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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

127 Celestant-Prime

About Mcthew

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

334 profile views
  1. Yeah - and the fact that not all of the AoS community can access this, sucks. Makes our arguments over Hachette's poor customer service feel a little churlish 😕
  2. So decided not to subscribe. I enjoy the hobby too much and didn't fancy the Hachette hassle. Still, I managed to pick up 4 copies in Smith's and the local GW, for £12, and got a nice blob of 40 chainrasps and models for a unit of 10 sequitors. That's over £100 of models for the price of a couple of pints in the local pub. Not bad at all... Considering how overpriced chainrasps are.
  3. I guess then, a subscription from Forbidden Planet is the best option? (Although that nerfs a premium subscription, I very much doubt Hachette would deliver on one, anyway). Having trawled the internet on the subject, it beggars belief that GW would use Hachette Partworks as the vehicle to manage this product. Beggars belief that a major publishing company like Hachette would still continue with Partworks too, as it must damage their brand. The problems with Partworks go back to at least 2008, with some of their other titles. I've seen articles from places such as Mumsnet who mention their awful customer service (and quite frankly, bordering-on-criminal practices around subscriptions). Wouldn't touch Partworks with a 10 metre sky pike, really.
  4. The Spanish site has a more comprehensive overview of what's on offer, and I must admit going premium on this is very tempting...
  5. Wow. I must have been away from AoS for, like, more than a year, because I've not seen one designer commentary or note that says 'we've intentionally made AoS imbalanced to make it interesting.' An intentionally imbalanced game is called 'narrative' where you don't even have points, and field what the heck you choose. To intentionally have an imbalanced points system to a competitive game that involves luck would be like Vegas choosing who wins and who doesn't and then telling everyone about it. Which is probably the most ridiculous notion in the world. For the record, Chess is not boring, is perhaps the most balanced strategic board game around, is more popular than AoS could ever be. So what gives?
  6. This competitive imbalance is not good for the game, really. Nor good for GW. If competitive players made the game unenjoyable for gamers, or forced them to restrict their lists to 2-3 top tier forces, profits will be hit in the long run. We can carp on about 'well, GW are doing alright, Jack, so it must be working!' But how many gamers are turning their backs on AoS (and 40k) because of competitive imbalance? As a business person I wouldn't be complacent about how much profit I've earned, but ask more what could I have earned if I'd done this better? Sorry, Deadscribe, I respect that's how you like playing this way, but IMHO this is what's wrong with the game.
  7. Several StD players on TGA are saying the Chaos Warriors warscroll is written so that they can deploy mixed units. As most of the rank and file warscrolls in the new tome are cut and pasted to say the same thing, ie: "a unit of x has any number of models, each armed with ensorcled swords, lances, scissors, paper, stone etc" is anyone else here using mixed chaos Knight units, thus both smashey and pokey?
  8. The warscroll builder is as much a GW product as the warscroll itself. Yes it can be flawed but no more than warscrolls. The rules over unit variations can be interpreted on the warscroll while the variations in the builder can not. If the builder is wrong, it will be changed. If it is not, without an FAQ you can read it is as no unit variations.
  9. Agreed - it is not. However in the absence of an FAQ to an interpreted warscroll, it is a qualifier. The default then is no mixed units until either an FAQ comes out or the builder is changed, whichever comes first.
  10. So the GW warscroll builder has finally been updated for Slaves to Darkness. Yay. But Chaos Warriors do not give you a choice of mixed units or a per model choice, as Tzangors do. Only a unit choice. Boo! So either the warscroll is wrong (or some players' interpretations are), or the builder is wrong. Place your bets everyone!
  11. I think that makes sense, although as a Gotrek player I would love to argue differently. The combat sequence rules state you determine the damage before you calculate the wounds. "Wounds" equates to the unsaved "damage" you suffer. And modifiers to damage happen prior to allocating the wounds. For example four unsaved hits by a sequiturs mauls inflict 4 damage = 4 wounds. It then goes on to say that if an ability saves against those wounds, you roll saves against the wounds themselves, not the hits, or the damage. So in this case Gotrek would make a further 4 save rolls with his Shoulder plate. In another example, if the attacks came from greatmaces (dealing 2 damage each), the four unsaved attacks would inflict only 4 wounds, not 8, due to the damage being modified by the "Avatar" ability from 2 to 1 for each unsaved attack. So again, Gotrek would need only to save 4 wounds with his shoulder plate. The rules then state that mortal wounds bypass the wound, save and damage process in the attack sequence. You are jumping straight to the allocation of wounds, as stated in the above rule. So mortal wounds, as you say, are counted as 1 w per 1 mw, because they are not inflicting damage. They are inflicting wounds. The clue here is the 'allocate' not 'determine' wounds in the rule. The 'Avatar' ability is used to determine, not allocate the damage to Gotrek. What makes this bad rule writing, is that most spells inflict MWs, not damage. It's not a helpful rule really, but I think there are probably exceptions where a spell is a damage dealer, not a mortal wound-er. It also mean then, that Gotrek is vulnerable to endless spells and high dealing mortal wounds (like WLCs or artefacts), but only if he rolls 1 or 2 on the shoulder-plate roll. So yeah, makes him a little weaker, but he's still a pint-sized god capable of smacking Nagash and getting away from a Purple Sun (albeit a little battered and bruised!). Edit: I would add, that the following line does complicate this rule somewhat, making it sound like it's part of the attack sequence rather than wound allocation: "Instead, the damage inflicted on the target is equal to the number of mortal wounds that were suffered." This is then contradicted by: "Mortal wounds caused at other times are allocated to models in the target unit as soon as they occur, in the same manner as wounds caused by damage from an attack."
  12. As you say it's odd. Either this is badly worded or the choice to run mixed units is wrong. They're incompatible rules. FAQ here we come! (Seriously, GW are the Apple of tabletop games! So many bugs and so many updates, but the stuff sure is pretty!)
  13. True - its never been needed before. But you're mixing save abilities here by saying you have half a unit that can save mortal wounds and half that don't. But you can pick which models your opponent can spell cast against? Sorry, but if someone tried that on me I'd think they were cheating.
  14. Simple. If, for example, you run with 10 models in 2 ranks with the front rank assembled with a pair of weapons and the second rank with halberds and runrshields, the front rank should absorb the wounds first, and definitely against mortal wound damage (as the front rank don't have runeshields). I wouldn't play against someone who did anything differently.
  • Create New...