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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

596 Celestant-Prime

About Jamopower

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Jamopower

    The Rumour Thread

    I have a feeling that majority of the customer base doesn't even know what armies are in the top 3, let alone care about it.
  2. Jamopower

    Anyone Tried the Siege Rules?

    Looks like a good start. I have.however some suggestions to some points: The siege engines are really underpowered. If you start the game 12" from the wall, the battering ram on average doesn't have time to go through even a nornal wooden gate with it's attacks. They should be balanced against each other, so that with battering ram, you would on average go through the gate around turn three in a five round game, or have the breaking of the gate as an objective and have it happen later. On the other hand, the gate can't be so soft that a regular unit of stormcast paladins goes through it in a single combat round. Maybe the gate can be very tough, like 18 wounds with 0+ save, but the battering ram could have a rend - 5 on three attacks with d6 damage. Thus making the ram the go to weapon to break the gate. If the walls just give the defenders regular cover and anyone can climb the walls normally, they seem to be very easilly overrun. I don't see the siege towers or ladders having much of value if they just ignore the cover. I would make the ladders or siege tower prerequisite to even have the possobility to scale the walls and add +2 to saves, - 1 to hit and a 4+ save against mortals for the people on the ramparts. Otherwise the defenders are easilly shot out from there by the attackers. This of course should be shown in the price, the defender should be heavily outnumbered. The walls are very tough to break with normal attacks. A cannon takes around 18 shots to break one. However, they are pretty easy to break with mortal wounds. Unit of 20 executioners go through the castle wall in 2 combat rounds. I would make them have lower armour save, maybe 3+, but at the same time make them impossible to damage by other units than war machines, monsters and magic and have a 5+ save against mortal wounds. Of course this can be tweked according the scenario and what is wanted from the game. If a collapse of wall is wished to be a part of the scenario, design the rules so that it is likely to happen midway to the game. If the objective of the game is to break the gate, make it happen around turn four or five if the attacker is succesful.
  3. Well it depends. When playing the pitched battle scenarios with smaller armies, it really promotes on going with smaller units to have more of them. At least I always feel that few extra units would be a good thing to have as we play almost exclusively 1500 points on 6x4 table. When the points limit go down, the table gets larger and the objectives harder to get. I don't consider this as a downside. I have always felt, that having more room on the table makes the game bit more tactical as the movement is more important. And not just the movement stat, but the aspects of when you start moving and which direction. Of course, on the other hand, in smaller games you have less room for combos and buffs, which of course are also a major part of the game. Also some stuff is way more powerful in the smaller games, mainly those rules that don't scale much, like Seraphon summoning or units which are strong without any extra synergies. But on the other hand, some stuff are worse, it's same as with every tweak to the "basic" set-up. That's why it's good to wary, play different size games, different scenarios, multiplayer games, etc.
  4. Jamopower

    Removal of compendiums

    Well for them it's easy, because the compendium models are not sold anymore outside the special offers and second hand markets.
  5. Jamopower

    Age of Sigmar and TERRAIN

    I believe the GW/self made terrain experience is a matter that relates how long one has played the game. GW started proper terrain production, backed with only providing rules for their own terrain, relatively recently. Around 7th edition Fantasy battle the white dwarfs and army books were still full of fantastic scratch built terrain and guides how to do it yourself, but when they started producing the plastic kits, it has been almost entirely that stuff in all material.
  6. Jamopower

    Age of Sigmar and TERRAIN

    Well there are plenty of terrain rules, but as in 40k, just for the GW produced plastic kits, and as they don't sell water elements or areas of rough ground, they don't have rules. Luckily that kind of rules are really easy to tweak and agree. For other common types (woods, fences, buildings), their rules are pretty sensible in the new edition. Actually I think that in principle the terrain types we already have are already pretty good for most stuff. The only main thing missing is difficult ground that you can move through with reduced speed (like ground fields, rivers, swamps, etc.). The fences are sensible enough and with the forests you have a type of terrain that blocks los, but not movement, with big hills and stuff you have terrain that blocks los and movement and with buildings, you have type of terrain that blocks los, but you can move through if you spend a turn getting in it. The other thing worth of clarification would be the vertical measuring in places like ruins. Especially as it's the main terrain type they are selling. As now, there are annoying stuff like can you attack models that are standing on the second floor and occupying it totally etc.
  7. Jamopower

    Age of Sigmar and TERRAIN

    Runebrush has good points. I would add that it's also good practice that if you have a terrain piece that has a big impact on the game if there are units, put it in the midfield, so that units can't deploy there straight away. Thus it will add interest to the actual game, not to the roll off who gets to decide the table edges.
  8. Jamopower

    Age of Sigmar and TERRAIN

    I believe that pretty big part of the AoS community are pretty relaxed. I think that the initial release of the game with all the wacky stuff drove away the more "seirous" gamers and what was left were the jolly folk who are in it for the all parts of the experience. I think it's still visible as even if I have zero experience from the British tournament scene, the stuff I have read from Twitter and also the tournament packs seem to indicate that the players and the tournaments don't take them too serious. Even if players are still in it to win it, there are still pretty unorthodox stuff there, such as the realm rules in use at the Blackout.
  9. Jamopower

    Age of Sigmar and TERRAIN

    Why do you consider that it is any different in AoS than other games? Terrain is similar thing as the scenario, it usually is more favourable to some armies than others. That's why it is good to vary it between the games. it also keeps the game much more interesting. On the other hand, if the armies are not built to be extremes, the effect on the terrain and scenario are lot less, and of course if the armies are made to be extremes, then the match up will probably be a lot more decisive for how the game goes in many cases anyways. And I do think that this applies universally to any miniature game. I do think that the preference on how big effect the terrain will be allowed to have on the game is a player mindset thing. Some players like to be able to think everything trough before the game and don't like random variables on their tinkering. For that kind of players, having certain number of well defined terrain on table is good. This is seen at the highest peak in the very competitive games / environments, such as X-Wing, Warmachine or the ETC 9th age, where the terrain is two dimensional templates that is very clear for gaming, but quite underwhelming if you get your kicks in miniature games from other sides of it.
  10. Jamopower

    Anyone Tried the Siege Rules?

    When I first read that there will be siege rules, I was excited. However the actual rules were quite disappointing with very little Siege in them. although the pre-game tactics sound fun. Having played very good homebrew siege scenarios for Lord of the Rings and Saga the bar is quite high, so haven't even considered the rules in the GHB/core book. If I were to play siege, I would probably modify our Saga siege rules or the LotR scenario for AoS. If someone is interested on the scenarios, they can be found here: http://25yearsofminis.blogspot.com/2015/06/saga-crescent-cross-siege-scenario.html http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27657 The main points for good sieges (IMO): -walls should only be crossed by siege equipment: ladders, hooks or siege towers (or by flyers) -The deployment of attackers should be close enough that the game will be actually about crossing the walls, not about the attackers running across the field taking shots from the defenders -The attacker should have more troops and the defender should get a proper advantage from the cover, getting on the wall should feel like accomplishment -It's good idea to have a set condition that the wall will collapse from some point during the game. In the Saga scenario we had a trebuchet that did it and in LotR the Uruks had the bomb. IN both games it required very little rolls to do it, just a bit of uncertainity when it happens.
  11. Jamopower

    Age of Sigmar and TERRAIN

    We generally use quite a lot of terrain and agree before the game what everything does and what is impassable terrain. Common agreements are that rivers halve the movement from non-flying models and forests block line of sight through them. For special terrain pieces, such as statues or ritual stones we often give mysterious terrain rules, but not for stuff like forests and such. The board is set up together and the pieces moved around until both players feel that it is good and often we decide the scenario after that if it's just "a random game", for more special scenarios the table is of course done keeping the scenario in mind. I'll add some photos of tables below from my phone in a minute.
  12. Jamopower

    Terrain usage and placement at tournaments

    The reason why they didn't work in Fantasy was because of the very limited movement of the ranked units. In AoS (or any other similar skirmish game) there are zero problems with the garrisoning. Essentially your unit becomes the terrain piece and you lose the movement (and possible los blocking of the building) in exchange of -1 to hit against. It's of course advantageous for some units, but that's always the case with terrain of any sort.
  13. I can recommend as a next step from Skirmish to play with reduced size units. 5 models for regular stuff such as skeletons etc. and 3 models for more elite stuff like stormcast line infantry. It works nice as the small heroes are pretty equal terms in wounds with those units and you can have more units on board with smaller amount of models as playing with say 3x10 models plus a hero per side is much less interesting than having 6 units per side as it allows more interesting scenarios and the single combats are not so decisive. The game mechanics of AoS don't work very well with just a few units per side in my opinion. With the smaller games (500 points and such) I would stay with the grand alliance allegiance abilities, as the ones in the books are designed for bigger games (like blood tithe or the undead resurrection).
  14. Jamopower

    The Rumour Thread

    The copyright issues always sounded like a bad excuse, when they kept stuff that is even more generic in the game. I mean essentially the whole Freeguild range is a Pike and Shotte era Holy Roman Empire army with added skulls.
  15. Jamopower

    The Rumour Thread

    But if you like elves and they drop a lion ranger army on one year and a phoneix temple army on second, which can ally with eachother, it's quite likely that many will end up with both of them as it's very tempting to flesh out the full army after you already have started them. With updating of the old battletomes, it would be just few new units added to the existing collections while the new starters would be the same in both cases. Thus having small factions that people can "complete" makes a lot of sense for me. On the downside, it makes the armies very samey. In broad sense, after you have seen one Ironjawz army, you have seen all of them. Additionally there is less risk involved. If something doesn't sell, there has been less investment and the range can be dropped more easilly to mail order only status to free up space for new models. How I see the "factions" in AoS is that there are the Aelves (3 battletomes) , Duardin (2), Sigmar (4), Chaos(4), Death(3) and Destruction(3), which all get a release every now and then to keep the fans of the subgenre happy and buying. Of course in addition to these, there are some outliers like Skaven and Seraphon that will get mixed in along the way.