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

angrycontra

Members
  • Content Count

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by angrycontra

  1. I really love the design of lodges in this army. I can see myself playing all of them. Even lodgeless army can work due to some really potent command traits. Every lodge has at least one or two extremely useful tools at their disposal and they really encourage different army builds. I'd argue that Lofnir is the worst but it is still the best option for magmadroth and auric hearthguard -heavy lists. My personal favorite lodge is Hermdar, that command ability that allows melee activation at the start of combat phase is just awesome plus that -1 to wound command trait is pretty insane too. All in all, this book feels pretty cool option-wise, I think gw really managed to at least encourage (even if they're not all viable) different army builds for fyreslayers. I still kinda feel that they missed real opportunity with molten infernoth. Had gw removed it from the magmic incant. Box, replaced it with some other decent looking spell, and then put it in its own box with 1 extra hand and couple extra head -options, it would've been fantastic new unit for the army ('cause the model looks great).
  2. Well how about this to replace turn roll: The player who wins initiative role gets to choose one (and only one) unit that can act in advance (minus command abilities). You can do everything with that unit from hero to charge phase before opponent gets to act. When combat phase starts you can choose to attack with that one unit before opponent selects any units to pile-in and attack with. If you chose to activate unit this way, you can't do it later in your own turn (so no double hero phase or anything). This way there is still that surprise element and extra tactics but other player doesn't have to wait billion years when opponent gets double turn.
  3. I voted against double turn. Originally I've been in favour of turn roll but recently it has been the source of biggest negative experiences for me in aos. Let me give some examples: 1st game. Me playing skryre against dok. My opponent got some really lucky long charges and caught me by surprise. I lost most of my army that turn. Almost threw a towel at that point. Anyway, it's time for turn roll. I win the roll, make comeback and win game through objectives. So what am I on here about? Well... if I had lost that roll, it would've been 100% defeat for me (double turn for dok). One roll literally dictated the entire course of the game. One roll. People often say that double turn makes games more exciting and allows miraculous comebacks but what it also does, is to allow people to steamroll and make double points from objectives. This skryre vs dok game was plenty exciting even without any double turns during the game (it was igougo entire game) but had that 1 roll failed, it would've been lame game, heh my opponent was even willing to give me the turn had I lost the roll, so how is that for a good game mechanic. 2nd game. Fyreslayers and gobbos vs boc and slaanesh. My fyreslayers and team mate's gobbos got double turn. During that double turn we killed all remaining slaanesh heroes and secured our objectives. This prevented slaanesh from summoning anything and boc from utilizing those summons to cap objectives. Needless to say, we won that match, but our victory didn't feel earned. Maybe this game was already in our favour, but once again, at least it would've been more fun match if it weren't for that double turn. I enjoy consistency. Can double turn make some matches really great? Sure but at the cost of ruining other games. No turn roll means that there won't be any real fun surprises but it also means that all negative surprises will be out as well and games will be overall consistently more enjoyable. Now some rule changes would be necessary for removal of turn roll (like endless spells) but it can be dealt with.
  4. 120p hearthguard feel bit low. I mean, it is small model count compared to vulkites but still, that's basically 20 wounds with 5 hearthguard berzerkers with better combat stats than vulkites. Vulkites do have better objective game but man 40p is rather big difference (also with no mass discount for vulkites, 30 vulkite units are pretty much dead, so gonna make some extra champions and musicians to reduce those unit sizes). Grimwrath and doomseeker as non-leaders is fantastic. Gonna buy couple extra grimwraths in the future for sure. Endless prayers seem reasonable in their pricing. Runemaster is too expensive (runesmiter just still feels better option) but at least it doesn't ruin your game anymore. Magmadroth seem reasonable, runesmiter magma big point increase is justified imo. All in all, fairly happy with points. But I really think they botched hearthguard berzerker and vulkite points. I think vulkites would be better at 150 (with mass discount) with hearthguard being 140 but we'll see how it goes. My biggest fear is that people are just gonna do hearthguard spam opposed to vulkite spam.
  5. I'm fairly happy with these warscrolls. Most units got some kind of buff and those that got nerfed (battlesmith and runesmiter) the nerfs were expected (wholly within ranges and prayer rolls and runesmiters can't be placed in reserve same time with the deepstrike unit based on wording of that ability) and they got other stuff to compensate for it (battlesmith has better melee and +1 to save is better than rerolls in some cases and there are probably artifact banners in book, while runesmiters get extra prayer from allegiance stuff plus endless prayers). I also like the crazy amount of save stacking these guys can get. I'm especially happy that gw didn't go too wild with these changes, my biggest fear would've been that fyreslayers ended up hitting like a truck while taking blows like iron fortress but they seem reasonably balanced (in aos 2 standards). With that said, points are still concern. Too cheap, and fyreslayers will be broken. Too expensive and fyreslayers will be useless. I'm especially concerned about magmadroths. Gw has a bad track record of buffing unit's stats only to increase their cost too much making the buff near worthless (looking at you beast of nurgle). Based on magmadroth buffs, their cost should remain more or less exactly what it is now (20 points more I could still live with). Lack of unbinds is unfortunate but maybe gw wanted to give fyreslayers this specific weakness (they have strong prayers themselves that can't be unbound after all). And on more positive note, my converted knight-incantor is still useful ally for the army.
  6. First of all, based on rumours, only vulkites lose their beard saves and considering that everyone and their mother were asking for better vulkites at min size units, 2 wounds should deliver that easily. This fact alone will not only save points for fyreslayers (as we will no longer need full units of 30) but it will also allow fyreslayers to spread out their forces more easily (since instead of having 3 big blobs, we can have 3-5 smaller groups, mixed with other fyreslayer units.) Which is good as objective game has always been one of the biggest weaknesses of this army. Secondly, aurics are getting massive buff. 2 wounds for them is quite literally 100% survivability buff for them and that is exactly what they need. Thirdly, how do you even know that we're losing hg berz battalion? Fec has flayers battalion that allows pile in and attack in hero phase, why wouldn't fyreslayers have one? Further more, having 2 attacks (at 2" range) immediately is so much better than having to survive into hero phase and then pile in and attack (plus that requires battalion and only one unit can benefit from it). Finally, if the rumours are true, hg berzerkers have both their slayer saves and their 2 wounds, which is huge boost for their overall survival. And let's not forget that the 2 prayers they have shown are already pretty damn powerful (pile in and attack with hero, +1 save) and god only knows what else is there. Magmadroth traits are interesting plus they haven't even shown hero changes (you know command abilities etc.). Now sure throwing axes got nerfed, whoop-de-doo, they never were that big part of fyreslayer damage to begin with (outside of maybe warrior kinband). I'm expectingvsome point increases too but considering that aurics got 100% survival boost (and most likely 100% dam boost against monsters) while hg berzerkers got 100% damage boost while possibly also getting 100% survival boost, some point increases are more than justified. So yes, based on everything I've seen, and based on other comments, you are probably the only one seeing doom and gloom here. Stop looking into it so negatively. The biggest issue with fyreslayers has always been that they were one trick pony, vulkite spam was the only competetive way to play. It's obvious from these previews alone that that will change.
  7. The extra wound is great but not as big deal as it may seem, provided that the rumours about fyreslayers losing their slayer saves is true, after all 4++ fnp is basically same as having 2 wounds.
  8. I do hope that salamander ends up being some kind of hybrid between unit and spell. Like it could be a unit that can only be summoned by fyreslayer priests and can disappear/be dispelled like other endless spells. Here's some other wishlisting: - Given that fyreslayers have so few units, I want every single option to be viable and well balanced. I don't want to see vulkite spam, auric spam or any other spam spam spam become de facto way to play fyreslayers. - Non-hero magmadroth option. It could simply be runeson with axe (but not called runeson). It's lazy, but I don't want my magmies take every available hero slots. - Easier to use battalions. I don't want any battalions that require 3 vulkites, aurics or whatever. 2 is fine but 3 takes too much army space (plus I don't want to buy more vulkites). - Speaking of vulkites, they should function better without having to take 30 models. It's frustrating how underpowered they feel in small unit sizes.
  9. I'm rather disappointed with lack of new fyreslayer models but that endless spell(?) Is probably one of the coolest I've seen (almost a waste if it's a endless spell/prayer, I'd almost wish that it would be summoned unit). Also based on description, some kind of non-hero magmadroth army sounds possible which was my bare minimum request. Really cool cover art too.
  10. I don't think there's been any real power creep. Power creep (as far as I know) means that factions are slowly but surely getting stronger and stronger with every release and I honestly don't see that happening. Now yes, aos 2.0 books (maggotkin being first) have been stronger than the books that came before yes, but after that it's been a rollercoaster of power levels. Let's look closely at them: - Nurgle. Nurgle is still chugging along pretty nicely, even if it doesn't make it regularly to top 3 tourney spots. Even if there are some overpriced units in the army, it's overall very competetive army. - LoN. When lon was released it wasn't that strong of an army at all. I'd even say it was slightly underpowered. Problem was the release of aos 2.0 and the free summoning and nighthaunt that came with it. But even with that, this army has gone up and down the ladder in tourneys and there are counters to it. - DoK. Dok is still one of the best armies in game. If power creep was real, they'd be out by this point. - Idoneth. When it comes to Idoneth, there's only one really strong list type (eel spam) and that's more or less it. Because of their strong allegiance ability Idoneth are difficult to balance but I don't think this faction is in any form powercreep over previous. I mean when people are asking for point drops for over half of the units in battletome, can you truly call that power creep? - Sce. Another case of powerful units (such as evocators) mixed with underwhelming units (paladins). It's no mystery that stormcast are in weird place right now. Their battletome is quite a mess but even then, I would hardly call them op or better than the 2 previous factions. - Nighthaunt. I think pure nighthaunt is overall a well balanced army (with some small inner balance issues). The problem is that LoN is simply better, but I wouldn't call nighthaunt useless or underpowered. Most certainly not power creep though. - Beasts of chaos. Can anyone truly claim that Boc is overpowered or clear evidence of power creep? The only really strong unit is tzaangor enlightened and those guys are glass cannons. Army has done well in tourneys but mostly because of its wonderful objective capping game, not because of its power level. - Gloomspite gitz. As many here have pointed out, gloomspites are quite well balanced. Calling them power creep or over powered would be silly. - Skaven. Skaven are strong yes-yes but power creep? Sure plague monks, furnaces/screaming bells and that one endless spell are super nasty but the faction as a whole doesn't feel too broken if you ask me. Problem with these big factions is that it's too easy to mix really good and really bad units in them. At least Skaven have minimal summoning and generally weak abd easy to kill units. Only time will tell if this is one of the top tier factions of the game (and no, one tournament is not enough, else we'd call nighthaunt top tier because they won that first big aos 2.0 tournament). - Flesh eater courts. I still don't understand why people call this faction power creep. Because they have one good new hero? Sure arch-regent is great but I'd argue he is only great when he is taken the first time, second arch regent is good (since summoning pays some of those points back) but the real power is that one spell, which you can only attempt once per turn so extra arch-regents feel redundant. Fec have limited rend, limited mortal wounds, somewhat overpriced units (summoning balances this) and mediocre spell casting ability (you can take casting boost allies but honestly, try to squeeze them in Fec lists, not easy I can tell you that). That new command ability is fantastic but it's just that, a command ability. You don't have infinite points available to you and fec are lacking command point generators (if fec could take skaven warpseer in their army, I'd call them op sure). And that gristlegore general is strong, but it's just a single hero. You tie it up in melee, shoot it down or focus the rest of the army. - Khorne. Obviously it's way too early to call this faction anything at this point, but based on early reviews, people seem to be more concerned these guys being underpowered rather than overpowered. So yeah, ultimately I'm going to conclude that there is no systematic power creep going on. Sure op units sometimes get past gw's radar but that's basically it. Of course I do know that even a single op unit when spammed can break the balance, that is an issue sure, but that can be fixed in ghb future editions (look at skyfires for an example). Ever since aos 2.0 (and slightly before that), I think gw has done reasonably good job of keeping the new books relatively close to each other in terms of power level.
  11. Now I don't have major playtest data behind me but purely from observation and analysis I can say that most of them are pretty bad. Virulent procession is ****** but it's not meant for 2k points anyway. Congregation of filth is decent but overpriced (should cost no more than 120). Foulrain is probably only battalion in the book I can call actually good. Plaguesmog on the other hand is the biggest joke ever. Verminus one seems good on paper, but +1 attack on wholly within 13" for 1 command point is bleh, made worse by the outrageous 180 point cost (better off just buying 2 extra command points for 100 and using those for the attack boost). Moulder one is decent but again overpriced. Skyre one is horrible trash. It's so overpriced that it's only viable in 3k+ games. Eshin one would be solid but has one problem: night runners. Night runners along with doom flayer weapon team are the worst units in the battletome. 80 for unit that is basically as good as clanrats but doesn't have universal battleline... and to think plague monks are cheaper than them. It's just too heavy tax imo (gutter runners are actually good). Skyre one from carrion empires box is ok but nothing more. Decent if you really need that extra artifact.
  12. I have to say blight kings. For modern pretty but monopose models they have insane amount of options. So many bodies, heads, weapons etc. Out of the 20 bks I got, only like 2 are somewhat similar. Super fun (and relatively quick) to paint too.
  13. Honestly I think pestilens might be the most broken thing in the book. Speaking competetively, I consider pure pestilens to be easily the strongest form of army in this new skaven battletome. Plague monk deal like 4 times the clanrat damage if not more (and this is not a joke), clanrats are tiny bit tougher to kill but not enough to make difference and all this for tiny 40p difference for max size units. Plague monks have currently easily the highest damage output for their points in game (fully buffed unit does something like 90+ wounds on average against 4+ sv in single combat round). Furnace on the other hand, is the single toughest hero for its cost in the game right now, no contest. 180 for 13w with 4+ and 5++ and look-out sir on top of that (both range and melee). The closest thing to it is horticulous slimux and that one still doesn't hold a candle. Then you add easy mortals, prayers and bshock immunity aura and you have the most underpriced hero in the game. Screaming bell too obviously. Mark my words, pestilens is gonna be nerfed in the future. I was shocked to see their points unchanged after the outrageous buffs they received (and it's quite a joke to look at nightrunner warscroll/points and compare it plague monks, what were they thinking). The straw that broke camel's back imo was giving plague monks that horde bonus (+1 to hit/wound) and no point changes and funnily enough they removed that ability from clanrats warscroll, which means clanrats are exactly same as before while plague monks got nothing but buffs.
  14. The question was that whether thanquol can make 4 seperate attacks where each time you roll 4 dice (which would have been mega broken) aka 4x4 attacks but the answer was thankfully no. 4 flamers still work fine as is no worries.
  15. I don't know, to me this list just doesn't quite seem to work. Here's couple of problems: 1. Only 2 heroes but you have 3 artifacts. You're losing a lot of value on one of your battalions. Also 2 heroes is just too easy to snipe out and you auto-lose any "only heroes/behemots can hold any objectives"-scenarios. Finally those cannons need dedicated warlock to empower them and when you have only 2 heroes you can't really use them to boost your other guys. 2. You don't need extra command points in skyre list like that. Best command point uses for skyre are bshock immunities (but your units are too small to benefit from that), run 6 for acolytes (but you only have 1 unit for that) and charge rerolls for stormfiends (but again those sf units are too small to make greatest impact). 3. Not every list out there is alpha strike and this list imo doesn't necessarily do good enough job guarding you from such lists. After all, when your opponent charges and locks your units in melee, most of your ranged units are stuck and you lose. 5++ for first turn is decent but not 280 decent. If you really want battalion, just take 1 and put those guys in front line. 4. Warp lightning vortex is great spell but it is massive point sink and very difficult to cast. I've played games where every spell with 7 casting value has failed and this one has 8. You only have warlock engineers who are not reliable casters to pull that off (grey seer as general would do lot better job on that front, plus it can get +1 to cast from trait). 5. Aaand finally this list ultimately fails to cover ground efficiently. Basically any horde armies will simply overwhelm your numbers and control all objectives by default. My recommendations: Drop the 2nd battalion, if you don't want any non-skyre as general drop vortex too, get 1 unit of 6 stormfiends (they can shield rest of your army pretty well with 5++ sv on first turn) and maybe extra hero too.
  16. I calculated damage on both blades and staffs with blades, both with either wound rerolls or +1 attack (or both) and ultimately staffs did considerably more damage. The only case where I think blades are better is when you got like 20 or less monks and no attack bonuses (staff main advantage is getting to attack from 3 ranks thanks to 2" range).
  17. Also 15 acolytes is not enough to move screaming bell. Once your opponent farts in their general direction, they lose 6+ models and your bell is stuck in place for the rest of the game.
  18. Had a 1500p game fairly recently with primarily skryre army vs khorne. Lost the match and here's some observations: Thanquol is great but he got stuck fighting way too many turns against this big chaos knight blob (doing 30+ wounds with him in single turn is not exactly easy with 4 fists). His inclusion ultimately didn't work out well in my already small unit/model count army as I had lackluster ability to cap objectives. His biggest issue is that spell of his. It's not very impressive spell tbh so having an endless spell or two is highly recommended with him. Stormfiends felt a bit meh. I honestly think best way forward with them is to make one big group of 6, buff them up with full hit/wound rerolls and that +1 hit artifact plus warp spark to do incredibly damage. Besides that I'm planning on having single small harassing stormfiend unit with warpgrinder for deepstriking. Doomwheel didn't get to drive over anything but man that thing can still do some damage. Managed to roll 11 with super charged missile weapon and completely destroyed this unit of 10 chaos warriors in 1 turn. Doomwheel is now genuinely powerful when given chance. Skyre acolytes are great now. Run + shoot is so huge for them and that +1 damage with warpspark as well. The fact that I can quarantee run of 6 is useful, because Skyre rarely needs other command abilities and they're horde(ish) unit too so it all works quite well. I'm definetly going to convert some bloodbowl teams to make more acolytes for myself. Terrain piece were useless with the exception of making slight threat on the board (for early game deepstriking). I think that in larger games with more units to spare, they.ll be more useful but in this game they just didn't work out. Ultimately though my biggest mistake was spreading my forces too thin. I should've focused down on specific units rather than try to deal with everything at once. Also khorne is kinda annoying opponent vs skryre, that automatic unbinding basically means that I'll never get to use super charged warp spells. I'm also gonna leave thanquol out from smaller games. As nice as he is, 400 is too much to spend on a single model in objective based games. I also really hope that gw will errata atleast option to spend ally points to get other skaven units for pure skyre army. Getting even 1 or 2 20 clanrats would solve a lot (I feel a 3rd unit would take too many points of the army) of problems with holding objectives and screening/protecting skryre units.
  19. I'm sorry but what? Didn't buff the bad weapon options? +1 attack and rend on mini mortars plus huge range boost. +1 to wound with ratlings and those things gain most from new warpstone sparks (+1 damage on range). And as far as rest of the changes go, I wouldn't call them nerfs. Doom-flayers didn't change, warpshock gauntlets are now unmodified hit (which is nerf and buff at same time), flamers are terrible against single target and insane against hordes (again, nerf/buff), drills do less damage but have more reliable deepstriking (as you're guaranteed to enter battlefield in turn 3), stormfiends points also went down 30 which is very significant drop. The only true nerfs I'd say they received are weapon options nerf (something I ultimately thought being a good thing) and inability to use packmasters to boost their hit. I have plenty of issues with this new book's battleline systems and all that, but the stormfiends are honestly the last thing that annoys me. Quite the opposite, I like those changes (I even guessed some of those changes correctly in skyre thread before this book). I can however understand and sympathize with the weapon limitation changes forcing players to go back and change original weapons (flamers and shock gauntlets most likely) to something else. But I'd also argue that writing was on the wall and GW was either going to flat out nerf the best options or reduce their numbers (flamers were especially problem with their auto-hit mortals) so these changed do not surprise me one bit.
  20. There are multiple issues: First of all, clanrats are not cheap as far as battleline are concerned. In order to get minimum battleline requirements, you need 3x20 clanrats, that's 360 points. The only other alternative is stormvermin but that's even more expensive at 420 points. For army that wants to primarily focus on skyre stuff for example but wants to also add thanquol to their list have to spend 300+ points just to get basic battleline out and then add 400p thanquol. That is massive investment and army loses its skyre identity in the process and instead becomes "another generic skaven list". Then there is the matter of pestilence. With Skyre I can almost agree that skyre needs clanrats/stormvermin but pestilence? Pestilence already runs 100+ monks on average and now if they want to add something special, they need to get 30-60 models that don't fit aesthetically in pestilens army just so they can add some rat ogors (say pestilence player wants to convert rat ogors to be like plague rat ogors) or similar. It is restrictive system that shoehorns all lists to use same basic boring structure. The current battleline system even prevents pestilence utilizing their nurgle allies which is the biggest joke of all. Not to mention clanrats are faaaar worse than plague monks in basically everything. Final point is this: over past few years GW established multiple ways to play skaven faction. This book was supposed to be gloomspite gitz-style playground where players have great freedom in list building. Instead every mixed skaven list is forced to have that same basic dull setup. Also not everyone likes clanrats. I collect pestilence and skyre because I enjoy their looks but their ranges are too small so I want to mix them up more. I do like stormvermin but I'd rather wield them in single large unit than multiple min size units so the book doesn't leave me too many options.
  21. After having looked at some of the reviews/warscrolls/other stuff I have to say that my feelings towards this skaven release are probably more mixed than any other release in the history of aos. Let's start with the good stuff: 1. Rules-wise I feel this release is incredibly. They managed to fix/change/improve almost every issue I had with old skaven rules while still maintaining the faction identity with Skavens' self destructive ways. There are tons of useful warscrolls and ways to build this army. 2. Gnaw holes look cool and they help with some of the mobility issues this army used to have. Endless spells are also cool addition. 3. I think it's safe to say that skaven will be very competetive after this release, the amount of new synergies/powerups/etc. Is quite good and with almost no point cost changes. 4. No summoning mechanics (minus screaming bell and such). I don't mind summoning but not every army should have it and I'm glad skaven didn't get it either. 5. It's good to get new expanded lore for skaven. And then the bad stuff... 1. No new models (apart from that 1 warlock). 'nuff said. 2. Special Battlelines limited to their factions was the stupidest thing GW could've ever done. Thanks to that, playing skyre, moulder, eshin or pestilens force have way less options than before. You can't even ally nurgle as pestilens as then your army stops being pure pestilens. Book with 40 warscrolls yet these armies are limited to 4-10 or something like that... brilliant... 3. Speaking of universal battlelines... only clanrats and stormvermin... like couldn't they at least make skyre acolytes battleline if skyre hero is general and giant rats for moulder if master moulder is hero etc. What's even worse is that both of these battleline options are horde centric units, so if you want to maximise their potential, you need to spend a lot of points. 4. Battalions seemed mostly terribly and why on earth did they bring skyre enginecovens back? They could have split those enginecovens to separate much better mini battalions. What on earth went through their heads... 5. Some potentially broken stuff. Just look at plague monks: they get bonus to hit and wound when their unit is big enough. They get +1 attack on all weapons (staffs too) on both charge and prayer. They get full wound rerolls on prayer and corruptor command gives them full hit rerolls. Then you add banner that causes wound rolls of 6 to do 2 damage per hit. And they now have 6+ sv and don't have to worry about bshock (thanks to new furnace aura). Does that sound balanced to you at 70p/240p. They were never bad to begin with, it was the army surrounding them that was meh. Now the surrounding army is better and these guys have basically become new better cheaper witch aelves. So yeah, like I said, mixed feelings. I personally hope that people would make some noise regarding to those battleline options. I so want gw to loosen up those restrictions a bit (it should min. 70% army that is pure skyre, pestilens, whatever to unlock those battlelines.)
  22. And another thing I called (unfortunately)... no stormfiend/plague monk battlelines unless your army is nothing but that specific clan. I guess it self-balances the game to some extend (especially if plague monks are indeed still 70 for 10 guys) but man having literally no extra options is just plain sad (especially for skyre). Now I'm suddenly forced to buy multiple kits of clanrats/stormvermin to get some min battleline if I ever want to wield my thanquol, verminlord warpseer, etc. In battle. On a more positive note, if that video is to be believed, stormfiends are now 260p which is quite a discount.
  23. It's too early to say any of the changes being nerfs. Points are huge factor in determining whether unit was nerfed or buffed. And honestly as I looked those warscrolls I saw tons of buffs across multiple units. Furnaces for example are now insane (bshock immunity aura, more reliable censer, 5++ save for itself against wounds and mws, +1 attack is now prayer instead of corruptor command ability), plague monks got 6+ save and 1 of the banners give them extra dam with unmodified rolls of 6, add to that the skaventide horde ability and they are so broken if their points haven't increased. There are multiple similar changes in book. Plus for anyone complaining about warpfire thrower changes (for stormfiends/thanquol/teams etc.), all I can say you had it coming and I called it myself in several skaven threads here. Modern gw doesn't like too easy to do mws (plus they're now absolutely bonkers against horde armies). Personally I think most of the changes have been for better and these warscrolls haven't disappointed me in the slightest (well okay bit disappointed about stormfiend weapon limitations)
  24. Gotta say, I really dislike their use of that "battletomes for every grand-alliance"-picture. Unless they're really planning on releasing SCE, fyreslayers, soulblight, gutbusters/bcr and whatever that chaos mess is supposed to be. Not saying it's impossible to get all those factions but if one of those factions shown doesn't get new btome, it's almost akin to false advertisement. Still, my hope for future fyreslayer tome is still strong.
×
×
  • Create New...