Jump to content

heywoah_twitch

Members
  • Posts

    725
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by heywoah_twitch

  1. what a nice model, characterful, fun. much better than forgeworld's chunks of styrofoam look imo
  2. Echoing the above good answers, I'd add emphasis to the idea of them reducing the 'number of drops' your army is as a way to get to decide who goes first (a rule I'm on a personal crusade to get rid of as preposterously imbalanced). While you can make fine armies without a battalion, it's the exception in a competitive sense. I actually start listbuilding by paging through the battalions and seeing which I can build around without being forced into too many sub-par choices as requirements. Some armies have strong battalions with good abilities and soft requirements, and these are typically the armies that also tend to do well. There are exceptions, of course.
  3. 70mm x 105mm is the proper round base size that is the closest to the square base it comes with. I found the conversion charts here: http://havoc.holywarsgt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Warhammer-base-size-chart-V1.pdf Which, while not exactly official, make the most sense as it's just the closest sizes tbh. It's what I used for my butcher conversions!
  4. What he said, but I'd add keeping the base the same size and shape as another importance, so as not to seem like you're modeling for advantage.
  5. Quick and Dirty: Go to Image -> Adjustments -> Levels, and then mess with the three nubs under Input Levels for your dark darks, mids, and whites. Involved: Or if you know about photography a little, you can go to Filter -> Camera Raw Filter, near the top and mess with all the things, bring that exposure down, eye-dropper white balance it, mess with the whites, shadows, highlights, contrast, etc. Although the way your backgrounds are blown tfo, I'd recommend opening up your fstop when taking the pictures so that there's information to mess with, as it's probably zebras back there. Tips from a fellow beastclaw raider painting his first army!
  6. Being able to choose who goes first exacerbates a lot of the problems with the double turn. I think being able to decide who goes first should be taken completely out of the players' hands, and should be a straight roll-off (like they did with things affecting initiative). Why it's tied to number of drops and battalions is beyond me and makes no sense. I made a thread about this, but it's related to the topic and I'm secretly hoping a GW employee reads it and thinks it's brilliant and then hires me as a rules writer and problem solver. I like how hype the roll for initiative is - and I get the feeling that part of AoS' brand is big, swingy, deadly, hype events. You mention early double turns being worse, but the late game ones tend to be closing the trapdoor and grabbing tons of points. The turn 4 initiative roll too often literally becomes: d6, on a 4+ I win by doing x that can't really be stopped, on a 3 or less my opponent wins doing y that can't really be stopped. Yes, it's a game built upon randomness, but that's a tough one single roll. WoollyMammoth brings up a great point - the first turn of the game feels bad. You don't want to move forward and let your opponent get to use all his stuff on you - but you can't really use any of your stuff either. You either waste your turn completely, or dutifully move your guys within range of your opponent's meatgrinder. For the average player on a balanced list it just seems like an unfortunate feature of the game (kind of like in MtG where going second is probably a little too disadvantageous). Dakkbad's Cunning is an interesting attempt to mitigate this in some way, and so I feel GW is aware of it. Killamike is completely correct - one of the main reasons rolling for init wouldn't work in 40k is because a double turn with ranged is way too powerful.
×
×
  • Create New...