EMMachine
-
Posts
1,649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by EMMachine
-
-
14 hours ago, annarborhawk said:
I hear where you are coming from, but with AOS people are generally not looking to recreate or to retell a historical (or historical-fictional) battle (though there is the narrative campaign system for that, where balance is never a thing). In match play, where people are concerned with points and balance, it is because they are looked at AOS as a competitive game system. In theory, I suppose, one could build a competitive asymmetrical system (n 1), but I think that would be much harder than just trying to find a modicum of balance.
I don't think that you are really forced to recreate historical battles. But @Beer & Pretzels Gamer has a point. In history forces were never balanced (at least not in the way with having similar points for both armies).
Limitations were mostly the Rescources to build weapons, economy and how many soldiers a country could have in a region.
At least in historical games this is repressented that an army has a fix number of slots for some types of units. (so a late war American Army can only have 1 platoon of Pershing or 1 Super Pershing but their are also large possibilities for missmatches (a heavy tank company against a Armoured Car Recce Company).
In AoS we partly have the problem, that it isn't even completly clear how an "historical" army would look like. The closest thing we have are basicly the Battalions. Some are entire armies, some are parts of an Army. Sadly some are feeling quite static, especially if units are spammed inside a Battalion and are only used in that one battalion.
But, looking at matched play lists their is also something that basicly doesn't exist. consequences.
Tournament Lists are often build with the best stuff the Battletome has (besides the point that both armies have a nearly same amount of points the rescources are nearly infinit). If we would do this in our world after some amount battles we would have a problem. In every battle soldiers get Injured or killed and equipment get's destroyed. The army would most likely win the first battles but in the end the army would cripple itself (if they even had the rescources in the first place).
This is the difference with Narrative play.
Metabuilds often won't really fit into the story behind (because of being unrealistic), but also games will most likely have consequenses because of the plot.
So instead of only "Meta-Balancing" maybe battletomes should have a little more focus how an army or part of it would look like (not with restrictions, but with Lore explanation). Their are some units that need to be fixed but metabuilds are quite often quite unrealistic so priority one should be fixing builds that are to strong/week that would be plausible in the lore.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Heijoshin said:
o many answers to GWs mishaps are always "Yeah but COVID / Brexit / Boat stuck in canal", like these issue completely tie GW's hands and there is literally no other alternative. At the end of the day, despite what happened with Brexit and Covid, GW still CHOSE to split their Lumineth release. They still CHOSE to delete all mentions of Cursed City being permanent, then go MIA on the topic. Sure, I get it. Plans change, but when the choice of plan B is "what's best for the customer and slightly less better for GW" and "what's best for GW but definitely not cool for at least some customers", they've chosen themselves every. single. time. And I know what you are gonna say: "Yeah, but they are a company! They need to make money!". Yeah, you're right, but a) they're a multi-milllion pound company and had their best year ever last year, so i'm sure they will survive making a little bit less than expected for once. Let's be honest, would GW REALLY have made any less money if they had moved the HoS battletome back a few months to coincide with this model release? Again, delaying would have been fine, but GW CHOSE not to, to the detriment of some people I imagine b) despite the fact that people admit that GW is a company, there's always a very vocal group that really go out of their way to try and humanise them and give them a pass as if they are some poor helpless indie that just has to do these sort of things to get by.
Things like this new model are less outright damaging, but I just can't help but sigh and think "But why???". Why do you keep doing this? Lumineth, Cursed City, this (admittedly less damaging, but still in the same spirit). It really boggles my mind that such simple, honest and human communication is completely beyond them, but would go SUCH a long way to helping us empathise with them.I have the feeling Battletome Releases at the same time as the Broken Realms campaign feels a little rushed. (And I had this feeling when the Battletome for Slaanesh was announced).
GW would have been able to add the warscrolls of new models in the campaignbooks were the models were needed and than bring anything together in 3. Edition with a new Battletome. That way slaanesh could have multiple releases and still it would be 1 Battletome Release at the end.
-
In my case reaction is mixed.
After I'm a store buyer (only buying and ordering from a store) the pause may help, because I'm not able to buy anything because stores are closed. I still don't know if I'm able to get my hands on a Cursed City box from Store Contingents. I still wasn't able to buy the new Lumineth Battletome or Broken Realms: Teclis in German translation or some of the Novels that were released latly.
It can help giving some time to prepare the Wikis.
On the other side, the delays can in worst case mean that something get's cut.
I actually had thought that this week could have been another Preview because it is the last Saturday of the month and their wasn't any in April.
3 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:Totally agree. It’s insane the pace they were moving at and I think it’s the right choice. It will be very interesting to see where things go in May, especially if third edition is scheduled this year. I’m happy if they release things in a bi weekly manner but I have enough stuff going on to suffer from the fear of missing out!
I think it could have worked better is GW had continued the schedule they had in January and February, but we don't even know what GW wanted to release during the entire year.
-
Der nächste Meilenstein wurde erreicht, die nächsten 100 Artikel sind voll mit 2300 Artikeln.
---
The next milestone has been reached, the next 100 articles are full with 2300 articles.
-
1 minute ago, Phasteon said:
Really? There are people spending that much time and money just to be competitive at a game they don‘t like and nobody outside the hobby cares about?
And even within the hobby most people dont care about tournaments (or tournament winners in particular).
Strange folks.
Well basicly the guys who were spamming Abhorrant Archregent or Frostlords on Stonehorn, or in the old edtion Tzaangor Skyfires + those who spammed the best option of units where only one model is inside the box and the warscroll was changed later (Grundstok Thunderers, Stormfiends).
- Player 1: "Hey here is my list with 4 Abhorrant Archregents."
- Player 2: "Aren't those the equivalent of an Emperor, one of them ruling over multiple courts."
- Player 1: "I don't care, they are strong."
I think it is one thing if a lore legit build is far to strong or if it is a build nobody, who cares about the lore would even build.
But their is also the point that GW maybe should make more Warscroll Battalion variation . The Battalions are basicly a showcase how an Army (or part of it) can look like.
Their are good examples like Flesh-Eater Courts, where each unit is the option for multiple Battalions or the bad once where every unit has exactly 1 Battalion (Fyreslayers, Citites of Sigmar, ... ).
-
2
-
On 3/3/2021 at 5:32 AM, Grom said:
Fun read. Thanks for going to the effort of sharing your game with us. I motivates me to do the same. How do you find the new solo rules from WD458?
Sorry, I haven't seen that their was an answer, after their were no reactions before.
I hadn't played the other variants of the game yet + those two games were basicly my first games with the 2. Edition Ruleset.
It was a quite interesting experiance, especially looking at the narrative play aspect, because if you don't roll the worst result on the randomizer, you don't have to play against the most bloken stuff (like it is some times the case with real people) + it can create a story.
The only thing I think is, that it could be a better experiance mixing a little with the ruleset against the troggoths, because in that case you would have 1 Hero + 2 Units instead of 3 Heroes (basicly like with the 2 player Campaign Boxes). + the rules are only good for "kill" missions because the reaction table is missing a "move to the next objective". (Or the case that Khorne units would be able to dug in feels a little weird)
Something that could be interesting for example would be 1 Hero + 2-3 units against a invading Flesh-Eater Courts Abattoir with a Lord Liverbelch (especially after the White Dwarf 462 has basicly rules for AI conrolled Flesh Eater Courts).
How is your experience with Solorules @Grom? Do you have Battlereports?
-
I had actually played the White Dwarf Rules (with my Battlereports here)
Was a quite nice way to play especially when interested in more narrative ways to play + you're not forced to play against the most broken stuff (if you doesn't role bad with the unit randomizer.
To add to the list above. There were also reactionrules for Flesh Eater Courts in the latest White Dwarf 462.
On 4/7/2021 at 5:16 PM, Geek_howard said:I would like to see how I can make them work on a larger scale qswell too add some variety.
I think the main problem with larger scale could be stat the rules for soloplay are based on "moving to the next unit/targeting the next unit", so the way to bait the units and them blocking each other is higher with more units and a larger field. With the small scale and when moving first as a player, the enemy is most likely in charge range in round 1 when playing on a small board.
I don't know how the inofficial rules are, but if you don't only have destroy missions, their's a "move to the next objective" reaction missing.
-
On 4/5/2021 at 10:44 AM, Jimmy Bob Jones said:
Ok so, ever since I've gotten into Warhammer I've kinda wanted to make a skaven army. But my budget for this kinda thing isn't the best so I'm wondering what would be a good 1500 point army for skaven with as little cost. I'll be fighting against khorne, nurgle, and ogors most likely
Are you guys use the restrictions for 1000 points or for 2000 Points?
1500 is houseruling and not official of GW. It also makes a difference how many Battleline units you have to play and how many Heroes, Artillery and Behemoths you can play.
And yeah, clan pestilence should be one of the cheaper ways.
2 Start Collecting Boxes + 1 Plague Monks + 1 Verminlord Corruptor as an example (second Plague Furnace instead of Screaming Bell is also possible, but only if you have the 2000 Points restrictions, because that list has 3 Benemoths.
Allegiance: Chaos
Leaders
Plague Priest on Plague Furnace (200)
Verminlord Corruptor (280)
Grey Seer on Screaming Bell (240)
- General
Battleline
Units
20 x Plague Monks (160)
- Foetid Blades
- 1x Standard Bearers
- 1x Plague Harbingers
20 x Plague Monks (160)
- Foetid Blades
- 1x Standard Bearers
- 1x Plague Harbingers
20 x Plague Monks (160)
- Foetid Blades
- 1x Standard Bearers
- 1x Plague Harbingers
Artillery
Plagueclaw (150)
Plagueclaw (150)
Total: 1500 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 0
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 110
-
8 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
I think that an FAQ like it happened for the Blue Scribes (hence making the loreseeker a named character) is more likely, but who knows
Only if making the the loremaster unique isn't a future few for 3.0, so that Heroes like Auric Runefathers, Auric Runemasters, Lord-Celestants, Frostlords, Abhorrant Archregent, Arcanaut Admirals etc. that lead entire armies of even multiple kingdoms are restricted to 1 in each army with the next generals Handbook (because they would be in the lore).
But without that ruling from Pitched Battles the following models wouldn't be named Characters anymore because they still have the old warscrolls without mentioning that they are named characters:
- Neferata,
- Mannfred,
- Rotigus,
- Epidemius,
- Horticulous Slimux,
- the Glottkin, Morbidex,
- Orghotts,
- Bloab,
- Festus,
- Gutrot
- Volturnos
- Lotann
When these models are updated GW can remove the sentence from pitched Battle that unique = named Character.
-
1
-
15 hours ago, TheCovenLord said:
As @Aelfric has stated a way to meet all the criteria set out by the rules is that you can always move the unit 0.1mm (or less, even a molecule closer counts technically) as long as they end closer to the closest enemy than before. If their weapons are in range they MUST strike.
This is an old wording that doesn't exist in 2.0 anymore.
The 2.0 rules say:
QuoteEach model must finish is't pile in move at least as close to the nearest enemy model as it was at the start of the move.
So a move of 0" is legit because you don't end up further away from the model + there are even situations where you can't pile in (because their could be 2 models with the same distance in different directions.
QuoteQ: When one of my models piles in, if it is equally close to two different enemy models, do I have to finish the move as close or closer to each of those models? For example, if my model is in base contact with two enemy models, does it have to finish a pile-in move in base contact with both those models?
A: Yes to both questions – if this is impossible the model cannot move.
This or rules that a unit isn't able to pile in would be impossible if you would have to end closer.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
This is why there is a discussion and why an FAQ would be welcome to clarify the situation
This is what I meant here:
1 hour ago, EMMachine said:I have the feeling, the main problem is. GW included the rule 2018, so they didn't had to change all named Character Warscrolls from the first edition and later completly forgot about it.
There is no real need for that ruling anymore because all named characters after 2. Edition state this on their warscroll (where it belongs because Unique as part of the pitched Battle profile is only part of Matched play rules, not part of the corerules).
In the end, if you use the Loreseeker in Open or Narrative play, you can use as many you want and give him Command Traits and Artefacts because he is not a Named Character and Pitched Battle profiles are only for pitched Battle.
Maybe they change it with 3.0.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, PiotrW said:
I think there's also a bit of debate whether Named characters can take Mount traits etc. I'm inclined to say no and treat Named characters as uncustomizable. But maybe I'm wrong...
The corerules only state that named characters can't take Command Trait and Artefacts. A Mount Trait is neither of them, so it is not restricted.
-
20 minutes ago, AnarchMage said:
From what I’ve seen, there’s a bit of debate on the topic since the top of all point lists says that Unique units are named characters. I err on the side of caution with stuff like this, but that’s why I think an FAQ is needed
I have the feeling, the main problem is. GW included the rule 2018, so they didn't had to change all named Character Warscrolls from the first edition and later completly forgot about it.
There is no real need for that ruling anymore because all named characters after 2. Edition state this on their warscroll (where it belongs because Unique as part of the pitched Battle profile is only part of Matched play rules, not part of the corerules).
-
2 hours ago, AnarchMage said:
It’s under the points. He’s listed as “unique”, so you sadly only get one. Probably for the best, though I’m hoping an FAQ lets him take an artifact
Their is no FAQ needed. Unique and named Character are two different things.
Unique only means that you can only have one in your army. Only if the warscroll Description says that it is a named character it is a named character and only than they can't use command traits or artecacts.
It is like with Flowers and roses.
Every rose is a Flowers but nie ever Flower is a rose.
All named characters are unique but not every unique unit is a named character.
-
1 hour ago, Aelfric said:
You have to fight and therefore pile in - but how far you pile in is up to you. So you could just pile in 0.1 mm if you wanted to avoid getting closer to the enemy.
They do not have to move at all, they only have to end their move at least the same distance to the closest enemy model they started.
But in the end. If something is in weapon range, it has to attack.
-
20 hours ago, leadfoot352 said:
Firstly, a revamp to the protection characters have against being targeted by shooting attacks. It's an easy fix: "Look out sir!: Missile weapon attacks targeting models with the hero keyword, and that lack the monster keyword, automatically miss if the hero is within 3 inches of a unit with 5 or more models." The reason I have it function like this is that it still allows players to use abilities that don't use the attack sequence or that happen in the shooting phase but are not shooting attacks to still target heroes. This raises the power of those effects, and lends them a unique niche.
It is far to easy to create loopholes with those "heroes cant be attacked when unit is nearby rules".
In your writing the unit doesn't even have to be visible, so the hero (blue) standing in the open would be simply immun to damage because a unit (green) is hiding behind a wall + it created conflicts between Attack that automaticly hit (so automaticly hit attacks would still hit because of the ruling that the active player gets preference in ruling).
Edit:
The simplest solution would be that you can't target heroes if you have to draw a line through another unit. That way you would have to screen and not can simply cheat like with the picture above.
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, GenericEdgyName said:
Huh, so this month's coin is chaos/be'lakor, practically confirming his BR book comes out in April. Good to be sure
Well the march one was Lumineth Realmlords and we are getting the Stuff on April 3rd.
It could have been planned for April, but it is possible that it will be may.
-
After the map was from a time before 2. Edition, I have spotted at least 2 map changes since.
At the position of the Searing Sea is now the Crescent Sea
and Klarikkaz Earthscar is now in that region, covering at least parts of "Tears of Fate" and "Razorfang Sprawl" (if you want to play in the actual region).
-
1
-
-
An interesting part in this discussion is that the "destroyed" case is mostly ignored.
QuoteQ: Some abilities refer to units that have been ‘destroyed’. What does this mean exactly?
A: A unit is considered to be destroyed when the last model from the unit is slain or flees. When measuring the range to a destroyed unit, measure to the position occupied by the last model in the unit to be slain or flee.
So GW rulewriters know the difference between a model being slain or fleeing. Sadly that wasn't part of the Rules itself yet, when they came out in summer 2018.
Now we know that the latest Disciples of Tzeentch Battletome was released in January 2020 (1,5 years after the new edition) and the Horrors Warscroll wasn't a simple copy & paste of the old one because they included Pink, Blue and Brimstone Horrors into 1 Warscroll
With this knowledge in mind. When fleeing models should count for "Split and Split again" why didn't GW write "is slain or flees" like they did with the destroyed ruling above? The reason that the "or flees" part is not in the rule is most likely that GW wanted that they don't split when fleeing.
Edit:
Also I think with the new Edition their could be a change in the wording because when looking at the 9th Edition 40k Rules. In case of the combat Attrition Test they write the following
Quote... You deside which models from your unit flee - those models are removed from play and count as been destroyed, but never trigger any rules that are used when a model is destroyed.
I could see a ruling like this with AoS 3.0 to clarify the ruling entirely.
-
15 hours ago, KingBrodd said:
This is the first time I can say I actually dont like a model. That face is damn ugly. Looks like shes giving me duck lips or blowing me a kiss.
Not the best face GW made, but it is interesting that if we would remove the Backpack she could be some sort of Paladin/Priest next to some of the Cursed City Models or in a City of Sigmar.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, kozokus said:
The Dais Arcanum
The Arachnocauldron
The sanctum of amyntokMost non predatory endlessspells are immobile because they don't have a movement Value. The mentioned spells are becoming one with the casters model, so they have a movement Characteristic thanks to the Model casting it (and not being neutral to the enemy).
If they still wouldn't be able to move, why did the Balewind Vortex need the Sentence.
QuoteA Wizard on a Balewind Vortex cannot move.
+ In case of of the Dais Arcanum their is the Sentence
QuoteA model on a Dais Arcanum has a Move characteristic of 12" and can fly.
So this thing is definitly able to move (the sentence would be useless otherwise).
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Still-young said:
Were the rumours just AoS centric? Did it mention what would be the preorder for the 10th?
We will know on Sunday.
-
14 hours ago, Silphid said:
I am currently working on hedonites models and with the upcoming release of Be’lakor, am considering a mixed force of chaos, with slaanesh and nurgle. If I take a S2D list and add my slaanesh units and nurgle daemons, can I take battallions from each of those respective battletomes into my S2D army? I get that I won’t have access to faction specific things such as exploding 6’s for slaanesh, or the wheel of maggotkin of nurgle.
Best case scenario for me would be to play a maggotkin battallion along with some Hedonites units and Belakor. Under the current rules for Belakor/S2D, is it possible? Or are battalions restricted to their own faction/battletome?
thanks for clarifying this for me!
You won't get much of the units you want into a S2D unit. Only 1 of every 4 units can be an Allied unit + in case of a 2000 Point List, you only have 400 Points for Allies.
Next. If the Battalion is not part of the Faction (in most 2.0 Battletomes part of that Book) all units inside the Battalion are Allies.
QuoteQ: The rules say that a warscroll battalion can include allies and that they don’t count against the number of allies in the army. Does this rule only apply to battalions that share the same allegiance as the army, but that have units from two different factions (a battalion in a Daughters of Khaine army that has Daughters of Khaine and Stormcast Eternals units, for example)?
A: Yes. The faction a warscroll battalion belongs to is shown on its warscroll, above the title of the battalion. In addition, the battalion is assumed to belong to the Grand Alliance that its faction is a part of. Warscroll battalions that share the same allegiance as an army can always be taken as part of the army, and if they include any allied units, these units do not count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (or against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle). An army can include a warscroll battalion of a different allegiance to the rest of the army, but if it does so the units in it do count against the limits on the number of allies the army can have (and the points for the battalion and the units in it count against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a Pitched Battle).
If you want to play, Be'lakor with Deamons, you can play the Allegiance Abilities "The Legion of Chaos Ascendant" from "Archaons Wrath", their you can mix deamons from all gods, but you still wouldn't be able to play the Battalions from the Chaos God Battletomes. (My guess is, that Broken Realms: Be'lakor will have an Update on that Allegiance).
-
1 hour ago, Hannibal said:
The new Vanari Bladelords can become battleline (one unit will be battleline for each SCINARI HERO in your army). There is nothing written about "battleline in your LRL army".
Ellania and Ellathor can be used as allies in any army that has an ORDER general. These are SCINARI.
Does this mean you can have a unit of Bladelords as battleline in ANY army that has an ORDER general?
Even if Battleline wouldn't be Lumineth Realmlords only, they wouldn't be Battleline in most armies except for a "Grand Alliacne Order" Army, because most of the time they will be allies, and allies never count towards minimum Battleline.
-
1
-
First Prince Army also a Grand Alliance Chaos Army?
in Rules Questions
Posted
Either Slaanesh or Cities of Sigmar.
The weird thing with Legions of the First Prince is. It is not based on a Special Allegiance Keyword like the other two (the three Hosts in the Hedonites Battletome are based on the Slaanesh Allegiance, and in case of Cities of Sigmar it is based on the Cities of Sigmar Allegiance. Here they choose chaos because the units are split between 5 Allegiances. It updates and replaces a Allegiance Abilities and a Subfaction of the Wrath of Everchosen Book (after it didn't replace the Battalions from Wrath of Everchosen, those Battalions would most likely still be used here.
The Problem with the FAQs is, the point if a Battalion (or the units inside were part of the Allegiance) was never part of the rules itself (at least not on page 15 of the corerules or the Matched Play rules).
It was a FAQ decition that was an entire U-Turn how Battalions worked in the first edition, so we can really hope that GW will have a description inside the rules in 3rd Edition, how they want Battalions to work, or if we really get the "Matched Play Battalions" that were mentioned in Rumours.
No, you mean the Pitched Battle profiles.
Page 90 in Broken Realms Teclis states, that Page 92-95 is an update for the Maggotkin of Nurgle Battletome, Page 96-99 an Update for the Cities of Sigmar Battletome, Page 100 an Update for the Flesh-Eater Courts Battletome, and Page 101 for Ossiarch Bonereapers. So Battalions on these pages in the book are handled as they would be inside the Battletome.
The XINTIL WAR-MAGI Battalion is on page 97 of the book, so it is an Update for the Cities of Sigmar Battletome.