stratigo
-
Posts
1,114 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by stratigo
-
-
12 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
Yeah, it's a significant nerf not gaining the CITIES OF SIGMAR keyword. On the plus side, it's pretty obviously just GW up to their old "we don't know what an editor is" tricks. Send in a message, if they get enough of them they'll fix it, and in the meantime surely anyone sensible will allow you to play them how it's obviously intended to be played. The fact that Stormcast, DoK and Lumineth coalition kept the keyword makes it super clear this is just a careless error.
Makes me a little paranoid when the dwarves are the faction the editors mess up on repeatedly while the elves are made sure to get the proper fixes
-
1
-
-
PtG is reminiscent enough of crusade that all the flavor is almost certainly coming in the battletomes. What we have now is the bland lunchmeat and bread, and all the sauce and spice is coming later.
I'm not a huge fan because, well, like who is gonna play PtG without a battletome? So hope your entire group gets their tomes first cause otherwise PtG isn't taking off?
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, insomniaftw said:
What about in the cases where a sub-faction is expressly REQUIRED? This FAQ specifically says that in order to have a living city army it must abide by exactly the living city color scheme. A color scheme they show in exactly 8 close-ups.
So, I guess it must be confusing to see a living city army based on cherry blossoms and with 3 treelords in it. You might think its something else entirely, even though none of the cities have a pink theme, and only one city can have more than 400 points of Sylvaneth.
If my opponent says that my pink and purple scheme is not the living city, it matches no city. That makes it fully 100% un-usable. This is, in general, unacceptable to me. I find the last-minute nature of having to beg my opponent to understand what he is looking at to be one bridge too far.
This rule means that - full stop - I should not paint, plan, or practice that army. Every single Tournament packet I have seen every clearly calls for no proxy models, and GW has said that models painted in non-book schemes are proxies. So if I don't have a connection to a specific city's color scheme, I just shouldn't play Cities. Or Soulblight. Or StD. All require subfactions, so all require specific paint schemes now.
Also, flip what you just said. If you get creative , you are denying yourself access to the extra free rules available to subfactions. Creativity (even as little as a single shade difference) carries a gameplay penalty. How far off of the scheme can you go? What if I paint the weapons as if they are trapped ghosts with the contrast ghost paints? Does that invalidate the paint on the armor and cloth? Does ANY variation change this? What if I paint the leather as a yellow-brown instead of a warm tan-brown? Does that invalidate my rules? What about basing? Can I base them on non-book basing designs? Like on tile or marble instead of grass and dirt?I mean, I do worry that GW suits will push this hard enough that GW staff and eventually even GW affiliated TOs will comply, but we're not there yet.
Again, this is mostly a problem from other players getting a wider avenue to be jerks their opponents. Rules lawyering gets bad, and I game see the mid table heroes (you know the type) whining to TOs about how the army they are playing isn't perfectly shaded in hopes they can get a forced forfeit.
-
I played DnD cause saturdays are dnd day XD. I painted terrain on sunday though
-
4 hours ago, Chikout said:
So is this whole thing technically a rule though? It's not an errata, just an answer to the question. If gw really wanted to enforce it, they would change 1.2.
They also don't specify what a proxy model is. A model painted a different colour is pretty much by definition not a different model.
This is what I would say to someone who had issues with me playing a particular colour scheme.
I could also say that my gold and blue army is not exactly the same shade of gold and blue as the eavy metal colour scheme, so it's not actually a Hammers of Sigmar army.
Finally I haven't seen a single person in this thread say they would forbid someone from using an alternative paint scheme.
To me it's a non issue simply because what else would GW say? "Yeah f*** Phil Kelly, Nick Horth, all the artists and the eavy metal team. Use what you like."
They tossed it into their tournament packs.
Now I know for a fact that a number of people working at GW think this is really asinine and stupid and it's unlikely to be enforced by GW tourney organizers unless their bosses are watching close, but that's kind of the underlying point is this is a ruling made by bosses out of greed.
But the issue isn't TOs. It's players. This game is not ****** free, and I know people who will either be in your face about how you paint your models, or will passive aggressively eyeroll and shoot snide comments that "you aren't painted right". And, again, I ain't got time for rulings that promote bullying in a hobby where I already see enough of it.
-
5
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Badlander86 said:
At any point in the movement phase then? As long as its before we do anything with the boat? And the rules for guys coming out of garrison are treated as having moved for the phase? The issue is the rules for garrison have been retroactively changed, as have triumphs, so what applies and what doesn't is up for debate. See the wordings for 2.0 and 3.0.
Not trying to be negative here but I have a lot of Rules Lawyers in my LGS who are going to use the word Garrison and link it to the Core Rules since Flying Transport does not give timing on the action. Rather than be called out as cheating, I'd best get opinions from people who know better.
Tell them they are dicks, battletome rules override generic rules. and if they are pissy enough about it, don't play them.
-
no where does flying transport say "refer back to the core rules"
Here's the relevant part "Units cannot join or leave this model’s garrison if it has made a move or flown high in the same phase (they can join or leave before it does so)."
So, as detailed by the warscroll, they can join or leave before the model moves or flies high in the same phase.
-
20 minutes ago, Badlander86 said:
I'm also at a loss with the new rules for leaving a Garrison. Based on what I read, a unit can only leave a garrison at the end of the movement phase but that's for garrison-specific rules. Add that to the restrictions of units joining or leaving a Flying Transport which states that you can't join or leave a Skyvessel if it has moved in the same phase which has not be errata'ed has left the guys in my shop to come to the conclusion that I can never unload my skyfarers unless I basically forfeit a move with my Skyvessel, making once flexible plays like There's only a Breeze basically redundant.
It's clear that Duardin are low on the list of priorities this edition, what with focus on Monsters and every flavor of Aelf, but this seems like them basically forcing us to play specific skyports like Barak Nar or Urbaz with heavy restrictions on listbuilding. I was never a great player before but right now, I can tell that its going to be harder to even hope for a win with all these very obvious un-synergistic rules and errata. They don't want people complaining about KO being top-tier. My only regret was not cheesing as hard as everyone else apparently was when KO was top-tier because now I feel I was being too nice.
so far, the reading is that the specific wording on our transports overrides the garrison core rules meaning we still do our own thing with garrisons.
But it would have been nice for a FAQ clarification
-
Just now, Saturmorn Carvilli said:
Or some people put spectacle and lore way ahead of the actual game. From the posts of yours I have read, I suspect you value gameplay and balance so much, I am not entirely sure whether you would understand that. Particularly as you seem upset and angry almost all the time here.
My GW collections feature a number of codified subfaction paint schemes. Black Legion Chaos Space Marines (~4000pts), Ymetrica Lumineth (~3000pts), Mephrit Necrons (~2000pts), Fallen/30k Dark Angels (~1000pts), Bad Moon Orcs kill team (~500pts), Stygies VIII Admech kill team (~300pts), Jormungandr Tyranids kill team (~250pts), Kabal of the Dying Sun or the Falling Moon Dark Eldar kill team (~200pts). Each get played in the subfaction they are painted in. No exceptions. All those kill teams were painted before subfactions were even added to Kill Team. Since most are 'stealth' based factions, the actual rules are pretty bad in Kill Team (some kind of Obscured when more than 12" away usually).
If the black and gold box art scheme of Slaves to Darkness ever gained subfaction rules, I'd use them too. I am that committed to lore/narrative over how they rules might fall out. I would prefer my opponent do the same. It does tend to indicate that they value the lore and the narrative of their army as much as a rpg player values their player character to me. At very least, they glanced at the lore part of these books. I suppose I respect the lore far more than the rules of any GW game. That said, I am not going to force their paint scheme to be a straight jacket. People change, rules change, favorite colors happen, cheap E-bay armies happen and a whole host of other things do to. So I keep my mouth shut on the subject and try and remember the subfaction they say it actually is. Because to me, it's just like using big centerpiece, unique character models, I really don't make use of them, but I am not the boss of my opponent's army.
Still, I can't help to feel the hobby is somehow lesser for it. Likely because I hang so much on the spectacle and lore side of things and have so little respect for the actual rules.
I actually prefer to build a narrative of games in my head, but there isn't much I can discuss about narratives on a web forum. I do greatly appreciate a well painted, well hobbied army. It looks cool. In 40k, my marines are always ultramarines (albeit I stopped playing marines in the 9th changeover, and I don't give a fudge about what subfaction my custodes are because they introduced rules for them after I painted a bunch). My KO have my own color scheme because I want them to be from my own skyport, I have a design document. And I have absolutely no compunctions about picking whatever subfaction feels fun in the moment, from generic, to nar, to zilfin.
Here's a trick though, cept for the marine subfactions you listed, I don't know the paint scheme for any of them. Not a one. Necron lore misses me. Are bad moons the yellow ones? Or is that evil sunz? Why would a race of pirate sadists have a uniform? Do wyches get regulation standard issue thongs?
And try to remember like it is hard. Give me a break.
The rule is going to be used by bullies to browbeat people, some of whom are gonna be socially awkward, or new enough to just let them get away with it and find themselves either leaving the hobby, or being bullied, and I am not here for it.
I have no patience for bullies, and this rule just enables them.
-
5
-
1
-
-
Just now, zilberfrid said:
As per the rules of different detachments in the same army on Warhammer World, they seem not to want matching paint schemes at all.
the differing detachments thing is just combos with the paintscheme to be even more limiting. Not only do different detachments have to be painted different, they have to be painted their "proper" subfaction.
-
1 hour ago, Gauche said:
They've been a mixed bag. I do play Thryng since Honour the Gods, Just in Case and Chronicle of Grudges are great benefits too (RIP Artifact/Trait though). On one hand they're a massive deterrent, one of the best Unleash ****** in the game and putting bodies on the table really helps with one of KOs biggest weaknesses. On the other hand they absolutely require a screen at all times and if you're made to go first they do very little on top of always being slow. With Rend 2 they're basically the most efficient shooting damage option we can get and I've had a great time with my Runelord and Arcane Tome.
From watching content and so on I seem to play KO very differently than most (I did not play in 2.0). I don't go all in on Turn 1, throwing everything I can into the opponent's Deployment Zone. The Irondrakes fit my playstyle a bit better because they're a turret whereas the rest of my army is mostly skirmishers, I also play Arkanauts for all my Battleline and they're a great screen for their cost.
For me I think they'll end up being kind of a meta call. If the new SCE, SBGL, and other durable armies are the thing to beat then they're amazing. Without that they do lose some luster.
I just read your most recent batrep and I think you missed where the FAQ broke thryng. The coalition units no longer gain the Thryng keyword, meaning they don't benefit from the grudges nor can they activatehonor the gods.
It is supremely annoying.
-
2 hours ago, Ahriman said:
Really great point, and with the game ever in flux not one I have an answer too that I'm comfortable with.
I suppose its a situation that's covered by the "ask permission" caveat as you say. But I live in a world where I can't fathom a situation where somebody would say no. But that may just be a luxury I am blessed with that isn't universal.
In a 'casual' game, they either say yes, or they say no at which point there are likely to be better opponents out there.
In a competitive tournament setting, the points raised earlier about it being a complex game, and the colour of your models hardly affecting that tactical decision making come into effect, so people would have to be rather braisen to say that you couldn't play by the rules you wanted. And its something you could ask a TO in advance to cover you as well.
So I can't see it ever being a real issue, but again that may well be a luxury I hold.
As such the rule is simply an ideal GW wishes to reach one day. I definitely don't think they maliciously want to put people in an awkward situation.
GW probably wants people to feel pressured to have matching paint schemes and think it'll get people to do a marines and buy 10 different copies of the same models to all paint different.
People bullying others are, in this sense, a win cause it adds to that pressure
-
7 hours ago, RuneBrush said:
Just caught up with the current discussion and I think we're looking at some extreme situations. My interpretation is as follows 😊
First off proxy vs conversion/kit bash. In this context, a proxy is when you substitute a pre-defined miniature (A) for a different pre-defined miniature (B). For example if I used a unit of Chaos Marauders in my Khorne army as Blood Reavers. It could be confusing and would certainly be so if I went "the ones with red trousers are Blood Reavers but the ones with black trousers are Marauders". If I'd scultped Khorne symbols onto those marauders and used heads from a different box - basically changing them so they physically look different then they'd be considered a conversion. You have to apply common sense to this and remember we play games 3 feet away from our miniatures. In fairness at the opposite end of the scale a proxy could be a miniature that is so radically different to the GW models that you genuinely don't recognise what it's meant to be (if you have to declare a model "counts as" then it's likely a proxy).
Painted schemes. OK, this is always a controversial subject because we all have our own opinions and views. In my eyes this has never been about preventing people being creative - if you have come up with your own scheme I don't actually think this rule even is about you. Instead I see this as more about somebody who's painted their army up using a GW created scheme for a particular sub-faction, but chosen the rules for a different sub-faction. In the vast majority of cases, providing you're consistent and explain what's what, you'll likely be fine, however there will be cases when you're playing somebody who knows exactly how a Khorne Skulltakers Tribe should play, may be playing a team game, have spectators or even have the game being streamed. Basically anything that would cause a "hang on, I didn't think that unit could do X".
Now that's nothing to say that using proxies and not matching up colour schemes is bad. Maybe you want to test out how a unit of Blood Knights would work, but only have a unit of Gore Gruntas for example. What you need to do is to check with your opponent or a TO if you're planning on doing this in the wild so to speak.
The reason people are so against it is that everyone knows that guy who will sit there and ****** and whine and insult you and use every ruling in the book to make the play experience as miserable as possible, and the primary thing the paint scheme ruling does is hand ammo to that guy to make the play experience even worse, usually by concern trolling.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I was interested in thryng before they thoughtlessly broke it. Imma wait to see if they fix it again or do the dwarf combo book
For my money, the most competitive build probably remains the same as it used to be, the zilfin drop list.
-
Seraphon winrate isn't going south of 60 anytime soon, don't worry
-
1
-
-
You just have to rebase it, don't go crazy.
-
9 hours ago, cofaxest said:
And not every Lumineth take Teclis in their one drop lists.
I mean, teclis is points heavy enough that competitive LRL are going to look for all the ways to replace him
XD
-
1 hour ago, Kodos der Henker said:
you give evil GW way too much credits here, they don't even try to get that far when writing rules
the same way as new models are always better than old ones (they are not) to sell more, while in reality they just are not able to do better even if they trythe idea behind was an "emergency balance batch" in 40k because the Legion that no one really played except those that liked the fluff, got really overpowered rules, play tester told this GW and were ignored, people told them after release and were ignored, and instead of trying to fix the problem (and admit that mistakes were made), their solution was that only people who use the right colours are allowed to play with the OP faction
that people are supposed to buy more would be a side effect, their main goal is that everyone stops playing the OP stuff so they don't need to admit that they were wrong and the problem is solved
that we see now the same here is more a hint that they messed up something with the Subfaction rules and are not going to fix it anytime soon and not to try to increase sales intentionally (from their point of view, everyone already buys their stuff because they like the models, not because there are special rules that make some modes/factions better than others)
GW knows how to make money. They are looking for more ways to make money. The dudes in charge of the company couldn't give a flying fig about balance. They care about money.
The people having to write these FAQ rulings roll their eyes out of their heads over them. Which is why, incidentally, it is almost never enforced at GW venues. Because the people supposed to be enforcing it think it is dumb as poop. It's just the men in suits sitting in offices looking at numbers going up that care.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sleboda said:
That's a very generous attitude, truly, but at that point is your opponent really in the hobby at all, or is he/she "just" a gamer in the level of a Monopoly player?
I mean, the core of this wonderful experience of ours is the collecting, painting, and playing with models that look like the things they represent in the rules.
If the only part a person is into is the pure tabletop tactics, that's fine, but it's hard to argue they are participating in a hobby. And even if they are, the are assuredly massively diminishing the experience for their opponents andn any onlookers.
As to the financial piece, as harsh as this may sound, nearly all hobbies have equipment, fees, etc. that present financial barriers. You can't show up to an organized hockey tournament with a stick off a tree and tennis shoes instead of skates. You can't drive in a Formula 1 race with a bicycle. You can't have a game of chess, even, with 16 ball bearings as your pieces.
You need the correct equipment. I certainly don't want to exclude people, but there is something to the reality that most activities like these do require you spend at least the minimal amount of money to make them functional and in keeping with what others have committed to doing.
Yes those famously common monopoly players whose primary entertainment time is taken playing naught but monopoly.
You could, in fact, have a game of chess with easy proxies.
But I see you backed the heck off on trying to claim armies must be painted their subfaction huh?
1 hour ago, Sleboda said:Well, clearly, objectively, that's not the case at all. I think GW's explanation says it que nicely and immediately disproves your assertion. Presenting known to represent one thing and asking your opponent to disregard all their experience with those things, is, frankly, an unfair imposition on them.
To put it sightly differently, consider the other player. Isn't it right to think that by using confusing models you might be putting them in a bad spot?
"The great GW overlords have told me conversions and hobbying anything but the strict box art is bad, and they are great and good, so this must be true"
-
4
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, stratigo said:
the alpha strike list can build a mortal wound skew into it, though it's harder with the WLV nerf. Have to be cagier with how you set up the WLV now.
There really isn't a lot of rend in the game, KO actually do rend better then a lot of factions, but rend just isn't really a thing. I struggle to think of a heavy rend army? A monster skew maybe.
On the other hand some armies are skewed for mortal wounds and that just ignores armor entirely.
I want to elaborate on this.
Rend of any level is actually kind of devalued in the game right now, it's dramatically easy to have good save units stacking saves by three, and rend three is too rare for any army in the game at all to actually rely on it.
-
4 hours ago, Gauche said:
I think KO are going to play as a Soup army moving forward.The game is moving in a heavy Rend direction and KO don't do that well, it's hard to get better than -1 in any viable numbers. I see your actual KO stuff as taking out the lighter units and skirmishing but things like Irondrakes taking on the enemy heavy hitters. This makes Barak-Thryng the most likely Skyport to see in my opinion, the old Alpha Strike lists some favored in 2.0 just don't work anymore. The one exception would be double Frigate or Frigate + Ironclad and using Fly High with the GHB Battalion for Behemoths (works RAW, no FAQ yet).
Gotrek is still good, I'm also looking at the Celestant-Prime as a replacement. He doesn't hit nearly as hard but he self-delivers without fail, provides some MWs, and has few enough Wounds to pick up Cover + AoD/TFH. Irondrakes with a Runelord are another great package and we probably run it better on the table than anything but Living Cities. A Runelord with Arcane Tome is hilarious, two +2 Unbinds and a +2 Dispel plus access to Curse in an army that can actually make it work? Sold.
I haven't seen much else that would fit the bill, Hearthguard don't have the Rend and are pricey while most SCE stuff is in the same boat. The good news is we still blow up chaff and I'm seeing a lot more Monsters or elite units/pieces who don't want to stand on Objectives so KO can force opponents into some hard decisions. OBR and SCE are looking very resilient to just about everything though.....
the alpha strike list can build a mortal wound skew into it, though it's harder with the WLV nerf. Have to be cagier with how you set up the WLV now.
There really isn't a lot of rend in the game, KO actually do rend better then a lot of factions, but rend just isn't really a thing. I struggle to think of a heavy rend army? A monster skew maybe.
On the other hand some armies are skewed for mortal wounds and that just ignores armor entirely.
-
6 hours ago, Bregor said:
Two Armies, Two Very Different Stories
I play two armies primarily - Tzeentch Arcanites and Skaven (mostly Skryre). The two armies are going in *very* different directions currently, and have *much* different outlooks for 3.0 from my view.
Tzeentch Arcanites - Now, by this I mean a mostly Tzaangor and Tzaangor-on-Disc focused army. I have come to the conclusion that someone either beat the design team soundly with an army comprised mostly of gors (esp. enlightened), or failing that stuffed a bunch of Tzaangor on discs into a sack and physically attacked someone on the design team with them. Ever since the BoC book came out, they've basically suffered a death by a thousand cuts with every new update or rules change, and come into this new edition with a whole bunch of points increases and rules reductions with little to show for it. Consider this - in the DoT allegiance, 10 Tzaangors are 195 points. That gets you 20 wounds on 32m bases with only 1" reach weapons, where only 4 in 10 have any Rend at all. Not only that, but the unit can't benefit from any bonuses to hit or wound (no All-Out Attack for you!), and have a 5+ save and only a 6+ ward on half the unit that you have to give up hitting on 3+ for those models to use (and they have to die first!) Some nice additional rules, but restriction piled on restriction makes them exceedingly cumbersome to use. That's the army in a nutshell, really, and you're paying through the nose for what benefits you do get. I'll basically be trying to retool this army as BoC to attempt to salvage something out of it, but it's not gonna feel good to do. So, really I'll be playing
Skaven - On the other hand, the rats look primed to be in a really good spot atm. Most points went up, but most were not too bad (my poor Stormfiends got skewered though
). Unleash hell on WLCs that are in a Grand Battery looks like it's gonna be *fun*, and there look to be a lot of options for viable army lists. It could still use a new book to get rid of some of the clunkiness that the army has (look at our battleline units for a good representative example), but all in all I'm looking forward to blowing myself up over and over again trying to get my enemies to ride the lightning. 
Tzaangors on disc were the terror of AoS 1, so might be residual shock from that.
-
15 hours ago, Kadeton said:
Yes, of course it does. But you shouldn't factor that into the cost of armour. Instead, you increase the cost of units that can inflict mortal wounds (because that's a very valuable ability). Mortal wounds become expensive, and therefore rare... thus increasing the effective value of armour again.
The point is that you baseline the unit's cost based on its own abilities, not what's available to certain other armies - because then your heavy armour will be balanced against just those armies but overpowered against everyone else. If heavy armour is devalued because mortal wounds are too common, the solution is not to make armour too cheap, it's to make mortal wounds less common.
Anyway, I think we're off topic.
This is a strong should I agree with.
GW doesn't though
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, LuminethMage said:
Like I said, it was one game, and the LRL I had (100% Vanari and Scinari) tend to rely on MW anyway. Plus I ran into a lot of 3+ save units on the other side. It's probably not every game. On the plus side, units might not always just get deleted outright. I do think MW will be important, but generally speaking I found the game very balanced, and it's also good to have some tanky units in the game. I had serious problems taking down his Radukar for example - which is good.
It might be an issue for lists like mine - because outside of MW, LRL often just do 0/-1 rend, 1 damage attacks. That's how they are build. I can see it being a bit like this against enemies like Stormcast, but then I think that's their thing, low models, hard to take down. (You can build different list, like with our mountain spirits, and those might get more popular over AoS 3).
It was pretty good to see that we had still both around half of our armies left start of BR 5, although we were constantly fighting, I prefer that to what happened often before - at start of T2 nothing much left if one side got the double, or fastest end of 3, basically everything was over.
I could see low MW output armies struggle against some opponents though. Concern about that isn't totally unverified in my view, but right now I'd look more on all the exciting new things we get, and see how it goes.
Most people do 1 damage 1 rend attacks. LRL just get that plus easy mortals.
Mortal wound spam is really bad for the game. Because how do you price saves? Like a 3 plus save monster is a complete nightmare to kill. It's so easy to stack saves to get to a two plus and not worry at all about rend. So, do you assign a bunch of points to those monsters? Then LRL, or Tzeentch, come in and go "lul saves? What's that?". So do you cut the cost of that monster because there's three or four armies that dumpster it? But then it becomes way too cost effective verse most armies in the game.
How do you derive a good value for high armor saves if a bunch of armies mostly ignore it? I mean, nighthaunt literally withered on the existence of having unrendable saves that GW values too highly.
So, high save monsters are super pushed and they very easily get a bunch of save buffs and it's just a complete terror. Except against LRL. So, LRL get a big ol' boost from GW pushing high save monsters because LRL don't care about all those saves. It's a feedback loop here. Worse yet, the very existence of LRL (and, like, tzeentch) could actually just trash the meta GW is trying to push because mortal wounds are an inherently unbalancing mechanic. Because when an army like LRL exists, it suppresses the value of good saves, but if those saves get valued to compare to a LRL army, then units that have them instead dumpster every army not as graced as LRL. And this is an issue that just compounds unless every army gets the same easy access to mortal wounds as LRL.
Mortal wounds are fine in an even spread across armies in small numbers to act as a balancing mechanism for high save units, but are terrible when unevenly distributed with some armies getting just far too many
-
11
-
1
-
). Unleash hell on WLCs that are in a Grand Battery looks like it's gonna be *fun*, and there look to be a lot of options for viable army lists. It could still use a new book to get rid of some of the clunkiness that the army has (look at our battleline units for a good representative example), but all in all I'm looking forward to blowing myself up over and over again trying to get my enemies to ride the lightning. 
AoS 3 New Rules Discussion
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I mean, you got people in this thread going "Oh you better use the rules if you painted your models in a particular way, or you a baddie"