Jump to content

Ahriman

Members
  • Posts

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

760 profile views

Ahriman's Achievements

Decimator

Decimator (5/10)

221

Reputation

  1. And a quick update this time as my deadline draws ever closer! Its not 100% finished but its most of the way there now, and I'll have to turn my attentions to some other models (including a 3rd Hell Pit Abomination made from a Brood Horror) to get them Battle Ready. And pictured with some friends: Now, onto the next monster...
  2. Most of the bulk of the painting has been done on my new Hell Pit Abomination now, just some details and different tones of scales to pick out. Also managed to quickly do the rocks for my Gnawholes, then I'm going to try and fill the center with some greenish cotton wool to represent the cloud smoked tunnels. Just another Hell Pit Abomination to paint, and two more Rat Ogors to build and paint, and I'll be ready for my tournament in just over a week's time!!!
  3. I find it hard to get all 6 Rat Ogors into combat, so making the 6 man unit Insanely Rabid largely just gives me ablative wounds until the first one dies, then they get a lot more work done. I am loving a 6 Rat Ogor unit with Toughened Sinews however. They take sooo much punishment before they drop, and still put out solid damage with the Rabid Crown nearby. Love the list as you have it right now though, those Giant Rats will be such a nuisance for your frenemy
  4. A small update with some greenstuff work on my next Hell Pit Abomination. Filled in the gaping hole in the neck, and added some surgical staples across a few cuts. Hoping to get some solid colours on his this weekend, ready for my first tournament taking place next month!!!
  5. You can play any type of mission you like for Path to Glory though, so it’s a pretty easy fix to stick with the Matched Play mission, or objective based Narrative one’s, and avoid the kill point missions if you don’t find them fun.
  6. Very much so in my view - though with the caveat that I don't play in a particularly competitive environment. For me they're the thing that won me games in 2nd Ed, and now I just have more units of them. They're 40pts that help score objectives turn 1, without risking anything valuable in my army. One or two units of them in front of each of my Rat Ogor squads means they screen enemies trying to charge me and help to make sure I can pick my fights. And with shooting units they were always great at tying up a unit of archers so they couldn't shoot at anything important, and now that goes for stopping Unleash Hell as well. They never kill anything, but its a waste of time my opponent trying to kill them (I have 8 units of 6 now), and if they don't kill them they'll be grabbing objectives all game and scoring Hold the Line at the end.
  7. I played two Path to Glory campaign games with my Stormcast Eternal's last week, both against a friend's Khorne Bloodbound. Really enjoyable. The missions really helped tell a story, and we decided on attacker/defender by what fit best with our army's character and what had happened in the previous game. Felt much more 'real' than the big 2k Matched Play game we played afterwards - which was just tactics with no lore consideration. Missions played were The Trap and Watchtower. Watchtower was really fun, turning what seemed like an easy win turn one for myself (as the attacker) into a tense duel to try and be the one to get into the tower before the other as his reinforcements came in. The Trap was a little more problematic, with the way it was scored meaning I (the defender) had autowon by the end of turn 2, as all my stuff was still alive. I dunno if the fix is to give the attackers 3 points per unit killed, or to not let the defender score in round 1, but it was fun chasing kills for renown points regardless. Another thought is you really should play the mission as its written. We set up a nice board then rolled for the mission. The Trap lets the attacker set up the terrain, which would have meant he could have been far more aggressive and given me nowhere to anchor my flanks. So maybe we were the problem rather than the scoring. Postgame stuff is fun! I spent a little glory and escaped with no deaths, but one bad roll could completely nerf an elite unit's effectiveness. I also didn't claim any new territory yet, but was able to grow my starting army from 600pts to nearly 1kpts, which is quicker than i was expecting. Can't wait for more, and to see what battletomes bring.
  8. Exactly my thoughts when I saw this beasty get announced (and its not just because i'm bitter that they have nicer things-catchers than us!). I recently built my Brood Horror model to count as my third Hell Pit Abomination, but I will likely grab this and smash is together with the HPA kit to make it a bit more bespoke.
  9. Just played a 2k game with my Clans Moulder vs Lumineth Realmlords. ____________________________________ My list was: 3 x Master Moulder (rabid crown, new artefact that gives my general a 5+ ward, and hordemaster trait) 1 x 6 Rat Ogors, with Toughened Sinews (6 wounds, 4+ save) 4 Rat Ogors, with Insanely Rabid (6 attacks, reroll charges) 4 Rat Ogors 8 x 6 Giant Rats 3 x Hell Pit Abominations, one with Prized Creation, another with Accelerated Regeneration (heal D3 *every* hero phase) ____________________________________ Far from a competitive game, but I looove units of 6 Rat Ogors with 6 wounds each. They took the brunt of a unit of Wardens and Bladelords attacking them, and still had enough models left to wipe them out in return. Having 8 units of Giant Rats is incredible, using them to block off routes to objectives, switch off Unleash Hell to protect my other units, and redeploying (not the CA) quickly to be able to put bodies on objectives. Stars of the show. And I've never squeezed 3 HPAs into a list before. Meant I could afford to be really reckless with them, and was always able to get a devastating round of attacks with them each turn. Can't wait to play some more and really get to grips with optimising the new command abilities, and which Battle Tactics and Grand Strategies to choose
  10. Just played a 2k game with my Clans Moulder vs Lumineth Realmlords. ____________________________________ My list was: 3 x Master Moulder (rabid crown, new artefact that gives my general a 5+ ward, and hordemaster trait) 1 x 6 Rat Ogors, with Toughened Sinews (6 wounds, 4+ save) 4 Rat Ogors, with Insanely Rabid (6 attacks, reroll charges) 4 Rat Ogors 8 x 6 Giant Rats 3 x Hell Pit Abominations, one with Prized Creation, another with Accelerated Regeneration (heal D3 *every* hero phase) ____________________________________ Far from a competitive game, but I looove units of 6 Rat Ogors with 6 wounds each. They took the brunt of a unit of Wardens and Bladelords attacking them, and still had enough models left to wipe them out in return. Having 8 units of Giant Rats is incredible, using them to block off routes to objectives, switch off Unleash Hell to protect my other units, and redeploying (not the CA) quickly to be able to put bodies on objectives. Stars of the show. And I've never squeezed 3 HPAs into a list before. Meant I could afford to be really reckless with them, and was always able to get a devastating round of attacks with them each turn. Can't wait to play some more and really get to grips with optimising the new command abilities, and which Battle Tactics and Grand Strategies to choose.
  11. 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.
  12. If you're after testimonials I can hold my hands up as an example. Though I would also say I've dived into the lore more than most. I think most people could name 4 Stormhosts by colour, and I could name a lot more. I know most if not all the skyports, and I think most could identify Barak Narr and Zilfin? I could label the Cities of Sigmar pretty confidently. But to me that's besides the point, as GW doesn't want to bring in this kind of rule 40years later when the game is more established, because that will put even more people in an awkward position that it is right now if they're using the 'wrong rules' for their colours. (I honestly have no good answer for those who have found themselves suddenly given faction rules they don't like, it really is a poor situation to be in with no great answers). The point about it stifling creativity - I may be misremembering but don't the Battletomes generally say "if your colours don't match a pre-existing colour scheme, pick the sub-faction that you think fits them the most". If not, they certainly do for Warhammer 40,000, and I imagine the same principles apply (though I understand we don't have that in writing).
  13. Its incredible how venomous this subject has become here, and its made it a tad intimidating to jump into the coversation for one side or the other, but here goes! For me two main issues keep being brought up: - the disbelief that someone would be genuinely confused by the paint colour on the plastic miniatures before them, to the point it would create tactical mistakes - and the question of whether any number of people actually know what the different sub-faction schemes are. To me, the conflict comes from the arguments being made by differing kinds of players (though I don't want to put words in people's mouths, so apologies in advance). If you're playing the hobby largely for the test of wit that is the game, and also with an interest in the painting side of the hobby, to you the ruling seems like an infringement on your ability to try out different rules and discover what works best, while also painting your models in a way you enjoy (colour choose, difficulty of that scheme, personal meaning, ect). On the other side of the argument (which for disclosure, is where I sit), are those who are invested in the lore of these worlds, and how that comes to life on the tabletop. To them, this ruling means they can put their toy models on the table opposite a Hag Narr force, and think oooh this should be different to that awesome game against the Kailebron temple I played last week, should be fun! Its can be a shame to discover that every game against X faction turns out the same, because everyone's using the same faction trait (Ossiarchs had this problem when they first came out as Petrifex Elite was the clear winner for rules). These FAQs are to cover Matched, Narrative and Open play - and as such they want to encourage you using the correct rules for the correct faction. The reason whhhyyy leads me on to the second point I noticed like I said above - few people know what the sub-factions are. Some in this thread have claimed the reason they want to enforce this rule is so that you have to purchase multiple Stormcast armies like people own mulitple marine armies (which I think is a ludicrous assessment btw). But I believe the reason people own mulitple marine armies, is because they think that, for example, "Salamanders are awesome, but Black Templars are just insaane, and I do also love the stoicism of the Ultramarines. I'll do an army of each as I just can't choose". And these opinions will be based on a mix of rules, lore and colour schemes. And I bet that GW would looooove for the vast majority of people to be able to go through a similiar thought process for AoS armies. They know that the lore of their worlds is what makes them the biggest player in this market, and they want people to be invested in the stories and characters of the Mortal Realms in the same way people are invested in 40k. So, in short (my god that was a wordy post, sorry!) - yes they want to make more money, but they'll want it to be through your investment in the worlds they've created. They *want* you to be able to name the sub-factions and their colours.
  14. I will be unlikely to play many games of 3rd that aren't Path to Glory ones honestly - aside from everything else it has the more interesting missions so far! The downsides are definitely that, especially when compares to 40k's Crusade, there is little to no unit and character progression, and what there isn't terribly exciting. 40k has D6 skill tables for different unit types, as well as characterful relics that you can earn, and its a shame that's missing. But that is tempered by the fact you have a settlement to grow, which i think is really evocative and ties in nicely with the new idea of Dawnbringer Crusades. And the quest system, which seems like a nice addition in the Core Book, and I'm hoping they really go crazy with in the Battletomes. I'm also praying for Path to Glory supplements sent within the different Realms - giving us our Realm Rules back and maybe unique territories, quests and traits you can earn in each one. Oh, and I adore how brutal the casualty system is, straight up losing models from squads feels much more visceral than the squad gaining a debuff like in Crusade. Already got plans for a Stormcast Dawnbringer Crusade entourage and my Moulder expanding from the Varanspire into Ghur.
  15. I completely blanked on that meaning they're 1 model away from the more lenient coherency rules, yeah that is a tad annoying!
×
×
  • Create New...