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

Jamopower

Members
  • Content Count

    974
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

653 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. It would be expensive mechanism, if the Slanns had any good spells to start with...
  2. I would be surprised if we don't get at least partly High elf based faction as they have always been popular and would most likely be something that many people want.
  3. Northern and Eastern Europe, i.e. the countries that have had big interest in the ETC and whose tournament scene has formed around that.
  4. My main gripe with the terrain pieces is how badly they usually fit to the rest of the table. Nothing wrong having an underground cavern with a throne on a pedestal that the flesh eater courts are defending from invading Skaven, bit more wrong with a green grass field with a throne on a pedestal with the Beastman herdstone set up few hundred meters from it
  5. This is simplifying a lot. Even with the most masterful master there is, I'm sure that there are a lot of forces that have a very lopsided set-ups against even a mediocre player with an army that has all the tools the new books give you. And even then, the number of units you can actually choose from is pretty limited. Nothing wrong with that as such, but the game is far from a situation where the list building wouldn't have a massive influence on the outcome of the game if the players are even close to the same level. Of course a complete beginner might lose with any kind of super army, but that doesn't tell anything on the overall side of things. This is a fundamental aspect of Warhammer and it has ever been so. If you want to compete, you'll have to leave a lot of options out of the consideration. Though the situation at the moment is pretty good in that sense, that there are reasonably many options available. Still I'm pretty sure that no one thinks that, say, Wanderers, Disposssed or Freeguild are anywhere near as good as any of the new forces that have the new type of battletomes. The warscrolls are in general worse and they get less than half of the good free stuff that has been added into the game since their rules were made. Even if sometimes you can win a game or two against the newer forces it is still a very different thing if the win percentage is in longer run 33% than if it is 55%. As a comparison, in Magic a deck is already strong if the win rate is 60% against the field. And as a disclaimer, I'm mainly interested n thematic scenarios and casual gaming. It's just bit strange, that for some reason the "basic mindset" seems to be that everything that GW has released for the game is the baseline where you might remove something, instead of the baseline being just the warscrolls, where you add the extra stuff like allegiance abilities or the realm rules to spice things up a bit, but still keeping the battlefield level. The games are usually most interesting where at the start of the game, both sides have equally good chances to success. Except if it is a special scenario where the goal is to last as long as it is possible or such.
  6. Yeah, playing with just the "free content" would probably reduce a lot of issues there is. This concerning casual gaming with what ever armies. In more competitive setting it is just an unfortunate fact that the range of options you "can play" is limited to certain degree. All my armies are results from how awesome the Grand alliance system was when I started playing this game, so I heartily agree to two earlier posts.
  7. I like the basic rules in the second edition, but as my main army is mixed order based on freeguild units, I don't have any sort of incentive to play the game in anything other than very curated casual environment. My army is just so bad against anything that there's little to do. Luckily there are lots of good alternative fantasy games that have recently released. It's of course not the game's fault as such, but in my mind there are at least 4 levels of rules in the system at the moment (realms, the allegiance allegiance abilities like different cities where your army is coming, the terrain pieces, the special endless spells) that really should just be similar add-ons as all the content we used to have in White dwarfs for flavour (like the general trait tables etc.). They just add more inbalances and complexity to the game, which is fine in some degree, but having everythin everytime is just lame. Especially as at the same time there are armies in the game that doesn't even have basic allegiance abilities. Of course the counter argument is that you just have to play the armies/units that are good, but that doesn't help too much if someone wants to play Ogres or mix of old High elves that still are thematically perfectly reasonable.
  8. Which is not surprising, as it originates from the WHFB etc community that has strong roots in Eastern and Northern Europe. I believe it's most popular in Scandinavia, Poland, Russia, etc.
  9. I doubt that Infinity or Kings of War are particularly big in the States. On the other hand in parts of Europe I can imagine that they are close to AoS popularity. But even bigger than them in Europe is the 9th Age. At least in Finland it's far more popular game, at least as far as organized gaming goes.
  10. Out of interest, do the rankings go back to WHFB time? Would be interesting to compare on that.
  11. In my eyes the main downside of "auto include" free army specific terrain is that it looks very odd on the table if you think any further than the actual gameplay. I mean somehow, when beastmen and night goblins are fighting each other, their totems, that happen look pretty time consuming constructs, happen to locate few hundred meters from each other. They have endured each other's until their construction work is ready. Then it's time to fight?
  12. After preview of the Khorne book, which already is in the new format, it's pretty certain that all of the "1st edition" books will be re-released with endless whatever. Soulblight looks interesting. Hopefully they'll do some sweet, but not over the top vampires. There is always the potential of them being "Undead marines". The sylvaneth warband is a sure buy for me. I only have five and need eight for a Saga warband.
  13. You used to get units of Halflings, Ogres and dwarfs in an Empire army. They were in the list, not allies.
  14. I never meant real combination. Got bit sidetracked from my original "thesis", which is that people who like elves will get the elven armies. Maybe not all of them, but having a new elven (or dwarven, or undead, etc.) army every now and then, will keep large enough amount of them buying new stuff and more importantly, will get new people interested. That adds up to more money in the long run than giving a new book and unit or two every few years. The fact that you can field them all on the table is a plus, but not anyways necessary. I'm pretty sure that quite a big share of the people that walk outside of a Warhammer store with bag full of boxes don't have a clue what they have bought in terms of gameplay, but they are very sure what they have got in terms of looks and in that way having your elves in a forest or in a sea theme doesn't have too much of an impact, if elves as a grand theme is what you're interested, compared to being interested on, say, dwarfs.
  15. Still at the same period of time they released the Idoneth, which would have been max two units in the Dark elven army if they had been released for WHFB. So I would believe we'll get mix of both in the future. Tie in books to wrap up the older factions together (a Free cities book or few, with universal allegiances for Aelf, Duardin and Free people would be easy, as with one for ogres and then some new stuff like the rumoured Darkoath.
×
×
  • Create New...