Jamopower
-
Posts
1,048 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Jamopower
-
-
1 hour ago, alyra said:
yes scaly skin in saurus counting as normal armor now is huge.
the faction is the slowest in game, sligthy faster than dwarfs only, and lowest init, so will get hit almost always before doing anything. so they were always sturdier, now they will atack last and are squishier
the worst offender is the saurus heros, saving at 4+ with shield only, not even fullplate. so the only way to get to 2+ is mounting him in cold one AND paying for a one magic item only on cloak, in order to get to 2+ but being stupid. while squishy heros like elves can easily get to 2+ only paying a fullplate+shield and a barded horse, not paying for any magic item or being stupid.
spears on saurus should have been swaped to other tipe of spear, trusting one is useless in saurus, since the +1 init being charged is great on elves, but 100% useless in saurus, since they will keep atacking last against 100% units in game when charged. and since normal weapon has 1 rend, u pay more for a spear to get only 1 atack per support when charged, and loose 1 rend on the 2 atacks on front row... in my opinion they should have had a normal spear allowing 1 extra row atack always without any bonus to init. or at least change his +1 init to +1 rend to make them resemble the hand weapons.
temple guard halberd should have allow to figth in extra row at least like elves one. it isnt very usefull on lizardmen book, since hand weapon has similar stats while allowing shield, only having 1 str less. and they should have had fullplate,( saving at 5s if using halberd now) again a saurus beast elite being squishier than an elf dont make any sense, similar units like black guard or phoenix one are way sturdier, when they shouldnt be. and im comparing them to elves since are supposed to be squishy, wont even start comparing then to ironbreakers saving at 3 rerolling 1s
+
saving at 3s with shield, or saving at 4 with halberd would have make more sense to me.
in general seems GW didnt thought about obsidian pasive while writting weapon rules, since it make every non hand weapon version so much worse than ussual.
These are all more of general "issues" than lizardmen specific. Armour saves are worse universally, 2+ armour save is very rare. On the other hand, the armour penetration side has changed as well, those 4+ saves might actually mean something more often than they used.
Similarly with the spears and halberds, I'm sure chaos warriors would also like to have the elven halberds or to use shields with them. Halberds have for some reason always been bit of bad choice. At least spears now have some use as they allow the same save as hand weapons. Traditionally the second attack from saurus have been bite attack, so in many editions it was not possible to be done from the second rank, so it's bit of homage to that. And essentially, the models come with thrusting spears, that's the normal spear in ToW.
-
6
-
-
10 hours ago, Sception said:
I *did* miss something. Flying units can't join non-flying units, and Slaan are Fly 8. Obnoxious. Personally would have not given them flying - even if their chairs can float, I never pictured them zooming around at high speeds.
So yeah, I definitely share this complaint. I don't think it makes them bad or unworkable, they're still going to float around behind their units casting spells, and the temple guard are written to protect slann that are merely nearby, but yeah, from an aesthetic and narrative perspective this new way of running them doesn't feel right. Definitely something I'd take the opportunity to rewrite if I were working on a homebrew Lizardmen Arcane Journal.
I found the Slann always much more survivable in 6/7th when he was not in an unit...
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, silverstu said:
I think it's great - builds up relatively quickly and then allows them to add in new/fresh kits the following year.
I wonder if we are likely to see new things for Dwarfs/Orcs and Goblins since the lists are already set? The Arcane Journals for Tomb Kings and Brets seem to only add special characters and variant units for kit bashing. They could do something different with the future ones, maybe we will find out this weekend. Have there been rumours for what might be coming? A dwarf juggernaught was a potential, or a king with shieldbearers , possibly Rangers? Not sure what might come for O&GS.
Shieldbearers should be quite obvious as the description in Forces of Fantasy doesn't match either the old king or Thorgrim Grudgebearer as it there are three bearers in the profile.
Being that the game is from the same team as Middle-Earth, and there has been practically no releases for it for year or no, there should be some amount of resources dedicated for this release. Would be very surprised if the existing models for the core armies wouldn't be on the shelves quickly. At least all dwarves and beastmen that share models for ToW and AoS are currently out of stock in the GW webstore, which would support that something is happening.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, BarakUrbaz said:
In regards to new Beastman units, there is one really obvious pick which is the Centigor Chieftain, a new hero option without any models which is part of their army list. I don't even remember Centigor heroes being in the old 6E Beasts of Chaos or 7E Beastmen other than Ghorros Warhoof.
Isn't there a special character model that would fit the bill?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Marcvs said:
since unit fillers are an official thing, you could also do (let's say for a rank of 5) 4 32mm bases and a unit filler on a 20mm
I have also made earlier movement trays that have some models mounted directly on them to convert round models to square based games. Bit of a headache to transport, but looks nice (at least in the beginning of the game). No reforming though, which might be a quite big issue in this game.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, Jefferson Skarsnik said:
Would make sense that if the next "edition" or cycle is going to focus on onset of the Great War Against Chaos, that daemons start to feature more heavily, and it potentially also makes sense for a Dark Elf comeback at that point to invade Ulthuan and give Young Teclis somebody to throw down against at Finuval Plain. Give me Urien Poisonblade, give me that legendary jobber to the stars Korhien Ironglaive, give me my man Fearghal of the Iron Spear. If by that time Malerion actually has some AOS models that are to Dark Elves what Lumineth are to High Elves then the range crossover stuff goes out of the window.
Not saying that will actually happen, but somebody on the WHFB discord (that's obviously gone into overdrive this week) did say that they know a playtester and that Kislev and Cathay rules are written (we already knew from Total Warhammer 3 marketing that they'd had quasi-8th ed rules written for them by GW) and that the miniatures are designed but not in production, and that if the game succeeds enough they'll be a major focus of the second edition. I have no idea if that has any credibility at all, but I presume if there was a wave 2 not every "legacy army" would remain completely off the table while Kislev/Cathay/Norsca got brand new ranges.
There's a lot of picking through the aggregated bones of every Youtube review of the army books going on right now; I'm seeing a lot of general enthusiasm for the game, though with a general emerging feeling that infantry is a bit gash this edition and that Warriors of Chaos have been hit with the nerf bat (in a 6th kinda ed way? idk 6th ed) and in a lot of places have some fairly arbitrary-seeming missing rules like plate armour and counter-charge that equivalent units from other factions have (Black Orcs and Phoenix Guard are more heavily armoured than Chaos Warriors). The wait for a Chaos Warrior army where it's fun to take lots of actual Chaos Warriors may still be ongoing
I feel that infantry should be much better than it was earlier as all units are sort of semi-stubborn (you only properly break if you roll over your unmodified Ld), that means that the cavalry units usually can't get through an unit in a single round and remain stuck in the battle line to be counter charged to the flank. Also the saves are lower, but also the ap, so in most cases you still get at least some save. In some cases the charged unit can also strike first. This shoud mean that the combats can be much less predictable (= charging is more risky). I have played Swordpoint, which is a historical game based on Warhammer historicals, which has quite similar mechanic for breaking, and you really need to be careful where you charge and also sometimes winning combats can bea bad thing as well if your unit gets dragged out from the battleline when it floows up a retreating unit.
Regards of Kislev. One of the first thing they teased for the game few years ago, was concept sketches for the new Kislev units, so it's pretty sure they will come at some point. I would expect the same release strategy to Middle earth (and Horus Heresy) that they publish campaign books that have additional scenarios, armies of infamy, new armies and units. Logical ones would be expansion for the north (Kislev, demons, norse dwarfs, etc.), expansion to east (Ogres, Chaos dwarfs, Cathay). expansion to west (Lizardmen, dark elves, amazons) and "Enemies within" type of expansion with skaven, demonologists and vampires.
-
9 minutes ago, EntMan said:
On the subject of re-basing and movement trays.
25mm is fine as a 25mm round will fit in a 25 by 25 square.
However, unfortunately a 32mm round won't fit in a 30mm square. And a 30mm square won't fit in a 32mm round. So doesn't work either way round.
Unless we're really lucky and actually a citadel 32mm round is actually 30mm.
~10 mm difference in total unit width is not that different than having lipped movement trays with the right sized square bases. That has never been considered an issue.
-
3
-
1
-
-
I feel that six wide (or even wider) could be a common size for many units as you only get 2 rank bonuses and attacking seems to be a lot more beneficial due to generally lower armour saves and static combat resolution. Then again, going too wide won't be good either as the units are so hard to manouver without pivot.
-
It's only logical that at some point of re-releasing the old games, they take the most popular of them all for new cycle. The time between is so long and the game so different that it's hard to see it anymore competing too much with AoS and the any new models are likely usable for both anyways.
I expect similar product as the new version of LotR SBG. New starter box, some new character models here and there, all army lists in the same book and then campaign expansions.
-
Isn't the Apocalypse version of AoS called Warhammer Fantasy Battles?
-
2
-
-
Yes of course that as well, but that's something that doesn't show up in this kind of discussions so often as it's bit more of a personal disaster.
-
8 hours ago, TheWilddog said:
I agree with all you guys that power creep and rules to sell models are not the most positive thing but I also contend that almost all big tabletop war gaming companies and collectible trading card games do it. In the case of Wizards Of The Coast and GW they have been very successful and have a lot of data on who their customers are and what they are willing to buy. That is what leads to the constant product churn and the accompanying rules push to sell the new coolness.
I agree, but would emphasis, that the power creep is not the intended end result, but merely a side effect when the main focus is just to bring out fresh rules. In most cases there is much underpowered content as overpowered, but for obvious reasons the overpowered part is what has a bigger effect on the overall gaming experience.
-
1
-
-
I find the Middle Earth SBG to be reasonably well balanced for a game like this. I have never felt that I have lost because of my list, but because of my opponent playing better than me, or that I have taken too big risks that have backfired (that some people like to call luck). Of course, I'm not aware of all the fine details from the tournament play as we mainly play it quite casually, but what I've looked at the big tournaments, the winning lists are very varied and "balanced", i.e. there's no spamming of one unit type in most of them. Maybe it has something to do, that the main game designer is one of the best competitive players in the game? In any case, it has very different feeling from playing any sort of Warhammer, where you often know after the deployment who will win. Both games are from the same company, so surely there are things that can be done differently.
Of course, in MESBG, big part of the balance comes from pretty simple mechanisms. The game is very dependent on how you use your limited might points, where are your heroes and how you position the models and use your opportunities as the differences in statlines and special rules are quite minor compared to WH.
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:
Maybe on paper, but I know in my area and the areas around my area, nobody really plays anything other than 40k for the most part, and AOS is the second step cousin. Warlord games may have 26,000 likes on their facebook page, but the stores are all empty of Warlord games.
That might just be a USA vs Finland (or Europe) thing though. In the USA there are really no other games other than sometimes XWing that show up in public outside of your big cons.
That's why I said that the other games are not so visible as the scenes are so different. People tend to play historical games at home or clubs and the players are spread so thinly that the brick and mortar stores don't have possibility to stock the models. Of course Games Workshop is so huge compared to anything else in this field, that the player amounts are totally different scales. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist or wouldn't be reasonably popular. It's also seen in how GW has restructured their business few years ago. For example Necromunda and Kill team/Warcry are ways to lure the skirmish players from Infinity, WHU an option for Guildball/X-wing players, Age of Sigmar has a Warmachine feel etc. And I would say that Lord of the Rings is a way to lure "traditional wargame" players. At least in our club, the same people who like to play Saga and the different Warlord games, also tend to play Middle-Earth.
I do also believe that there is a difference in culture between Europe and US.
But anyways, this is bit of a derailing from the original topic. Sorry about that.
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:
I think wargames have evolved beyond what they used to be into something that they are right now. Traditional wargame tropes seem to have died for the most part.
I wouldn't say that. For example Warlord games are doing well with very traditional wargames (over 26 000 likes on their facebook page). The field is very varied at the moment. Warhammer of both varieties is of course the Giant, but in it's feet there are more mice than ever. It might just be hard to see as the scenes are different.
I was recently organizing the largest gaming convention in Finland and when it used to be so back in the day, that there were 150 or so players playing in the Warhammer tournament (with FB and 40k alternating each year). We now have the same amount of players in tournaments, but there are 12+ different games.
-
IMO Morale (and command) should be one of the key attributes in a wargame. It's after all the reason for which the wars and battles are actually won in a real life.
The way it was handled in 40k (pre 8th) and WHFB is the worst. Both had extensive rules for psychology, but essentially if your army was subject to them, it was a liability that in the worst case made the army not worth playing at all.
-
1
-
-
I believe Epic had a detachment based army building, where a detachment (of multiple units) activates at a time (might confuse the details, as it's been a long time I have played it) and the number of detachments is quite limited forcing the both players to have pretty even number of them. (I by the way hope quite eagerly that they would eventually reboot Epic.)
But yeah, it would require quite heavy rewriting. I also like the current system as well. It's far better than what was in WHFB and what is in 40k, but maybe some sort of CP based system to break the turn order would be fun and could reduce the downsides.
That said, I think one of the main advantages of the Age of Sigmar ruleset is how easy it is to tweak for your tastes (as can also be seen from all the expansions that GW releases themselves for the game). I can't see much problems house ruling the turn sequence to following:
Roll of initiative
Hero phase in initiative order for both players
Activation phase where each player activates one unit at a time and moves, runs, shoots and charges with them (I would perhaps allow only two of the above in a turn and give a +1 to hit shooting if the unit doesn't move). The activation could be random (drawing markers from bag) or there can be passes, or players can be given playing cards for each unit that they put face down on the table and then the units are activated in ascending order by revealing the cards, or whatever the players fancy.
Close combat phase as it is now.
End step where players roll for battleshock, etc. then a new turn.
The major difference on this would be that there are less close combat phases than normally, so maybe a second round of combat should be done to settle the ongoing combats after the first end step.
The game would be quite different, don't know if it would be better or worse, but this kind of tricks give the players more "gaming value" out of their models. We played 40k this way for some time and it worked fine.
-
12 minutes ago, pseudonyme said:
Could explain what is the pass system?
The player who has less models/units can pass the activation turn by the number of times the difference between the units is. So in case the other has 10 and the other 5, the player with less models can force the one with higher amount of models to activate the first five before he moves.
My current favourite game is Saga, where players play the whole turn at a time, but the activation is more "free" in such way that you usually can't activate all of your units, but you might activate some of them for more times, for which they take fatigue, which is usually a bad thing. That way there is the strategic element of "double turn" in there, but it's not as crucial. Also there are reactions that you can do on the opponent's turn, such as cancel the opponent's actions in certain situations or move your own units on the opponent's turn etc. But everything is related to a resource that is fixed to a board situation. Sounds more complicated than it is, but it makes for a really fun and tactical game.
I also like Lord of the Rings system, which is similar to AoS, but you can influence the initiative and break the turn order by might points, that are a limited resource. That gives more skill based element to the game by resource management instead of just risk management. I think command points could function in similar way in AoS.
-
That is the main problem with direct one at a time activation alternating between players. Typically this is avoided by allowing the player with less units to pass the activation.
For example in The Batman miniature game, a match where one side has 10+ and the other has 3-5 models to activate works fine with the pass system.
-
On 8/19/2019 at 4:38 PM, Vextol said:
of games as well. I believe that Warhammer should be the pinnacle war game, even though that isn't their intention. Outside traditional board games, which I typically tire of quickly, I haven't seen 'turns' handled well by anyone. Runewars had a pretty OK system except I found it hard to focus on a legitimate plan when the battlefield changed so dramatically from the start of the phase to the end. However, I didn't enjoy it. Don't know why. I still enjoy Sigmar but I want them to explore much more unique ways of handling turns. They need to add an element of some kind to make it more interesting. Give each player five set rolls numbered 1-5. You choose your roll for the initiative. Something like that.
Alternating activation (i.e. units/detachments move one at a time) games, that have some sort of variation such as chance to react to opponent's activation (such as in Infinity), a randomized turn order (such as in Bolt Action), possibility to continue activating units if you succeed in a roll (such as in Epic, Batman or the various Rampant rulesets) or a semi-random, where e.g. you have a set of cards drawn randomly and you can arrange them to influence which units you want to activate first and which last, tend to work pretty well.
Still as alternating turns is a fundamental part of "Warhammer experience", I doubt that they will ever change it in their core games. Even when it starts to be quite an archaic way compared to newer games.
-
I'm not an expert of manufacturing, but I'm a process engineer. Just thinking about the system, if making one sprue takes about 15 to 30 seconds. If you run the machine for say, two hours you'll have already close to five hundred sprues and I believe it is not optimal to swithc the molds too often. Thus in a run you might realistically look at, say, thousand boxes of product. If you sell 200 boxes per year, it takes five years to empty to storage. So I would say that meaningful amount of sales must be in thousands of boxes.
-
1
-
-
On 5/14/2019 at 12:09 PM, jaebird said:
It would be really messing and kind of weird to try to change every warscroll on the fly. It seems like it would be easier just to limit squad sizes to only one upgrade past their first. But even still, in 1000pts you can field 7 minimum sized units of goblins. That's 140 wounds with enough points for a Loonboss. Honestly, I'm not convinced that larger units are necessarily a problem. Slow, low offense units dependent on a command ability to be useful seem like they would be easily to deal with by screening them with smaller units, or giving up an objective to focus on others.
The problem is not that single powerful units would be unbeatable. They are just incredibly boring.
-
This sounds very interesting. 1000 points is my sweet spot for this game.
I agree with the unti sizes. I would even halve the minimum sizes and put the maximum to roughly twice per minimum size (so for example stormcast units would be 3 to 10 models). Having big units that you can "grease" with command abilities and spells make the games pretty boring.
-
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.
+
Warhammer - The Old World
in Warhammer: The Old World
Posted
As the legacy armies are not "official" there likely isn't going to be any mentions on them in the core rules, but of course that is easily house ruled or put into a tournament package to allow it. I for sure will suggest my friends to test an unit of daemons with my beastmen.