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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vextol

  1. Vextol

    Pile in 6"

    Can you pile in to combat you're not in? I'm sure this has been asked, but, if I have a 6" pile in but didn't charge, can you pile in (sisters of slaughter for example)?
  2. I wanted to. Sold my whole force a while back but was more than willing to jump right in. I just don't know. I definitely prefer the style of this army to their last edition but... Competitively? I don't know. They seem like an awesome army designed for a different game.
  3. Iron clad does a flat 6 damage!! New end rigger heals 3!!! Holy moly!!! FAQ drop: D6, D3. ... Fool me once GW. I'll hold off my excitement and pre-orders until the FAQ drops.
  4. Personally, I wish GW could make up their mind on line of sight. Or better, make it specific to the given ruleset. Either it's a non-narrative fun-petetive game with excellent models or it's a narrative casual game of enjoyment with excellent models. "Do you think this guys eye's can see the tip of the Spear on that guy?" has no place in matched play. "Can you draw an uninterrupted line from one model's base to the other model ignoring your own units" is 2020 terminology in competitive play. Make it sound pretty or whatnot but LoS has been handled by 100s of games at this point (including GW games lol). You can keep it eyes to stuff in narrative but in that case, make it eyes to 'reasonable stuff'. Personally, we treat everything like it's in LoS unless it's ridiculously clearly not or rule specific.
  5. Oooo I just read the initiative system for warcry. Love it! That's what we need for Sigmar. Something like that which either gives us a little control over the random or offers a kind of benefit that can be used throughout the round. SOMETHING. I love those kinds of mechanics. Plus, the more small simple mechanics, the more you can give armies special ways to mess with those mechanics thus granting more diversity. Don't give me huge overarching mechanics that mess with the whole system, just small ones that can be implemented without really wrecking everything. That's what points are for. Reacting to these small mechanic changes.
  6. I could appreciate some form of alternating phases with roll offs for each but unit by unit, activation by activation would become tedious and long. I definitely don't want that. But they would need to seriously increase the points of fast units and seriously decrease the points of shooting units. Even now though, I can hear people complaining "the charge phase roll is too random!" I believe it would probably be the most important but who knows. I personally still just like the way it is with the initiative being tactically chosen instead of random.
  7. Of course. Sorry. I meant alternating turns.
  8. Alternating activation is a different game. And it definitely takes longer. It's part of the whole assembly line principle. Why would someone good at building an engine take longer than a bunch of people doing one part of building and engine? Because you don't have all the "uncounted" steps like walking over to your unit, reconsidering your plan based on what your opponent did, recognizing it's your turn, measuring new distances etc. All those little bits add up and only happen once when it's a turn by turn game. And as I pointed out earlier, in order to have a 30 minute gap in your turn it means you are playing a 2.5 hour long game with zero combat phases. Also, things like shooting units go out of control good if they can always back up from the charge. Double turn is fine. Good for this game I believe. You just need to control the random. Either with a mechanism or within the battleplans.
  9. Lovely. I'm a massive advocate for the double turn and also against alternating activation (which is what runewars has). I also am not a fan of the "go play a different game" argument. I believe Sigmar is excellent and having tried a lot of war games (in rules theory and in reality) I prefer almost everything about Sigmar. Tweaks to mechanics that are very divicive are something we should always be looking toward especially when you could easily preserve the core aspects of the game. They've been doing it since the beginning. I would not advocate for the removal of the double turn. I used to advocate for it, but have since changed my ways. I do believe that the one gigantic and completely unnecessary random swing aspect of the game (the roll for it) could be tweaked in such a way to make it much more fun for those who hate it and essentially identical for those who don't. The only complaint I don't have a solution for is time between turns. The only simple fix I can see is to learn to play faster or time the games (thus playing faster). That I can't see being fixed without huge intervention and fairly massive overhaul or completely doing away with the double turn which I am opposed to and frankly, don't believe fixes the core problem with slow turns.
  10. 1. Alternating activation (turns) WAS the problem with warhammer fantasy. That and lack of support...but either way, going first was unquestionably the biggest and most controversial thing I ever encountered in fantasy. Double turns cause some problems and are still probably the biggest and most controversial thing I've encountered, but less than going first. No one wanted to go second in warhammer fantasy (I knew this guy once with a particular army!!...blah blah. Noone wanted to go second). As you pointed out, going first isn't always the best option in Sigmar, but...it still pretty much always is. However, it is nice to have the potential of the first double turn so that's a plus. 2. Whether or not you find it mindless doesn't matter. It IS a tactic and planning on the double turn is a calculated risk. Teleporting and not getting it can be devastating, especially with the 9" charges failing regularly (though admittedly they are making it easier). 3. I recognized the potential call out when I wrote it up. However, both situations don't have to exist independently. If you have a particularly problematic unit (shooter, caster etc.) that is keeping you weak and crushing your "point takers" from getting to the objective, with alternating activation, that unit can satellite around the "point holder" unit and you can never engage them with any hope of taking the point. Everything isn't always cut and dry. Sometimes you need to take out the support before you can handle the big block. If the support can always remain right outside your threat range (points 3-5) you can never take the point from the unit being supported and if you do, you won't have any backing for it (point 6-7). No contradiction 😁 No credentials required. I have played a ton of games as well. I believe that Warhammer should be the pinnacle war game, even though that isn't their intention. Outside traditional board games, which I typically tire of quickly, I haven't seen 'turns' handled well by anyone. Runewars had a pretty OK system except I found it hard to focus on a legitimate plan when the battlefield changed so dramatically from the start of the phase to the end. However, I didn't enjoy it. Don't know why. I still enjoy Sigmar but I want them to explore much more unique ways of handling turns. They need to add an element of some kind to make it more interesting. Give each player five set rolls numbered 1-5. You choose your roll for the initiative. Something like that. I know it's a luck based game and all that but turn order CANNOT be purely luck based anymore. They need something more. The double turn is fine, but how you go about getting it needs to be revamped completely.
  11. Play faster. Hear me out, that's not supposed to be a nasty. Honestly, the hero phase, movement phase, shooting phases and charge phases are admittedly one sided (hero phase a little better but...meh...not much). There is the occasional sprinkled in unit like aetherwings that gets to do something but unlike most, I don't use exceptions to prove the rules. I play with the same guy almost always and the "long wait" has never been an issue. Now...when I play with other people who I'm less comfortable asking to speed up a little, it becomes an enormous issue. I've played games where, no joke, there is two hours between my turns. It's awful. It's also completely unnecessary if everyone just agrees: 1. It's a game 2. Let's move at a reasonable pace and not take forever to make decisions 3. Understandyou may make mistakes 4. Learn from those mistakes 5. Learn to enjoy the game at a much more reasonable pace. A 2000 point game is supposed to take what..1.5-2 hours? That's 9-12 minute turns. Means that the longest you should ever have to stand around before a combat phase is like 5-7 minutes. We play a game that takes hundreds of hours to paint and assemble and costs hundreds of dollars for small plastic dudes. Learn a little patience. There's no 'game rule fix' to counter "Every time I play, my opponent and I smash all our pieces" either except... maybe you're doing it wrong? TLDR: use chess timers.
  12. To the people who are super against the double turn because it puts too much luck on a single die roll, l really don't understand how you are ignoring the enormous elephant of "Who goes first" that comes with alternative activation. Anyone who has played Warhammer for any amount of time has to know how big of an advantage that is. It's huge to go first if you have no chance of being double turned. 1. You can immediately gain objectives without needing to reinforce. If a tough unit can hold out for one turn, they'll have the objective for two because there's no risk of being hit twice. Plus, that allows slow units to hobble on in there or run at will because they know they will have two turns to get up there. 2. First player teleports become less tactical and way more powerful. You only get one shot to kill that huge unit of skeletons, sequestors, saurus guard, berserkers....etc so you can drop them in without needing to reinforce. See step 1 / 6. 3. What's your movement? Ok good. I move/keep my unit of snipers that much away and shoot the garbage out of you. Good luck ever getting to me. 4. What's your spell range? Ok good. I move/keep my unit of anything that much away so you can never be in range. Good luck with any of your spells. 5. What's your charge? Ok good. I move/keep my.....etc. 6. If your opponent doesn't take your objective point EVERY turn, you'll crush them on points because while they are struggling and fighting to take the objective, you can just sit back and continue to hold it because unless they can completely wipe it in just 1 turn, you'll still get your points without threat while nonchalantly moving in support. 7. If they DO get your objective, they've either fully committed, leaving the board open, or they're not supported and you can usually easily just take it back because they haven't gotten a chance to re-support after the claim. It's not theoretical or dumb. It isn't "wouldn't happen". It's Warhammer Fantasy. TLDR: I'm not saying they couldn't do away with it. I'm just saying I've never played a Warhammer game that handled the "first turn power" problem with any kind of grace. Why do you think they started the double turn to begin with? It's super weird. They did it because of how problematic going first was. It's not a mystery, it's history (rhyme).
  13. It's not really better than igougo. It's just different. However, in a game that was developed from the beginning with it in mind, it's hard to go back without a lot of overhauls. BTW, for those of you who say they play igougo and it works fine, I've tried it and I respectfully disagree. It's not the same game at all. Also, I only play matched. I agree, it's hard to get matched players to consider different options (unless they do..see malign portents, malign sorcery spells, realm rules, realm spells, every command ability they didn't like until it was FAQed, hidden agendas....but I'm being coy. I actually do agree). The only army that arguably benefits from the initiative modifier is Idoneth as they are very turn specific...however, knowing that, you could save all your dice to throw against them....which means it's just regular initiative again, so no real impact. I know I'm a broken record on this idea (again, wasn't mine so I don't feel bad doing it) but it's hard to explain how much better it makes the game.
  14. Another double turn discussion! I think you MUST have it. Shooting becomes too powerful without it because you can almost always sneak away before the opposition get there. Teleporting snipers are frustrating enough. Imagine if you could never get there in time for them to pop away again. Also, a ton of magic becomes very weak. It's range is way too low. You would always just be a little away every time because you knew that next turn, you could just be a little away again. Anyone else ever make a 9 inch charge? I know I haven't. Dropping in units becomes the worst because you are basically signing up to get your face smashed in by your enemy next turn when you inevitably fail that 9 inch charge. The alternative? Everyone is always 10 inches farther away than the other person's move characteristic. Yawn. If you think waiting two turns is boring, try playing a game where all you are doing is making sure you can't get charged. Welcome back to fantasy. The double turn is absolutely fine with a small modification. Players need some control over it. That's it. As long as it's not just TOTALLY random, it's fine. For everyone who hates it, try this small mod (my area has been doing it for months now). Each team gets 5 "tactical dice". Each of those dice can be added to the initiative roll once per game. Before rolling, select in secret how many extra tactical dice you're going to roll along with your initiative die. Highest total wins. I've never heard a single complaint about the double turn since we've started doing this. I have heard "I should have thrown more dice" or "I wish I'd have saved my dice instead of throwing all of them". It puts the game back on the players and not on the luck of the dice.
  15. I know we're supposed to use the most recent edition of published rules when looking to find information but I can honestly say I don't know what those are anymore. What rules are the MOST recent rules when looking for what terrain pieces do? The app says scrolls haven't been updated since august 2018 so I'm guessing those aren't the most recent publications. Does anyone know where the best place is to find scrolls for terrain is?
  16. Would a Starpriest with gryph-feather charm (unit can fly) be allowed to be setup off the board in this battalion? Looks like maybe 🤷‍♂️ Obviously it's an oversight (this book is ooooooold) but still, how would someone rule on it?
  17. See 5 posts ago. The issue is specifically wyldwood-no other faction terrain is listed as a primary terrain choice which, via the rules, would use a warscroll. If it said "Citadel Wood" it would be fine but it says "Wyldwood" which means "any Wyldwood option" or "nothing".
  18. Don't get me wrong, I think it's an excellent thing to do. These terrain rules and deployment are going to throw EVERYTHING out of whack. That was a move I never anticipated from GW and I think it's going to have ridiculously awesome implications on what the future will look like. I couldn't be happier with all the terrain stuff and I can honestly say I have no idea who is going to come out on top this year. I'm really feeling Seraphon though. They're nuts now! My statement is still true though. I think we are going to see a TON of mausoleums pretty much right away unless GW decides to stop it haha. You get to choose 3 special terrain types to place as well, not just your faction piece now.
  19. I don't think it's specified officially anywhere but I recall reading that in almost all tournament environments, pools are shared (and yes, it is a huge handicap for everyone but seraphon).
  20. Semantically that is correct however I am almost certain the intent was "inclusiveness" and not non-existence. There are two kinds of wyldwoods. If they wanted it to be a citadel wood, they wouldn't have changed it to "wyldwood" in the FAQ as it was already citadel wood in the GHB. I'd say we can wait for the FAQ but that time has passed. I feel like there are examples other places I could reference. Something like "If it's not bolded, it's not a keyword" so this instance would refer to anything that has wyldwood in its name. I'll hunt around. I have NO question this is what is going to happen unless GW puts the foot down asap. This is only partially true. What they're saying is that any and all stuff you stick on the board will have some kind of terrain rule. However, you can only use warscrolls for the terrain if they are listed in the primary/secondary list or if they are your specific army singular piece. The commentary was kind of unnecessary in my opinion. It's very clear elsewhere. You could use a toaster if you wanted so why would anyone ask if you could use more faction terrain if you have it? Yes. You can. But it's very obvious you only get the benefit from the one that comes with your army. This issue of course is that "Wyldwood" is in the primary/secondary list. Now, whether or not that means Sylvaneth Wyldwood/Awakend Wyldwood is up for debate but it definitely does not mean nothing because it specifically changed from "citadel wood" to "wyldwood" in the FAQ. Because it's in the primary list, that means you have to use its warscroll. As Sedraxis pointed out, "Wyldwood" alone does not exist so why would GW insist that it was one of the "You must use it's warscroll" terrain features unless they intended to use either of the two available wylwood warscrolls. The other (likely) option was that it is still supposed to say "Citadel Wood" and was changed on accident.
  21. So, just clarifying, sylvaneth get to start with 9 wyldwoods (plus their own...so 12) on the board according to the new scenery rules?
  22. Actually, if you look at the last 2 pages there have been 35 posts. Of those 35 posts, only 9 have been number crunching. In those 9, only about 72% of the content of the post was about numbers. That means in the last two pages only 20.25% of the content was number crunching...🧐 Seriously though, I was thinking about the implications of the new command abilities (no numbers incoming) and I hope the will throw things crazy out of whack. I think this year were going to see a lot of very unexpected armies and some underutilized things being brought to light.
  23. This isn't an Idoneth discussion, I know this, however this cannot be allowed to stand uncontested. Using your numbers now; Lets ignore the ranged attack on the berzerkers, it's not great so who cares. 1 damage vs 2 at double attacks and 1/2 the wounds. Surface=same. +1 attack against 1 wound. OK, there's your 50% more. Got it. +1 damage against big things, God forbid you end up in combat with something big, but say you do so 100% more damage because they have 2x the attacks. Understood. Careful though, keep your unit math to small numbers because thralls need to get WAY more guys into combat (that double movement does nothing for pile-ins) to keep those numbers true and that 2 inch range on the berzerkers is going to be hard to deal with if you go much more than min unit size. If you're thralls you better hope you wipe the unit because you're looking at taking 2.5x times more damage MINIMUM than the berzerkers. Not to mention damage on 1 wound units has a much bigger impact on the unit's damage potential than on 2 wound units. Oh, and they run easier. Ouch. Close to even units? I think not. As always, 2 wounds is more than twice as good as 1 and defense trumps offense. Let's make eels 500 points for 3. Then what? What does Idoneth have? They have garbage shooters, meh infantry, WAY over costed heroes (seriously, our Eidolons cost almost as much as a zombie dragon!) and an ability that gets off in one round that's essential that we go first in that particular round or it's potency is cut in half. "Nerf the eels!" is akin to "Kill the faction!" It's all we have. It's the problem with expecting the GHB to fix faction problems. It can break things much easier than balance things. Factions have to be fixed with FAQs (or new books). Edit: I am NOT in camp nerf the fyreslyers BTW. I think we need to see how they pan out but I'm not gonna lie, I read their scroll and said "Yep...that ought to do it." when I was looking for the next 'spammed unit' looking forward. I think thralls could be a good unit if priced a certain way or tweaked to have more resurrection potential, but as of now they would not fill the gap if the eels were ruined. Edit 2: Oh and fyreslayers can teleport anywhere on the battlefield with the hero they need and be 9 inches away, Idoneth are stuck on a side of the board. Just saying 😀
  24. This! Speaking only about factions with books, it's going to be hard for a GHB to fix warscrolls when it doesn't do anything about them (thunderers 😡....still thunderers....but you know what I mean). The GHB is icing on a cake. Sure, it can mess with the appearance and flavor of the cake but the underlying cake is pretty much unchanged. Battletomes are the cake. FAQs are the filling. A decent cake (BCR) can be made dreaddul with a bad filling and ugly decoration. Anyway, I agree. GHB looks good, hope for the FAQ to really balance everything out, fear that the FAQ will nerf units that were increased in points (history supports this).
  • Create New...