stratigo

I agree with the centerpieces but wish they were less "The one named god leader of this faction" that most of them turn out to be. It's way less satisfying for me narratively to play an army led by the godking/queen of an entire faction cause it makes it impossible to really flesh the personality of the army I play out. They're pretty set of amber by virtue of having their literal god leading them. Which is part of the reason I like KO and hope they don't do a unified dwarves starring god king grungi as centerpiece.

I think the problem with just one monster is that it dies kinda easily.

just gotta get used to giant pigs tokyo drifting into your lines. Way of the future.

I think there's gonna be some big meta shakeups with hero monster focused lists. Just saying the double cabbage stonks are about to rise, invest now.

I mean, you are still getting creative model spacing that's gonna look goofy AF on the tabletop. I agree that GW should have made 6 the cutoff and not 5

I mean when your response to people saying lumineth (or, properly, sentinels) are overpowered is. "Well I played one of the worst armies in the game and lost! So checkmate!" in a very aggressive manner, I mean, no one is going to take you seriously. Anyone can lose a game. Bragging about it seems a little... uh... counterproductive Also, I am more then happy to throw down with a competitive or a casual list, long as I know the type of game someone is going for. If you break out a mean lumineth list, I don't mind playing with a mean KO list. If you play a softer list taking advantage of lumineth's range and not just hammering its most powerful combos, I don't mind easing off the throttle of my own list building. The only time I'll roll my eyes is if someone is playing a narrative event or saying they're looking for casual games and then throws down a netlist from the most recent tournament. Which is, sadly, not super uncommon.

I mean, being really bad at the game can only be compensated for so much.

using twitter and facebook is, uh, not great though.

Yeah, you go to Reece and tell him he should ban Slaanesh at his events. He'll go "haha, F off" I have no sympathy for "oh changes are pricey" from Bobby Kotick's company considering the guy continuously awards himself more and more money and then fires the people working for him to save money for the company. Activision is like a shining example of what's wrong with executives.

40k has more of a vision in competitive gaming then AoS historically has had. Maybe this will change in 3.0. They have made some movement in that way, but AoS has historically been more hesitant to cater to competition than 40k has been.

Seraphon still very good

I would not be surprised for GW to start doing a realm every six months to coincide with big FAQ and GHB releases.

I mean I have to go through life with people on the internet nd in real life pretending they know my job better than I do because they read a book from penguin press, or read a few wiki articles and that makes them experts on history now. Just how the internet works. GW rules writers make mistakes. Often a lot of them. I suspect these mistakes mostly come from lack of support combined with incredible time pressures from corporate and not because they are actually incompetent, and it's a pity cause it's just easier to blame the writers instead of the system. But that's kind of a common tragedy where individuals get blamed for institutional or systematic failings.

Or It(fly high). Welcome to the english language. rules writers should avoid indefinite pronouns.

Except it says clearly that a fly high can disengage and retreat. So... I'm going to read that literally.

It's only pointless if you decide it is, considering the wording is utterly unclear and open to interpretation in reading. When it says you can retreat and disengage, to me, it means literally that. Tis the words as written.

A win is a win and most tourneys count a tabling as max points

The wording of fly high has always been a problem

Or it means that fly high can retreat and disengage.

It can retreat and disengage after you declare it will fly high. Least how I read that line there

There's also a line that says clearly that it can retreat and disengage.

The wording also says clearly that it can retreat and disengage under fly high. Currently the interpretation of fly high is that it now has the same limits as disengage (can't get away from flyers).

Maybe, but only getting a couple of shots off isn't as efficient as getting to shoot every turn

I mean, this feels mostly like "I, an IDK player, think all the points changes are too high!"

I’d be fine if they also changed the artillery one to war machine instead of artillery