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

angrycontra

Members
  • Content Count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

269 Celestant-Prime

About angrycontra

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard
  • Birthday 08/30/1989

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I like the overall changes but man, those Varanguard are horrible. Their average dam/pts is on the same level as chaos warriors (which is rather terrible) but with half of the chaos warrior's survivability. I don't know chaos knight points, but assuming they cost less than 200, I see no point ever paying 300 for 3 varanguard. Even the possible book buffs don't convince me varanguatdrd can be saved because you can already get units of 10 chaos knights with full hit, wound and save rerolls through chaos sorcerers (not to mention +1 to hit from mounted lord command ability and some chaos aura bonus). It doesn't help that varanguard are worse with no archaon in the army (who is already a massive point sink).
  2. I'm interested in this but only if it has been designed with round bases in mind. It would be pretty ludicrous of gw to release a game that needs square bases after working so hard to make most of those old boxes round based. Not only that, but it would put some players in a real pickle: "Do I rebase my old army again back to squares or do I keep my aos army?". Movement tray stuff would certainly work. Also I am somewhat concerned over the rules of this game. Say what you want about whfb, that rule set had some real problems. I think it would be stupid to ignore all advancements aos did. Not saying though that it should be aos clone, I just don't want it to be fantasy 6/7/8th/whatever ed. Clone or 9th age clone either.
  3. Yeah I'm gonna say gloomspite gitz too. The poorly designed allegiance ability aside, everything just works in that book, the battalions, battleline options, inner balance, (almost) nothing is too broken or too weak, solid selection of artifacts etc. It's just fun to design armies with that book. Flesh eaters are also great, minus the gristlegore imbalance. If I had to pick worst, I'd pick skaven. Battalions carbage, unnecessarily complicated allegiance ability, doesn't play well to skaven lore (for some reason cowardly skaven have access to easy armywide bshock immunity), really bad inner balance (plague monks >>>>> everything else), very few obvious weaknesses, army building options massively limited due to terrible battleline system, some warscrolls are well written but whoever wrote plague monk warscroll should be shelved this instant (seriously, can have easy 7 attacks, with seperate weapons, seperate unmod. Hit 6 / wound 6 effects, they are the slowest unit to play in the entire game). Add to all this terrible clunky terrain. No book has made me as angry as skaven book, by far my biggest disappointment with aos.
  4. You forgot seraphon. They still need a battletome.
  5. I wouldn't be surprised if that new SC set ends up being the highest selling SC GW has ever made. First of all, it's packed with cool models and all of them are brand new (making people buy these boxes in bulk), secondly, every khorne, tzeentch, slaanesh and nurgle players (especially tzeentch and slaanesh) may want this set to add as part of their army and on top of that, those who want pure StD armies are gonna spam this box. It's also very nice spammable box. I'm personally already planning on getting two for my tzeentch army (don't care for pure std). I also want that cool cat. I don't care if it can't be used by tzeentch directly, I'll squeeze it as ally or convert it.
  6. This still doesn't clarify what happens in the case where terrain has already been setup (such as tournaments or cool special tables in stores etc.). Now don't get me wrong, I would totally allow the other player place his nexus after terrain setup, but we've all seen these RAW people. Some people will have a field day over arguing this terrain and it's placement. I don't know how uk/us/whatever tournaments work but every tournament I've been to, tables and terrain have been setup before any matches have been arranged. Following RAW ruling, this terrain cannot be placed if the there are any terrain on the table (discounting other army terrain).
  7. I don't have the exact rules at my hand now (and I may have misread something) but from what I gather it works like this: Before battle begins and before sides are picked, during the terrain setup phase ossiarch player can put this terrain INSTEAD of normal terrain piece (I believe it had to be 3" from other terrain and 6" from objectives or vice versa). Now as you may remember, officially in the rules, gw assumes that players each take turns to place terrain on board which is randomly rolled with a dice. The idea is that instead of rolling (or choosing traditional terrain) you can put the ossiarch terrain on table. And this creates real problem if it's not faqed (unless I've misinterpreted the rule): I have never played a single game, where players use this gw terrain placement phase rule. All the tournaments I've been to have pre-built tables. According the current ruling, you CAN'T place ossiarch terrain, unless both players agree on it or you play using official terrain rules (and rule that requires random person you've never met agree on something like this never end up well)
  8. I'd say main reason to take butcher is that subfaction where your wizards can cast extra spells, because you need as many different spells as you can get and butcher's maw spell is miles better than slaughtermaster's spell.
  9. While I do like those bonereapers subfactions I can't shake off the concern I have for them. +1 save for whole army is ridiculous power. It's so good that no other temple/enclave/stormhost/lodge/etc. Comes even close that bonus and it doesn't appear to have even any drawbacks (and no, bad c. Ability, c. Trait or artefact are not enough for drawbacks for this ability) which is kinda funny when looking at ivory host that sacrifices 1 save for that hit bonus. Now I'm not screaming overpowered just yet (and there are other good subfactions too, like the spell protection and exploding skeletons) but my concern is this: if gw have not properly playtested this faction with strong subfaction always on (assuming these guys don't have command traits equivalent to army wide save bonus, 'cause you know, that trait would have to be ridiculous) and deemed it balanced without one, then this army is likely the most grossly overtuned army to date. But we'll see when the full book is out with points and all.
  10. Fear not, big stabbas max unit is 8. Got my book earlier than expected (don't ask me how or why, I have no idea but I'm not complaining).
  11. Damn you GW, I was perfectly happy with the idea of starting orruk army with the new book and now you went and released anvilgard box and I want to go full pirate mode too. My poor wallet.
  12. Nah, I read it as "cos and orruks are NOT coming next week (gotta release that 40k psychic expansion first y'know) but maybe week or two after that". I hope I'm wrong though.
  13. I know I ain't really contributing anything new here but good god gw, is it really that hard to release 2 books with no new models... For cities of sigmar I can almost understand if they want to make new boxes for existing units with rounded bases, but warclans? They have no new units, everything already has round bases and based on what we've heard, they don't even have terrain or endless spells, so what gives? I bet next week we're gonna get new stormcast model and space marheen supplement codex announced for pre-order week after that... Sorry for being so salty, but the original sweet orruk warclans and cos announcements are already starting to leave really sour taste in my mouth. If they weren't ready to release them by this point then maybe they should have announced them at NOVA instead and save a lot of wasted expectations and excitement.
  14. Furthermore, new rules only allow buying max 1 cp with 50p
  15. In my opinion most of these point changes are good enough. They do decent job at improving inner balance while also nerfing some of the top tier armies. Lon got increases for nagash and arkhan both and necromancer too. These 3 are all popular and importan lon chars (well arkhan and necro primarily). Grimghasts got significant nerf, any lon list that ran 3x30 of these guys either needs to find 180p to remove from their lists or replace those grimghasts (add to this wolf and arkhan/necro changes). Idoneth eel changes may feel insignificant on surface but they're pretty huge once you start spamming them. If army has like 3x9 eels that's already 90p, add soulscryer increases and we're looking at 30-60 extra. Dok got 30p extra on big witch elf units and 30 extra for hag queen. This may not be enough to fully drop dok but it can still give 120+p nerf to most dok lists out there. Meanwhile many other armies received some decent point reductions. No, bcr, ko or ironjawz, etc. are not suddenly gonna be s-tier armies but the gap is smaller now and these armies have better fighting change. Same with nighthaunt. Yes the grimghast nerf hurts them too no doubt, but I'd argue that it hurts nh less than the nerf hurt lon unless you spammed nothing but them before but this change should encourage people to have more variance in their lists. Obviously the big question will be whether the upcoming nerfs to skaven fec and fyreslayers (talking about hgb mainly here) will be enough. Especially skaven and fec need significant changes for the game to be more balanced (in gristlegore's case, it's not the point changes I care tbh, I want that always-on always strike first to be nerfed).
×
×
  • Create New...