Arkanaut Admiral
-
Posts
307 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Arkanaut Admiral
-
-
Honestly? I’d stick with the Eternals. The Overlords aren’t in a good spot at the moment. Their book is almost completely out of date too.
-
I regret not getting that Nighthaunt. Even though I don’t collect them, it’s such a sweet model.
-
I know it’s not AoS, but that game was showing a lot of good ideas for pirate themed armies. Not just for Death, but the Grotbag Scuttlers too, who I’m still holding out for.
EDIT: I always thought the Mornghoul was a ghost for some reason.
-
I played a great game last night against Seraphon and the Celestiant Prime. It was Shifting Objectives, 1500pts. Final score was 11-8, with 1020pts dead to 880pts. Against me.
But I’m not sad about it. I was actually leading for most of the game, and it was a close final score. Plus I was up against deepstriking ripperdactyls and the Celestiant Prime, who promptly destroyed my ironclad, taking the admiral and endrinmaster with it. So I think I gave a pretty good account of myself.
-
I meant to post this last night but I was very, very, very...tired. The wip bases for my Overlords:
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, stratigo said:
now you're nerfing the only available battleline and khemist.
I should have said too that this theoretical new Khemist ability would be a flat bonus to all of the units weapons. We were discussing that a few pages back.
So assuming that these arkanauts are in a squad of ten, and the capt has a volley pistol, that would be
Fifteen 12” 3+/3+/-1 pistol attacks
Eight 3+/3+/- cutter attacks
Six 4+/3+/-1 volley gun attacks
One 3+/2+/-2 D:d3 skyhook attack
Two 3+/3+/-1 D:2 skypike attacks.
It becomes even better if they’re targeting a character, or benefiting from master the skies or settle the grudges etc. I could live with this sort of damage output.
-
3 hours ago, Rachmani said:
Two other things I want to put up for discussion, while we're at it.
1. How do you guys think the Arkanaut Company should be adjusted? Personally I think they're lackluster in the melee department (but appear to be designed as melee-/ranged hybrids) & strangely squishy for dwarfs.
2. What's up with the weapon profiles? They're all over the place, often completely detrimental to how they look on the actual models & have like no consistency. I'm looking at you, Skyhooks.
Good questions. For 1, I would:
Jack up the rend of their pistols to -1
Give the Skypike Damage 2, putting it on par with similar such weapons like Grand Blades, Gore Glaives etc.
Increase their Bravery to 7
Limit the specials to 1 of each per 10 models
Assuming Khemists now grant +1 to hit & to wound on all weapons, they'll become glass cannons, which is what they should be imo.
As for 2, I agree. The main weapons of the ships are too short ranged, most of the guns aren't powerful enough, and many of them are a bit useless too.
-
Glad you like the idea!
Imagine our Arkanauts having 3+/3+ guns (And I’d up their rend to -1, to match every other gun in the game) and 3+/3+ cutters, with a 3+/2+ skyhook, 4+/3+ vollygun and 3+/3+ skyhook. They’d finally have some punch, and be the glass cannons they probably should be, rather than the fodder for skyhooks that they currently are.
@ Nicolaunch
Completely agree that we should be able to fight from the ships. I’ve been experimenting with using the terrain garrison rules for the ships, allowing the embarked passengers to shoot and fight from the ship and be targeted in return. They really help us out without being broken.
As for the Admiral and the Endrinmaster, I guess the first could have his invoke the code looked at again, whilst the latter could be given a points decrease if nothing else could be found.
Also, I really really really think that the khemists (new) augmentation ability should be applicable to the ships. All the characters should have an effect on the ships imo.
-
1
-
-
If the Khemist granted a simple +1 to Hit and/or to Wound, it would easier to justify this affecting all of the units weapons rather than just one yes? Because that's something I would really like to see. A unit wide effect would really help out Thunderers, and Arkanauts, and Skywardens...everyone really.
An Aethermatic Volleygun hitting on 4s (3s against characters and monsters) and wounding on 3s would be quite nasty yes? And Aethershot Rifles hitting on 2s and wounding on 3s? Yes please!
-
1
-
-
What if the Khemists ability was changed to a flat +1 to hit and wound across the board? Extra hits because weapon recharges quicker between use. Extra wounds because it’s overcharged?
-
The gunhauler should have been equipped with a smaller version of the ironclad’s torpedo launchers. 2 shots with 18” range compared to its 4/24”. Then it would have real firepower, and matched the real life historical torpedo boat too.
-
1
-
-
I’d love to see some sort of Surgeon type character. We don’t have much call for healers but it would be fluffy. Especially one carrying an aethermatic saw and some sort of aetheric Violet Ray.
A secondary officer, possibly a Grundstok Officer, would be great.
But I’d be just happy with our units being tweaked to perform better.
-
2
-
-
Despite my past complaining I still love the Overlords. I love their look and I do love their playstyle. They just struggle a bit at the tournament level.
I would love for GW to play up the glass cannon nature of the Overlord infantry in future. A 5+ or 4+ save with no sheid type effect and 1 wound is quite weak, as are the basic cutter and gun butt attacks, but if they made the guns just a little bit better I’d be very happy.
-
2 hours ago, stato said:
So make worse options seem better by making the 3 good (and 3 poor) options worse? seems a bit odd.
Why not give custom ports option of 2 footnotes or 2 something else, the named ports already get a named footnote PLUS a generic one anyway.
I should have said that I do think that the footnotes need tweaking anyway. At present I would never bother taking anything else besides Trading if I’m honest. It should be ok, seeing as though they’re one use only abilities.
-
5 hours ago, Myr said:
I would say:
Barak-Urbaz - Surrender is Rarely Profitable
Barak-Zon - There's No Reward Without Risk
Barak-Thryng - There's No Trading With Some People
Barak-Nar - Today's Foes Are Tomorrow's Customers
Barak-Zilfin - Without Our Ships We Are Naught
Barak-Mhornar - These Are Just Guidelines
Exactly what I was thinking. Thank you.
I ask because I’m working on the assumption that one way to make custom skyports more viable is to restrict the named ones to fixed footnotes.
-
On 7/23/2018 at 10:10 PM, stratigo said:
Oh hey, ko are literally the only battle tome that didn’t get a change in the recent faq
*Monty Python and the Holy Grail’s “you make me sad” gif* That’s directed at GW of course, not your good self.
Quick question, brainstorming ideas; you know the standard six footnotes? Which of the named skyports would you allocate each one to from a fluff perspective? Some seem straight forward: Barak Zilfin should probably get “without our ships we are naught” whilst Barak Thyrng should probably get “there’s no trading with some people”, but what about the others?
-
Really good points stratigo. Me, I’d like it if the skypike simply became damage 2, putting it on par with liberator grand blades, blood warrior goreglaives and other similar weapons.
But the guns? Please, 3+ to wound and -1 rend. Even if that means reduced range and/or attacks.
I’ve got an idea; if Arkanauts had their choice of each kind of special weapon limited to 1 per 10, along with the changes to weapon profiles, would this justify allowing an aether khemists augmentation ability to affect all of the units weapons at once? As in +1 to all attacks, the pistols, specials, cutters etc?
This would also help out thunderers a lot too. And they need their specials boosted, since they can no longer be spammed.
-
2
-
-
This discussion reminded me of this:
https://imgur.com/gallery/dwbR1Z3
Is that how cog forts are discribed in the fluff? With big crab/spider like legs?
-
On 7/11/2018 at 4:30 PM, Gheistvor said:
Has GW ever talked about or mentioned the Gunhaulers 'Sky cannon' and the Frigates 'Heavy sky cannon' being the exact same gun? I can get past all the nerfs and changes but this just looks like an error they've yet to correct.
Hell even the ironclads great sky cannon is the exact same except having 6" more range, be nice to have 1 extra rend or better to hit chance.
Just had a quick look, the skyhooks seem even worse off, the Arkanauts 'light skyhook' is the exact same as the Ironclads 'great skyhook', and the Frigates 'heavy skyhook' is the exact same but with less range! Just hate the idea of paying points for a boat when its big forecastle main gun does the exact same thing as a single infantry dude with a little handheld gun, or is actually worse in the Frigates case.
New to this community so im sure this has been brought up before, it just really grinds my aether-gears.
The weapons need looked at again. Infantry range should be around 18", Gunhauler should be about 24", Frigates 30" and the Ironclad's 36". Since they're high explosive weapons, Aethershock torpedoes should have rend -2, putting them on par with the grenade launching blunderbusses of Freeguild Outriders.
And again, our guns all need to be wounding on 3s with -1 rend, exactly like the firearms of other factions. Even if it means reduced range or attacks or whatever.
-
I’m going to try and test out the garrison ship rules again as soon as possible. If anyone has any ideas or suggestions I would love to hear them.
Also, no one ever bothers making their own skyport right? Because the named ones are superior in every way yes? Do you think the key to fixing that (assuming it needs fixed) would be to give the named skyports fixed footnotes? They would still get their own unique footnote of course. This means you chose either fixed abilities with extras or go fully customisable. What do you think?
Which skyport would get which footnote? Obviously Barak-Zilfin get Without Our Ships, and Barak-Thyrng can get There’s No Trading, and Barak Mhornar can get Guidelines. What about the other three?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, greengiant said:
I have been pondering what would happen if all our ships had a 4+ save. Then, we adjust the "Batten the Hatches" rule to be +1 to save, instead of re-rolling 1s. This would really be useful and fluffy.
I think you’re on to something there! I too had the idea of removing all of the ships ‘unique’ orders from their respective war-scrolls (batten the hatches, all hands to the guns and all ahead full) and instead add them to a list that they can all use, in a similar manner to IG orders. Perhaps extended out to a full list of six orders?
Also, I got to test out my idea for using the garrison rules for our ships and guys...it works! Awesomely if I do say so too!
It was a 2k game, Barak Mhornar against Ironjawz. I was given the first turn, and right away the differences were noticeable. My navigator actually got to grant his aetheric navigation and read the winds abilities to all the ships despite being embarked. Combined with prosecute all wars with haste, the flotilla managed to move an average of 16” that turn whilst still retaining the ability to shoot! What’s more, careful deployment meant that every unit in the flotilla benefited from the admiral’s opportunistic privateer command trait. Shooting lots of sky hooks out of the ships was great. And the navigator dispelled a spell from the safety of the ship too.
Now unfortunately I still lost, mostly on objectives. But I blame myself for that. Also, I lost priority and thus got jumped before I could repair any of the ships or truly unleash all my firepower. However, instead of simply being massacred as what happened before, my embarked troops and characters got to fight back and managed to inflict serious casualties on the orruks. So in terms of kill points we were roughly equal.
Some points of note: we decided to continue using the current rules for actually embarking and disembarking, because it seemed unfair to allow the survivors of a wrecked ship to just jump 6” out of it to safety. However, voluntary disembarking was now done in the movement phase with it counting as the units move, like 40k. This really speeds the army up.
Oh, and embarked units still need to take battleshock tests. I actually lost a good few Duardin to this. We kept it in the interests of fairness.
So long story short, this idea helps us out a lot, but on it’s own it’s still not enough. You still need sound tactics and a bit of luck too.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, stratigo said:
My main problem with the iron sky squadron is that it's 130 points. That's a company. Is, if you minmax, 4 shots on turn 1 before than three skyhooks every turn of the game? I don't think to, the math just doesn't seem to work out considering how weak your army is going to be to try and fit in 4 frigates.
That’s why our battalions only work if they’re cheap. And since the ironsky squadron’s main ability is one turn only it should be really cheap. The original 80pts was just right. With that price and the current costs, you could have a minimum sized squadron for 800pts.
With that price, the ships saves bumped up to 4+, and this ability to fight from the decks I’m currently working on, then it would be worth it. Possibly.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, stratigo said:
10 arkanauts in a frigate shooting out would be really neat. 20 arkanauts in an ironclad shooting out might be too strong in the hypothetical future where GW fixes how ****** summoning is at the ironclad's point cost.
I intend to find out the answer to this tomorrow.
-
9 minutes ago, Gecktron said:
3+ for all is a bit much in my opinion. Id prefer it to get progressively better like, 5+ for Gunhaulers, 4+ for Frigats and 3+ for Ironclads.
So they can keep the differences between the different ships. Also, it would feel strange to give the open-topped gun hauler a 3+ save.
Good point. My reasoning was the number of wounds they have would differate them. An ironclad having twice as many as a gunhauler for example.
Plus I think of saves in abstract terms. Like, an Ironclad could have an 3+ save because it’s durable and shrugs off everything that hits it, whilst a gunhauler has a 3+ save because it’s really fast and manoeuvrable.
I could settle for the Ironclad having a 3+ save and the others having a 4+ save though.
-
1
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Yeah the Ironjawz and Fyreslayers need new tomes asap. The ‘slayers have those nice rules from the GHB that they can build from. The Ironjawz could have faction rules for each of the main tribes, for some Ourruky variety.