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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Liberator

1 Follower

About Whorable

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hoping to use this thread as a discussion and/or hopefully get some FAQs sorted. Starting with: Does anyone know which versions of the Battleplans we’re using? The top of the pack says it’s using GHB 2019 but some of the missions in the pack are the old version.
  2. I wouldn't say they're "broken" I'd just say that it can be a limiting factor- that is to say if you want to have a competitive army at the tournament scene you're either going to have to bite the bullet and have multiple drops (which from what I've seen hasn't done very well) or stick to your cookie cutter list. Not very creative and/or fun IMO. I'll put it this way. Imagine being able to sculpt your army without having to worry about getting shot off on turn 1. Now there's a 50/50 chance of me taking first turn and that assurance that Tzeentch has of zoning you out isn't a given. A game against a Murderhost could actually be fun if it wasn't just a fact that they get objective or charge first.
  3. I'm sure that this has been talked about before, apologies if there's some stale thread kicking around somewhere about it, haha. There's been a few rumors (certainly nothing concrete) about a rework of how it is decided who gets to choose to go first in GHB 2018. The change would essentially be that a roll-off decides this as opposed to drop count. Now before you guffaw, think about the current meta. There's the "have" armies. These armies have the ability to go one or two drop, get all the benefits beyond this (artefacts/extra rules from battalion) and ARE NOT limited very much by having to take odd combos of troops they wouldn't normally take. You'll notice these armies rising to the top of the tournament scene like curdled cream. Below them, but still in decent position are the armies that aren't battalion heavy but can either keep their drop count low by their inherent rules or just have enough stopping power to knock the other team off of objectives (Skyfire lists for example). Then there's the "have not" armies. These armies have real potential if you were to look at strictly their rules/troop choices but when putting together a list you either have to suffer because you're paying way too much for battalions or you just give in to the assumption that you won't be able to pick and then are generally at a distinct disadvantage especially in the tournament scene. My thoughts are that this just breeds non-creative garbage and cheese. You don't see people straying off the path too far from the meta net lists and when you do it's often not climbing to the top (with a few notable exceptions). For example, I was tinkering with the idea of making an Arcanite list (with other than JUST Skyfires) because I thought the models all look spectacular. If I want to go one drop with this faction I can do two different things: Profane cult - minimum 390 points and you have to have 2 units of at least 20 models of your Kairic Acolytes. Nah. Cult of Transient Form - minimum of 350 points. A little better but DAMN, that's a Lord of Change and a unit of Blue Horrors still. So then you say "Why don't you just build the list you want to build and forget about the drops?" Sure, I'd absolutely love to piecemeal a list together and optimize my troop choices to what I'd likely face in the current meta IF it didn't mean I lose to Changehost, Murderhost or K.O. at the top of 1 in a good percentage of games. The games aren't even fun or tactical. Solution? Either battalions benefit for the extra Artifact and the benefit of the battalion itself (rend -1, +Bravery, etc) but do not get to drop as a formation OR make it a ROLL OFF for who gets to choose first turn. Sure, less people will take battalions but maybe GW can offset this by making them reasonably priced again. Please feel free to weigh in!
  4. Awesome looking army, looks like you had a lot of fun and congrats on the win! Newer Tzeentch player here and although I have some idea what the Blue Scribes are capable of could you possibly go over some of the sexy things they can do?
  5. Thanks for clarifying that. You'd think with GW being such an old gaming company they'd be able to get these rules a little more clear and concise. You don't have these kinds of problems with MTG, why can't GW put that kind of effort into their product?
  6. I'm wondering why this doesn't work. Sayl is an StD unit and StD units may be allied with DoT. If your concern is that it's Nurgle (which obviously the one faction that can't be taken with StD) Sayl as far as I can tell doesn't have the Nurgle keyword as per https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/aos_warscrolls/warhammer-aos-tamurkhans-horde.pdf. Is there something else that I'm missing?
  7. Ok guys, I only use Fatesworn as there has been some talk of it in this thread so far and they are by-and-large all StD units. Here's a fun question for you guys: Fatesworn vs Blades of Khorne, though there is room for plenty of variance in both these armies for all intents and purpose we'll say each army is built as YOUR idea of what the lists would include in the current competitive meta. The only other criteria is that it the game is played as per rules for one of the 6 new battleplans. Who wins and by what ratio? e.g. 60/40 Fatesworn, 80/20 Khorne.
  8. I've often wondered about things such as this. This proxy in particular to me is great because I'm not a huge fan of the LoC model. I mean it's a beautiful model to be sure but it's just not my style I guess. It would be nice and I think really good for the hobby if there was some universal standard TO's went by for rules and matters such as these. Like for example if they could set a general guideline for conversions/proxies that was SOMEWHAT liberal but kept it from getting out of hand, that all TO's more or less abide. Perhaps some kind of third party organizer that would (and I know this is a scary word) monopolize the competitive scene. They could keep track of player stats, player points, meta statistics, etc. this latter statement similar to "em-tee-gee terp 8" I know there's things like this out there, but unless I'm mistaken it hasn't become really a standard norm. It would make things easier for the TO because essentially it would be akin to a restaurant franchise where all the decisions are made already. Anyways, I'm not trying to digress too far from the topic and I apologize if I have.
  • Create New...