Jump to content

Enoby

Subscriber
  • Posts

    2,635
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Enoby last won the day on August 31

Enoby had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About Enoby

  • Birthday June 13

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Enoby's Achievements

Lord Celestant

Lord Celestant (9/10)

4.3k

Reputation

  1. As someone who has never played Stormcast or really played much against them, what's the general consensus on this book after the FAQs, if there is one?
  2. That recent 5-0 list was talked about in the below Metawatch: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/10/21/metawatch-meet-the-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-armies-upsetting-the-meta-at-the-warhammer-open/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Facebook&utm_term=Metawatch211021&utm_content=Metawatch211021&fbclid=IwAR1ie95-1YRiDRvvhFklyuGSPZFie_5fTi5ZBLhf5pRULivpv_Pywjoa-ss With some cool art too!
  3. I've played Pretenders in friendly games and I do think they're a bit naff compared to the other two, but I think you could make them work. The Sceptre of Domination (I think that's it's name) is a pretty neat artifact, and the Amulet of Destiny going on a KoS with Master of Magic and Slothful Stupor is pretty fun: Army Name: Slaanesh (Pretenders) Army Faction: Hedonites of Slaanesh Army Type: Pretenders Battlepack: Pitched Battles Points Limit: 2000 pts General: Keeper of Secrets Grand Strategy: Prized Sorcery Units Hellstriders with Claw-spears Battlefield Role: Battleline Points Cost: 135 pts Ungor Raiders (Coalition Ally) Battlefield Role: Other Points Cost: 90 pts Core Battalions Warlord Keeper of Secrets (General) Battalion Slot Filled: Commander Battlefield Role: Behemoth, Leader Command Traits: Master of Magic, Strongest Alone Artefacts of Power: Amulet of Destiny Spells: Slothful Stupor Points Cost: 420 pts Synessa Battalion Slot Filled: Sub-commander Battlefield Role: Leader Points Cost: 260 pts Blissbarb Archers Battalion Slot Filled: Troops Battlefield Role: Battleline Points Cost: 180 pts Blissbarb Archers Battalion Slot Filled: Troops Battlefield Role: Battleline Points Cost: 180 pts Shardspeaker of Slaanesh Battalion Slot Filled: Sub-commander Battlefield Role: Leader Points Cost: 150 pts Glutos Orscollion Battalion Slot Filled: Commander Battlefield Role: Behemoth, Leader Spells: Battle Rapture Points Cost: 475 pts Endless Spells/Invocations Umbral Spellportal Points Cost: 70 pts Total Points: 1960 pts --- General idea is for Glutos to stick the Spell Portal up for the KoS to Slothful Stupor the scariest monster through it. Note, this won't work against Tzeentch or Lumineth very well, but in a casual sense it's good against things like Mawkrushas, Gotrek (outside Lumineth), and kind of Archaon (if you can get over than 4+ ignore). It's not the be all and end all of the strategy, but it's concerning enough. Blissbarbs, Synessa, and Raiders are there for some chip damage for some DP, and hurting shooting units the enemy may have. Glutos is the target of the KoS's command ability. I was thinking about a second KoS, but decided against it as it's much more fragile without the AoD and wouldn't have the spell casting potential for things like Mystic Shield/Arcane Bolt. His command ability is in the Hero phase, so you can use it and have him benefit from All Out Defence or the KoS's command ability in the Combat Phase. If he uses All out Defence/Attack on the KoS, I think the KoS can use its CA on him. The Hellstriders and the Raiders are more there as screens and objective sitters for the first turn. The biggest issue is how swingy the KoS. It doesn't do loads of damage on average, but can spike hard. Hopefully with Glutos's -1 to hit and the AoD, plus its own healing, it can stick around long enough to be useful. The Shardspeaker is just kind of there; her spell's okay and the +1 to wound is theoretically good (but never works), but I wanted an unnamed hero to hold the Sceptre. The Sceptre itself is suprisingly annoying as it's both hero phases - as long as you get close enough, it's a better version of Heroic Inspiration as it steals a CP off the opponent. The alternative would be a Lord of Pain or Herald, and I don't think either are as useful. --- For info, the average damage of Strongest Alone KoS vs normal Glutos: So he is generally a better target for the CA than another KoS (though the KoS has roar). With the Pretenders ability, it's probably best to summon 30 daemonettes.
  4. No I totally agree that aelves are cool having their own subfactions I think it helps diversify them as people, rather than them feeling like a hive mind species or something. I would like humans to get more diversity too, but that has no bearing on aelves. Well yes, but that's because Khorne is the most boring Chaos God who lacks the artistic vision to come up with his own design
  5. From the perspective of someone who really likes that Chaos is more segmented, I'll give you my reasoning I think one of the important things to consider is that each Chaos God is very distinct in both theme and aesthetic, narratively and gameplay wise. So when you have an army of all four gods souped together (for example through daemons and mortals), you get some dissonance. From a lore perspective, the gods and their followers hate one another as much (if not more) that Sigmar hates them. It is very often stated in the lore that they only work together under the most exceptional of circumstances and that's why the Everchosen is such a big deal. In the same way that High Elves and Dark Elves were treat as different armies, each Chaos God is very different with opposing goals. I, and many others, would find it nonsensical should they have souped High and Dark Elves (pre End Times) because they were both the same species despite the massive cultural differences. The same stands for daemons and mortals of Chaos. So you may just think "well sure, but just give the daemons/mortals one book but let people decide how they want to divide their forces" - so like 40k works currently, where you have the "Daemons of Chaos" book that can be played pure Tzeentch or whatever. This is all well and good, but you would first have to think on how to divide it. Do you do a daemon/mortal split, meaning that someone who likes the Khorne aesthetic can use Daemonettes in their army but can't use Bloodletters and Blood Warriors together? What about a special rule for including those god marked units? Could work, but like most books where you can use a 1or 2 in 4 of a unit, it likely wouldn't synergise properly. And then you'd need to contend with the problem all soup books face - have some warscrolls and themes not be fully realised or be relegated to the worst part of the book. If you loved the Khorne aesthetic, but your options for playing Khorne were buying a book where you only featured in 1/4 of it and there's a chance that to make the most of your army you need to buy models you have no interest in because they're nothing like your chosen aesthetic. I think aesthetically, playstyle wise, lore wise, and fan base wise the Chaos Gods are just as different as every other army is to one another. If a person had no perspective of Warhammer Lore and I showed them these models, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't automatically group the Chaos God stuff into one pile of sameness.
  6. I think this is an unfair take (to say they "don't want to like it"). I don't agree with everything Bosskelot said, but I do agree that the world building of AoS is sparse - I disagree that it's quite as sparse as they're suggesting (for example Anvilguard has been at least a bit fleshed out), but a lot of the places on the map just have no history behind them. That's likely the point - so someone can make their own history - but it doesn't really do much to flesh out the world in an official sense. I say this as someone who has read the Realmgate Wars saga (both the Black Library books and campaign books), and never played Fantasy. I couldn't tell you anything about 'The Crystal Henge'. I have no clue why it's there, what it does, who it belongs to (if anyone), and if anyone lives there. I'd assume no humans as it's on the 'Unreachable Mountain' next to a big sea of green and lava islands. But then there's a castle called "Hengegate" which would suggest that it's important enough to guard (or at least was at some point). Even Asphyxia, which was closer to the plot, isn't much more than a fiery wasteland. Khorne Bloodbound live there, but I have no clue what they eat (each other maybe? But then how are there any of them left) or why anyone would care to control a fiery wasteland. Now, there are definitely some places where AoS has expanded its lore and that's great. But there are still a lot of half (or not) explained places in AoS put on a map to make the area look like it has history without actually writing that history. Again, I imagine this is partially for people to make their own homebrew and get people's imagination going. But personally I prefer to just use a totally make believe homebrew place (which AoS is great at facilitating unlike WHFB) and build my own history, rather than using a half formed idea that could be developed on in the future and thus erasing my homebrew. In Fantasy, something I have no previous connection to, you can point at a place on the map and say "that's there for X reason, and here's its history". Which comes at the cost of being a very restrictive setting for wargaming (the reason I personally prefer AoS), but a generally more interesting setting to read about.
  7. Yeah, I think that's one of the downfalls of such a vague setting. Sure, I'm much more interested in my guys than I am in any of the official characters, but there's no reason anyone else would care about my guys so I can't exactly discuss them with people online. On the other hand, in a tight setting with clear lore and implications attached to that lore, I may find it hard to be as creative as I want to be with my characters, but it's a lot easier to discuss that online. While 40k is a much larger franchise, its subreddit has 429,000 members and AoS's subreddit has 103,000. So around 4× as many people generally interested in the game. 40k Lore's subreddit, on the other hand, had 146,000 members and AoS Lore has 6600 members - there are 22× the number of people discussing 40k lore. While AoS being newer will mean it's less established, general interest seems about 4× lower whereas lore interest seems massively smaller.
  8. While this wasn't an unpopular opinion in 2015, I think it may be unpopular now - or at least on this forum. I don't think that AoS, without a major retuning of its lore and theme, will ever be as popular as 40k or Fantasy outside of the Wargaming sphere. That is to say, the world of AoS will not hold as much appeal as the other Warhammers to the general audience not willing to put in time to look deeper into the setting on their own accord. The reason for this, in my opinion, is because on the outside AoS's lore looks very generic and bland epic fantasy - something you'd find in concept art or on the cover of a metal album. AoS is a lot more than that, but it doesn't have the immediate theme of 40k and Fantasy. When you look at 40k, it has character - the world leaks grimdark without needing to read the setting any more than the opening paragraph. When you look at Fantasy, it has a lot of charm in its dirty artwork - the charm is often cruel, but it feels very British in its own way. But AoS, on the surface, still seems like something that wouldn't be out of place in a Magic the Gathering set; it's not bad, but it's so epic it feels bland. Now, when you look closer at the lore, I think AoS beats out Fantasy handily as a Wargaming setting, being both better for adding in your own characters and armies as well as being a constantly evolving world. I think AoS is much better than current 40k lore, but to be fair I think current 40k lore is absolutely terrible and misses the best parts of 40k's setting. I say this as someone who started in AoS with very very little previous exposure to Warhammer. This isn't nostalgia speaking. I find myself much more easily drawn into the background of 40k and Fantasy because they seem to have much more character than AoS does on the surface. Of course reading a 40k book or trying to add my own lore into Fantasy, I'm glad I'm with AoS - but I imagine for the average person who doesn't play Warhammer, the AoS setting doesn't hold much appeal and so there's a much smaller chance of video games or transformative fan content being created for it. I do hope this changes, but I think AoS would need quite a considerable reinvestment in its theme and lore. That said, as others have stated, GW aren't exactly helping themselves by having the majority of major AoS characters just being more epic Fantasy characters.
  9. When I said synergy, I more meant ''''Synergy'''' in that it's not exactly a combo - but yes, you're right, it's with Glorious Reborn. The idea is that you charge him, get like a 7, he immediately attacks first and then he piles in again for effectively 14 uninterrupted attacks, which will usually finish something off. The Epitome is good - definitely a nice horde clearer with Hysterical Frenzy, or you can go full ham and give them Flaming Weapon to give their 9 attacks 2 damage each. Ahh, I should have been more specific - she does very well for her points and role, but I meant more that she won't be wiping out any big units That's not necessarily an issue, but it does mean that you'll need something else big in your army to bring the hurt. I've used him a few times at 1k and I've not had any issues with his survivability, so long as you give him All Out Defence/Mystic Shield when possible He can act as a primary damage hero if needs be, especially against things like Hearthgaurd or any psychopath who brings Gotrek at 1000pts They're definitely not a bad choice I do tend to use a unit or two in my lists, especially to get rid of other ranged units. Slickblades, like many of our units, have a really good profile marred by an incredibly high points cost. I do like using them and they're fantastic models (some of my favourite in person) but they are a hefty points investment - be ready to spend CP saving them from battleshock (or cast the battleshock immunity spell on them from the mortal spell lore). They do a decent chunk of damage and are surprisingly resilient due to their high wounds. If you can get them on rerolling hits, they do an average of 8 wounds vs a 2+ save, 11 wounds vs a 3+ save, and 14 vs a 4+. In general I think they got worse, but they're not awful should you be willing to give them another +1 save. They're worse against no rend and -1 rend, but a bit better vs -2 and above. It's an unfortunate casualty of the removal of rerolling saves throughout AoS. Certainly much better, though I think their lack of rend makes them look worse than they are So long as you don't but them against a 2+ save model, they do very good damage - 10 of them do an average of 18 against a 3+ save when rerolling hits. Hope this all helps
  10. I'm not sure about the "abomination of rules design", but I do agree with the latter part. While in polls on AoS forums, you see positivity towards the double turn, on more general Wargaming/Warhammer forums you see a lot of people saying "I would play AoS but I just can't get over the double turn". It's likely a survivorship bias on AoS sites as those who can get over or enjoy the double turn stick around, whereas those who don't enjoy it may chose to not play the game at all and so leave the community. Whether AoS would be a better for removing the double turn, I do think it would be more popular (at least temporarily).
  11. Welcome One of the most common complaints with Slaanesh is that the book lacks synergy. This isn't to say that it doesn't have its benefits - playing Slaves to Darkness recently it has reminded me that strong buffless warscrolls have advantages, but it does make the army weird to build for. You've got to look at everything in the concept of roles, deciding what each unit will do in advance and have them perform that role. One advantage of little to no synergy is that list building is very free - there's no case of "I need to reserve 300 points for my buff pieces". On the other hand it can be a bit dry. That said, the Lord of Pain does have a decent command ability when it's put on Glutos or even Painbringers. Out of the hosts, on their own, no particular one is amazing. Godseekers is probably the best at base, just due to the easy summoning charge range. I personally prefer Invaders, who have the Skin Taker command trait which can be a lot of fun on a Keeper of Secrets with the amulet of Destiny. The Rod of Misrule is also a lot of fun. Personally I don't reckon much to Pretenders. They're not terrible but the command traits aren't good enough compared to Invaders and Godseekers for it to be the main bonus, and it's quite rare that you'll have a unit of 10 or more to benefit from the other ability. Lurid Haze is probably the most easy and generally best variant host. The rules are as follows: - Billowing Mists: Remove D3 of your set up units after deployment. Teleport them out of 9" of the enemy and 6" of the table edge at the end of your moment phase. - Feverish Anticipation (forced command trait): Reroll run rolls within 12" of this general. - Forced artifact: Add one to the bearer's wound characteristic. - Command ability: all heroes gain access to a command ability that gives a unit within 12" +1 to save rolls. This is like All Out Defence but better as it can be used any phase and I believe at any time during save rolls. In addition it can be used in the same phase as All Out Defence. So the best/most simple way to use this is teleport Sigvald and either run or teleport a Keeper of Secrets. Have him charge, strike first, and then pile in again immediately. This is probably the closest thing we have to synergy The Masque is really good, and the Shardspeaker can be, but it's really dependant on what other units you have in 1000 points. Neither pack a punch so you'll need something to pick up the slack. Sigvald isn't actually a bad choice in 1k points, but I would recommend him with Lurid Haze at this level just to ensure he sees combat ASAP - otherwise you can have a pricey model doing nothing. Is there any reason you think this? They're not bad by any stretch, but don't do tonnes of damage for their price and die to a stiff breeze. They are very nice at screen clearing and a big unit of them can hurt a lot, but they don't benefit from our allegiance ability or any command abilities except the generic ones. They are very good at depravity generation too. Their biggest issue will always been how quickly they die and the fact we often don't have the spare points for screens. I like Painbringers and Twinsouls, the latter doing tonnes of damage against the right target and the former being a decent anvil that tanks very well, so I tend to use the Lord of Pain to make them battleline inside an Invaders army where I can have a better model be the real general. I'll rarely use his command ability on anything but himself or Glutos, or a unit of Painbringers in a clutch situation. It is actually very good on Slickblade Seekers, but good luck catching them with him. As a side note, think of Painbringers as Liberators/Bloodwarriors/Chaos Warriors+; they are a bit too pricey, but they do around double the damage of the other units unbuffed. Think of Twinsouls as horde clearers. You never want a unit of more than 10 imo as they are super expensive and can just fail VS a goof save. I do like summoning them if depravity is tight. Their issue is that their best attack is super swingy, and using them in a unit of 6 makes them suffer from coherency rules. That said, summoned in a unit of 3, they can't be ignored by a monster. If you do have 12+ depravity though, you're better summoning 30 daemonettes or a KoS. This seems about right I think you'll usually generate about enough for two Keepers in a game depending on your list, so having 3p daemonettes, a KoS, and three fiends on standby sounds about right.
  12. I think Strength and Toughness (as it presents itself in current 40k) would be fundamentally good for the game, and the lack of it is the main cause of warscrolls not feeling like their narrative would suggest, and the homogenisation of some warscrolls. Currently warscrolls are very static and, except in exceptional circumstances, there tends to be one Warscroll that is just the best at damage for its points and so becomes the default hammer in a competitive setting. With Strength and Toughness, you would need multiple different types of damage dealers (should they balance it correctly) to deal with multiple different types of defences. Having rend VS saves being the only inter-model interaction isn't enough, especially as -1 rend is common regardless of if you're a hulking monster or semi-elite soldier. While it is a little more complicated, it's a single extra step that takes a sentence to find out (e.g. "what's the toughness on that unit please?"). Yes they could do it badly and muck up everything, but we should give the rules writers some credit. Overall, I think Strength and Toughness is a narrative tool.
  13. While some level of political talk (especially when it comes to theories and worldviews) are interesting and welcome, it's best for the sake of civil discourse to keep real world politicians out of it
  14. Strange - I can see everything just fine still, and don't have Warhammer +. Maybe a glitch, or I got lucky?
  15. ++Mod Hat++ (This is only in relation to this part of your post, everything else is fine!) I do get what you're saying here and, as you may already know, I am also very pro-diversity when it comes to the AoS community and models, being one of the 'politcals' myself . However, I think it would be a good idea to not make the topic more divisive by pointing the blame at the plurality of "old white guys"; I do get that you're not saying "all old white guys" and are rather referring to those who exist as the nasty underbelly to the community, but the way it's currently worded does suggest a large chunk of this subgroup are cruel people which I don't think is fair. It sucks to be generalised, and I can't imagine it feels great for some of the 'old white guys' who are great people to read this. I do get you're not trying to say all old white guys are evil, but it could well be read like that and make someone feel bad for characteristics they can't control. I do know the exact sort of personality you mean and very much agree they're a blight on the community as a whole, but I think it would be better to group them based on beliefs rather than immutable traits
×
×
  • Create New...