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

Lousy Beatnik

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

160 Celestant-Prime

About Lousy Beatnik

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I really hope that it is 100% over the top Chaos stuff!
  2. In first edition Warhammer, it was called "to kill" 😀
  3. Wow, the last kid I'd want changed is the current night goblin kit. Actually, I'd love them to re-size the multi-part set from late 5th (updated with shared skeleton/skaven plastic command sprue) to about 80 percent and re-release that Brilliant fun they were, but too big!
  4. Malign Portents was weird. I loved the short stories every couple of days and the one that snuck into white dwarf. I couldn't have cared less about the actual release of the four heroes, sadly! A single Realmgate War type book would be ace.
  5. It's probably a little dry, then? Sometimes I really prefer it, but some might not. Some real politics etc. The only real humour I remember is between Malekith and the Dwarfs, and the battles are pretty restrained (been a while though!). I loved them, but should re-read soon. I think the Nagash trilogy was more over the top, some big battles and lots of magic.
  6. Actually, I'm really liking the idea of separate books. One for competitive/points/scroll updates and one for open play/campaigns etc. Release them at opposite sides of the year, and at least you'd have fewer people "having to buy a book just to use 10%" of it.
  7. Shame you don't like elves, I enjoyed the Sundering trilogy the most (Malekith, Shadow King and Caledor). For slightly more over the top and AoS-ish, perhaps the Queek and Skarsnik books. Thanquol books, too.
  8. Some more interesting siege rules would be nice. Perhaps a couple of generic siege engines, but that would be a "unit without a model"...
  9. Doom Divers are such a brilliantly "Warhammer" image, I'd be surprised if we didn't see them back. An update, perhaps fired from grot flying ships would be awesome
  10. The early Warseer etc. Rumours were hilarious, and worth looking back if anyone has the time Regalia and the Nigmos orcs? Races surviving in bubbles of reality, randomly crashing and that's how battles begin? One of the main "fighting in the realm of chaos/ruins of the dead world" rumours had every race/army worshipping chaos and you'd pick which God. That actually sounded fun Back on topic, I'd love to know if there were people (Jervis?) Who honestly thought no points/restrictions would work long-term. I recall Gav Thorpe in an interview wondering how many people actually read the back of the Inquisitor rulebook, with his designer's notes and ideas on how to play.
  11. While I agree the thread has gone WAY off topic... That isn't it all the question the OP asked! Yuk yuk yuk! The question he/she asked is an interesting one, but I guess we'll never know the answer, and just go in circles with our own experiences or old complaints about early AoS.
  12. Precisely. Good or bad, it wasn't designed for playing in a "tournament hall"
  13. Lol, OK. I'll try again. I mean to say, I wish they were clearer that the game wasn't about defined, restricted, evenly matched competitive play. Rather, it's a plonk models on the table and see how it goes, or choose armies and try to re-create battles in the lore (admittedly hard, when the background was threadbare at the time). This is the approach plenty of people have, and still do take (look at after action reports for various games on Lead Adventure, for example), and is certainly the approach some current and former GW blokes take. Now, it probably wasn't nearly enough people taking that approach, and may have been a bad idea, that's another story! I do think it was naive to release a new game and $100 plus book without spelling out exactly the sort of games they intended, when so much of their existing players (WHFB and 40k) were used to points and restrictions. To put it another way, even your average indy game on wargamevault will have a paragraph at the front saying they intentionally didn't add points, or have only the roughest of points and if that's an issue, make your own or perhaps the game isn't for you (probably not the best line to put in a GW game though!)
  14. I just wish that from the get-go, GW had really made it a point to say the idea was to choose armies yourself and just play out the battle and see what happens, no competitiveness at all. That's it, a bit of insight into what they really had in mind, not months of people guessing that points would show up the next day, or a proper rulebook was surely coming out next month... (Of course we kind of got that with the general's handbook). One thing I liked, was the idea of battles being introduced by a short bit of background and poeple encouraged to re-create it. Sadly, that falls apart when the armies shown were of course made up of huge amounts of expensive models that so few could achieve!
  15. Of course not. It, and AoS weren't intended to be balanced! Not a bad thing.
  • Create New...