if you use it at the start of the phase, or right before a unit attacks/makes saves/charges/etc.
Command Traits
They all look fine to me. As mentioned above, I think you could've probably put in an increase in some form to the Generals Spirit Protection save.
Lore of the Lady
Fair Tailwind - Would suggest to simplify it that the unit just adds D3+1" to their movement value until your next Hero phase. That way it feels right, since the tailwind would surely help whichever direction they are going. I guess if this was a Wind Blast, then I would understand pushing units around, but the theme doesn't feel that way.
Entanglement - This is super powerful, and perhaps could even argue that a casting value of 6 may be too much. In essence, you're almost shutting down an enemy units movement and charging opportunities potentially for 2 of their turns (of course, it could also end up being 0). I'm actually not sure that this is a healthy spell for the game in it's current state. Something potentially not as 'oppressive' would be to reduce the units move and charge distances by D3".
Glimpse of Fate - Honestly feels a bit boring. A more interesting 'foresight' ability might be that unit can use one Favour of the Lady ability for free until your next hero phase. IMO actually more thematic as there are many ways you can change your fate, not just by smashing the enemy better.
Nature's Wrath - Not fussed. Dunno how it compares to similar Sylvaneth spells. It may potentially be one point too high in casting power, but can see it being quite powerful.
Strengthen Spirits - Really dislike this spell. Spiritual strengthening to me doesn't scream 'increase armour even more!'. Would much rather this was just a 'bonus save' instead.
Revivify - You probably need to be clearer on how this interaction works, as I assume you should heal models then revive models first?
Steed Traits
I think it would've been nice to have different traits for the different mount types.
Artefacts
It feels weird that the Morningstar has a defensive ability when it's a weapon (althought I kinda get where it's coming from). Think it would've been better off on a re-imagined Armour of the Midsummer Sun.
The Silver Mirror is super good IMO and I wouldn't it. Any ability that can automatically unbind is very useful.
Warscrolls
I really feel it's weird to add back in the named characters. Embrace Age of Sigmar. Those heroes no longer exist. The Bretons or whatever you want to call them, should be some form of AoS faction and exist solely within the Age of Sigmar. So feel like it's a real step backwards to change them back into named characters.
The Lord on Demigryph command ability feels a bit good. Personally I would make the ability one or the other. Don't make it like the Lord on Warhorse +1. I get that they have different attack profiles (Which is kinda another weird thing between the 3 Lords), but I personally dislike command abilities that do everything the lesser one does + more (Order Draconis has the same issue).
Paladin's Heroic blow might be a bit good and is probably far more reliable than actually doing your regular attacks. Would have to do the maths, but that's my gut feel.
Not quite sure why the Paladin Standard Bearer works better on Peasants than Nobility. Is there a thematic reason behind this?
Not really sure I like that Questing Knights cause enemy Monsters to suffer -1 to hit them. The way I always saw them is that they're eager and ready to slay monsters, not that Monsters are frightened of them.
I personally don't like the idea of including Demigryph Knights in Bretonnia. They're an Empire/Free Peoples thing, and I dislike crossing them over. Bretonnia also already has Pegasi that fulfil a monstrous cavalry role. That's just my 2 cents though.
I like the extra wound on Grail Knights, although it potentially could've been represented by something else also.
Personally I would simplify the Pegasus Knights sweep over the lines. There seems to be a lot of writing to basically allow them to go wherever they want with those 6". Or if you want them to do that, change it so instead of a double pile-in and attack, at the end of the combat phase if they charged that turn you may move each model D6".
Massed Accuracy is completely unnecessary on Peasant Bowmen. They already have an ability which gets better with more models you take (generally units only get one ability that increases they increase in size).
Battle Pilgrims prayer needs a wording fix, should affect 'that' unit rather than 'this' unit considering you can effect other PEASANTRY units.
I would probably simplify the Reliquae. Just give the unit +1 bravery and NOBILITY keyword while the Reliquae is alive. Feels a bit weird to get bravery from nearby heroes.
Mounted Yeomen feel like they've got a few too many rules. Most fast cavalry units get ONE of scouting, hit and run, swift volley. Feels like you're trying too hard to make them 'good'. I would just revert them back to their compendium scroll.
I would consider decreasing the Woodsmen's armour save to 6+. I doubt that they are very armoured moving through the woods (To put things in perspective, Free Peoples Archers are also 6+, while Freeguild Guard are 5+).
My suggestion for the Foot Knights would be to have them always hitting on 3+ and get rid of Redemptive Resolution. At the moment it feels like the unit has a special ability too many.
Ahh I see, you've got buffs baked into the Protection of the Spirits based on the Blessed Lake warscroll. Seems cool, not sure that the Lakes come with them when they're on the move. Personally I think it should just be an optional warscroll that makes for cool narrative games, but not part of the matched play army because of that.
Battalions
Didn't really read through these.
Points
Skimmed through these, but at a glance look pretty in line with the Free Peoples stuff and probably good enough for playtesting.
The one thing I will mention is that the Lord on Warhorse may be a bit too cheap. He has a very competitive offensive profile even without the Pegasus IMO. Would consider pushing him up to 120.
I don't really know where the Collegiate Arcane allies comes from. I'd probably just leave them out unless there's some kind of fluff justification that backs it up.
Those are my thoughts anyway. I think they'd honestly be on a pretty similar power level to Free Peoples which I think is a good thing to aim for IMO.
-
13 minutes ago, Arkiham said:
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/aos_warscrolls/aos_matched_play_points.pdf
stealth update for forgeworld
Eguo remains unchanged.
fairly confident this issue of it " being a named character " is resolved now with the maggotkin book not stating it as one either.
What's actually changed in those pdfs? At a glance I can't really tell.
-
7 hours ago, Darth Alec said:
I guess the Nurgle release sorta disproves that. But then again, the black coach is a nobody model, plague marines are a much bigger deal. The Black Coach he heard about is much more likely to be a completely new model in the vein of a coach.
I don't necessarily think the Nurgle release disproves that they don't like remaking existing models.
It's just I think they definitely carefully choose when they want to remake stuff. It hasn't really come up so far in Age of Sigmar, because you know, most of the factions have been new (Stormcast, Fyreslayers, Overlords, Ironjawz) or expanding factions that already have a lot of plastic (Khorne, Tzeentch, Sylvaneth, Maggotkin).
Overall though, I think the Nurgle Daemons stuff were pretty obvious to do. Greater Unclean one was a pretty old model now and super unimpressive for what should be a centrepiece of the army. Beasts of Nurgle were the only finecast unit left on the Daemon side (Other than Epidemus who is a special character). So both made pretty good sense to get done in plastic.
I assume Slaanesh will have a similar upgrade as well if they ever get redone, new Greater Daemon and Fiends as they're the only real finecast units left other than special characters for the Daemons.
So yeah, I don't think they'll be redoing every kit from the 6th edition era. Most of those kits belong to the factions that are unlikely to see an update anyway.
-
On 1/6/2018 at 1:51 AM, bsharitt said:
I wonder why the Chaos Sorcerer Lord doesn't have points to begin with? How many small base plastic models still in production were left out?
So there's an easy set of rules to pick up when it comes to Skirmish units:
- Only plastic models are given a renown value
- Renown is points per model divided by 5 (Rounded).
- The maximum renown a model has in Skirmish is 28 (Probably is really 30, but nothing ends up at that value)
- Most renown costs are based on an earlier iteration of the GHB2017 points (Which explains why not all the renown costs follow rule 2 precisely).
So the Chaos Sorcerer Lord breaks rule 3, since it was updated in the GHB2017 to be 160 points (Which resolves at 32 renown).
In my opinion, it's weirder that the Orruk Warboss didn't make it into Skirmish. As he falls in at 28 renown. Makes me wonder if they were considering upping his points under GHB2017 at some point.
Another oddity are the Morghasts, since they come in at 22 renown per model.
Otherwise pretty much everything in the renown list matches those 4 rules.
-
4 minutes ago, Rogue Explorator said:
Since they supposedly reprint all Warscrolls, they may just decide on a case by case basis and add individual keywords for Blood, Night, Sacrament and Grand Host allegiance.
Perhaps. I think this is not a very elegant solution though, as I get the feeling some factions are going to cross over into multiple legions.
Deathrattle for example, I think you'll find in all 4 legions (Nagash, and each Mortarch). Does that mean they should basically have 5 faction keywords (Deathrattle, Nagash, Night, Sacrament, Blood)?
Seems like a lot of keywords to add onto a warscroll. And I expect that Nagash's legion is going to be ALL Death. So to me, it makes more sense that they're defined similarly to how they did the Great Cities, by mentioning keywords and unit names.
-
I mean, in a way I'm glade that Flesh-Eater Courts aren't going to be in there. None of the existing Mortarchs make sense to lead the Flesh-Eaters, only the return of Ushoran himself would make sense to lead them. And that's certainly not going to be happening in Battletome : Legions of Nagash.
My prediction would be that the allegiances are going to end up being like the Great Cities allegiance abilities, but done to a higher level. So hopefully there'll be more unique rules, artefacts, command traits, etc for each Mortarch Allegiance and a list of the models/keywords that can be added into that allegiance.
But something that's a bit odd, is how do you decide which factions serve under what Mortarchs? I think it's simple enough that Soulblight don't serve Arkhan, but how do you decide who uses Deadwalkers or Nighthaunts? Perhaps Neferata doesn't use Deathmages? Dunno, there aren't actually that many Death factions to shift around.
For example, it could be something like
Night : Mannfred, Deathlords (Except named characters), Deathrattle, Deathmages, Deadwalkers, Soulblight, Nighthaunt
Sacrament : Arkhan the Black, Deathlords (Except named characters), Deathrattle, Deathmages, Deadwalkers, Nighthaunt
Blood : Neferata, Deathlords (Except named characters), Deathrattle, Nighthaunt, Soulblight
And in particular, I wonder if they're going to need their specific named character to be a part of the allegiance or not.
-
Just now, Davariel said:
@someone2040 Pfft, everyone knows warrior priests never sport such magnificent facial hair - those mutton chops are pure Freeguild!
Although the witch hunter does have a very dapper moustache so maybe you have a point
Haha I guess I'm used to the Freeguild Generals with the fluffy hats and not so much on the facial hair side of things (Although... that being said I probably should know better since I do have the dude with huge moustache with pistol and hammer).
That being said, in relation to the Warrior Priest above. It's a bit of a shame that the pose is so.... similar, identical almost. Think it would look a bit clowny to have them both in the same army.
-
6 minutes ago, Davariel said:
Joking aside I'm a little underwhelmed by our Stormcast herald. He seems like a random blend of ideas - Stormcast Warrior, village blacksmith, freeguild general... and is he wearing pearls?
It's not a bad model per se but it doesn't live up to the awesome standard set by the other three IMO.
I would probably say Devoted of Sigmar rather than Freeguild General... I mean look... I found his bald brother!
-
2
-
It's not a bad model per se but it doesn't live up to the awesome standard set by the other three IMO.
Warscroll Designer (BETA)
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Yeah, for some reason it only appears to be happening on one of my Warscrolls now that I've fiddled around a bit. Maybe there's just some bug effecting that particular warscroll I've created.
Another potential thing to look into (although it's definitely a more niche issue) is the keywords section should expand when it can't fit in a single line. I'm trying to think where I saw this occur before in a real warscroll, but it's not coming to mind at the moment. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it, even though most of the time it won't come up.
As for the column issue.
I mucked around with the page source a bit. It might be worth investigating "display:inline-block" on the Divs that make up the various combinations of title+description. From some early mucking around it looked good, but of course the stuff wasn't overflowing onto the next column which I guess is a pro and a con.
It is kinda cool though to know I can muck around in the page source if I want to export something with nicer columns. Although one time it did do something funky where it split a word onto a newline around an apostrophe and added like a tab or something.
Anywhoo! I'm definitely no css/web dev expert. If anything, mucking around with this kinda stuff (here and professionally) has certainly made me stray away from that path further.