HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Share | 
 

 Would AOSing army building be so bad?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1257
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 02:58

You thought wrong. Slaanesh is merely on ice so they don't have to put anything out before some sort of grand release of the updated aesthetic. Generals handbook is entirely optional in the same way that unbound is a viable listbuilding technique. It isn't because you won't find people to play with.
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1349
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 03:28

Quote :
Slaanesh is merely on ice so they don't have to put anything out before some sort of grand release of the updated aesthetic.

Could you explain this? I'm not up on what all happened with Slaanesh in AoS but I know it was a point of contention on /tg/ for months.

Quote :
Generals handbook is entirely optional in the same way that unbound is a viable listbuilding technique. It isn't because you won't find people to play with.

Is this a thing that happens often? I've never had anyone complain about someone going unbound, mainly because they're trying some ridiculous s*** that's fun just for the spectacle alone. Also because you can take technically take a bound list that consists of 12 Wraithknights in a single decurion and it's kinda hard for an unbound list to get more pants-on-head than that.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1257
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 04:21

Yes it most certainly is because people can't be bothered to actually communicate with their opponent before the game. Less often now than in 14-15 though.

TG are idiot children who don't have the attention span for the story GW is telling, and just saying that is something because I abhor being ablist. They need to be spoonfed details or they work themselves up into false fervor over seeing their own shadow and assuming their ramblings have any bearing on GW whatsoever.

Each of the chaos quarters has been given a year of ascendancy. All the good endtimes models were Nurgle because it occured during his year of ascendancy. During that year they received 16 new sculpts, Unfortunately no GUO because glottkin and then expanding sales of the then more or less new exalted version from forgeworld. From there GW began the year of Khorne with a focus on war for wars sake, and culminated in several bloodthirster models and giving an obscure chaos warband, The DaemonKin, headline rules. That is also why there will never be any other form of explicit daemonkin books, such factions don't exist. We're coming to the end of the year of change, and kicked off the campaign that holds our future because change. Magnus and the TS got models, Tzeentch got a whole new type of daemon and a new Lord of Change model.

I know that you asked about slaanesh but this background information is super important and the sort of big picture pieces TG misses are necessary to understand the fate of slaanesh. The last action to occur in the year of nurgle or the very first action to kick off the year of khorne depending on perspective was Malerion (Malekith fused with his dragon) and god-tyrion working together to bind and imprison slaanesh. This action is what tg has repeatedly misplaced as a sign of squating slaanesh, even though tomb kings and brettonians definitively showed us that this is not how GW squats lines these days. In addition the Great horned rat ascend'd into a full member of the pantheon due to his actions during the end times, but is not and never was, a replacement for slaanesh.

The great horned rat is nurgle without the love of rebirth. The great horned rat is a future foil for a chaos civilwar story arc in that the only thing he cares about is the expansion of nothing. Nurgle is pestilence, decay, and rebirth. The great horned Rat is pestilence unencumbered solely for the greatness of the rat for when there is nothing left he shall reign supreme as the singular god of all things. That is the current underlying plot for Age of Sigmar. everything else is window dressing. Archaon and Sigmar feuding do not matter right now.

Now, in slaanesh's absence a number of lieutenant equivalents like Morathi, Archaon himself, and a couple of greater daemons seek to directly occupy the role slaanesh has vacated, similar to how Urien Rakarth, and Vect plausibly have aspirations to ascend to godhood. Should any of these things occur they would not possess the exact same place as Slaanesh, or ur-slaanesh meaning the role slaanesh themselves occupied within the pantheon, instead receiving a slight change in title and focus. Slaanesh's domain absolutely still exists. The consciousness that drives it and can form into it's most fearsome member is simply locked in a box at present.

Slaanesh is going to get the next year dedicated to them and we're rapidly approaching that point. I wouldn't even be surprised for their story development coninciding with new aelf, and I mean aelf as seperate from elves as sigmarines are from the old empire, sculpts at the same time. Even should something catastrophic happen to them in the reality we care about At the end of the day they are of the same as Ynnead, only wilder, and will live on both through Ynnead albeit in a slightly reserved form, and via the ascension or usurpation of their throne by one of their splinters. Probably Fulgrim as I can't see an argument being made for N'kari.

At the end of the day slaanesh themself does not matter not from a chaos perspective or from an eldar perspective. ur-slaanesh, the embodiment of their aspect matters for the function of chaos, and for our story Slaanesh is merely a red herring to distract from our actual destiny: The restoration of Isha and the serene balance of life and death beyond the clutches of decay.
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1349
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 04:41

Quote :
TG are idiot children who don't have the attention span for the story GW is telling, and just saying that is something because I abhor being ablist. They need to be spoonfed details or they work themselves up into false fervor over seeing their own shadow and assuming their ramblings have any bearing on GW whatsoever.
Geez and I thought I was critical of forum communities.

*one long block of text later*

So what you're saying is that Slaanesh doesn't matter, it's his function within Chaos that matters. You also seem to be implying that Slaanesh isn't necessary for Dark Eldar to be Dark Eldar. I say moose muffins to that. Fulgrim is neat, but he's no God of Chaos, and I don't think Slaanesh players would go along with that, new sculpts be damned. This is goes double if the new sculpts have their tits chopped off and are overly complex AutoCAD abominations like half the Sigmar line is. The lack of Slaanesh in the current meta and the demand (and price) for the old metal Daemonettes is kinda proof of concept as far as that is concerned.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 04:48

@TeenageAngst wrote:

Quote :
Generals handbook is entirely optional in the same way that unbound is a viable listbuilding technique. It isn't because you won't find people to play with.

Is this a thing that happens often?

Yeah, I generally won't play people who want to play unbound. It's banned in every tournament format I know of, and most people I know normally agree to use a tournament format as "house rules" before we play.

It's far easier to say, "Hey, do you want to play ITC rules or NOVA?" than to hash out every detail of house rules you want to use with your opponent.

And for most of its existence, 7th edition has been unplayable without SOME house rules due to a lack of FAQ and some massive screwups in wording.

Further, other than apocalypse games or something, I view almost every opportunity to play as a chance to practice for an upcoming tournament, and pacticing unbound is pointless since it isn't allowed anywhere.

_________________
Back to top Go down
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1257
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 04:53

The problem with tg is that other people uncritically regurgitate their garbage and if enough people buy into it that has the power to actually change reality. See the existence of a generals handbook at all.

From a hobby perspective don't worry about the sigmarine line. The real question is: how do you feel about the new Kharne, gaunt summoner, sylvaneth line, Magnus, and the new resin canoness? If you don't like anything about any of those you will not like new slaanesh.

For the fluff perspective you're muddling a couple things I'm saying in such a way as to lose integral parts. With regards to us: precisely, except your missing that as far as fully self interested dark eldar, the difference between Lady Malys and Rakarth/Vect, are concerned Ynnead is as terrible an oblivion as Slaanesh. As far as truly vampiric dark eldar are concerned they might as well be the same.

For Chaos whomsoever takes up that mantle will be slaanesh. I also wouldn't point to Diaz sculpts as evidence of anything as his daemonettes and seekers may be the most popular sculpts ever made.
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1349
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 05:08

@amorrowlyday wrote:
The problem with tg is that other people uncritically regurgitate their garbage and if enough people buy into it that has the power to actually change reality. See the existence of a generals handbook at all.
That's not a problem that's a hallmark feature. "/tg/ gets s*** done" is their slogan.

Quote :
From a hobby perspective don't worry about the sigmarine line. The real question is: how do you feel about the new Kharne, gaunt summoner, sylvaneth line, Magnus, and the new resin canoness? If you don't like anything about any of those you will not like new slaanesh.
The only ones I like from that list are the resin Canoness (because it's from one of my favorite pieces of 40k art) and some of the Sylvaneth stuff is okay I guess.

Quote :
For the fluff perspective you're muddling a couple things I'm saying in such a way as to lose integral parts. With regards to us: precisely, except your missing that as far as fully self interested dark eldar, the difference between Lady Malys and Rakarth/Vect, are concerned Ynnead is as terrible an oblivion as Slaanesh. As far as truly vampiric dark eldar are concerned they might as well be the same.
Yeah, you can say that I guess. I mean it's not true but you can say it.

Quote :
For Chaos whomsoever takes up that mantle will be slaanesh. I also wouldn't point to Diaz sculpts as evidence of anything as his daemonettes and seekers may be the most popular sculpts ever made.
I mean at least I have a data point to back my claim up. All you have is brow beating over lore apparently.

@BetrayTheWorld For you I guess that's true but I try my best to avoid playing tournament formats for my friendly games because I get my teeth kicked in enough at competitive events with this army. I don't need Vietnam flashbacks of Riptide Wings when I'm trying to unwind. Also I enjoy Death From the Skies which isn't allowed in ITC rules.
Back to top Go down
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1257
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 05:21

Sure, but if you want something different from what the cacophany wants even if your predictions are right in the moment your hopes can still be dashed because enough doomsayers convinced the community of their false prophecy that it changed the corporations plans. That's why I consider it a problem. They're probably going to get exactly what they want if they'd just shut up rather than pushing false narratives like american titphobia.

The accuracy in terms of sculpt reflecting art on the canoness is the future. Overwrought design is an attempt to crush 3rd party recasters and is also the future. The end result for that could be good or bad.

As for your data point. I have a trend. Like a meteorologist I may miscalculate the weather to come but I'll be in the ballpark, more so than the doomsayers, and if I'm not there will then be clear evidence as to why and when I went wrong.
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1349
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 05:44

Quote :
As for your data point. I have a trend. Like a meteorologist I may miscalculate the weather to come but I'll be in the ballpark, more so than the doomsayers, and if I'm not there will then be clear evidence as to why and when I went wrong.

Okay. I was referencing the fact that Slaanesh players tend to like what they like, and that even if they put out new models, if they're not Diaz quality sculpts they're not going to hit the mark. There is nothing functionally wrong with the monoboob Daemonettes, I like them personally, but it's like telling someone there's nothing wrong with DLC microtransactions when they're used to getting old style expansion packs for games. They've had better, their standards are higher. Also it's gonna be hard to sell them on the new lore if their Chaos God is suddenly replaced by an underling. If Prince Yriel was killed and replaced I don't see myself getting super excited for a new Iyanden book, if you catch my cold.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1257
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 05:55

I mean that's literally happening as we speak though. The Visarch and Yvraine should be Prince Yriel and Lady Malys respectively. We're going to see first hand how that substitution goes over.

about the Diaz sculpts I think we're missing each other, I think your point here is spot on, but misses my point which wasn't relationally about similar sculpts. I was suggesting that those 2 sets sculpts can't be held up as any metric because they are the best 28mm sculpts ever made, for any game, period. Setting the bar that high is unusable because nothing will ever reach it. That aesthetic could very well be the basis of the reset though so we're just going to have to wait and see.
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1349
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 06:21

Well at least that's hashed out. As for AoS and 40k having similar rules I'd argue they're pretty much at that point as it is. We have formations and detachments, just not as comprehensive as AoS and with more options for customization, options I'd like to see expanded not constrained even further. The General's Handbook malarkey sounds a lot like that ridiculous tournament rules set they use in Australia with "funbucks" or whatever that detract from people trying to min-max army lists and the last thing we need is that becoming an accepted practice in the civilized world.

Also, AoS always struck me as more a skirmish game than a true wargame, and if I wanted to play a bad skirmish game I'd play Warmahordes. Even if the General's Handbook bumps it up to that of an okay skirmish game, Malifaux looks just as good, is more fun, and is cheaper than both that and Kill Teams. And if I wanted to play sword and sorcery wargaming we have Kings of War. IMO the entire appeal of Age of Sigmar was that it *didn't* have a points value and required only 4 pages of rules. It was a beer and pretzels game like D&D 4e (a bad system that I enjoy thoroughly) because the moment you began investing more effort into the game than that, you could be playing something deeper, more rewarding, and with better rules to begin with.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1257
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 06:28

Agreed on all these points. I think a lot of the efforts around AoS, both intentional and not, were about making the game more like 40k in the same way that 5th edition onward continuously injected fantasy game play elements into 40k. We're basically playing epic with a layer of fantasy rules obfuscation over it at present. We don't need to become more like AoS in list building because it wants to be us. We only need to become like it in terms of faction splintering, but not to the degree they did either.

I think you may want to give this post from BoLS today a read. It's about how to get into AoS as a total beginner and while I have disagreed with some of it's assertions earlier in this thread I can't say it's dishonest.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/01/starting-age-of-sigmar-basic-list-building.html

Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1349
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 06:41

Just scanned that and it lost me after it mentioned tournaments. If your Age of Sigmar army building at any point goes beyond "this model looks cool" and just slapping plastic on the table you're doing it wrong. WHFB is dead and this is the abomination that killed it, so you have to play it like you're dancing on the graves of 28 years of deep and meaningful lore.

The game isn't designed to be run coherently, it's designed to be straight wacky. You have Sylvaneth models like itty bitty lines of elves sitting next to a giant woman on an even more giant beetle on a dinner plate of a base. Like big epic battles? Get into Kings of War, you can use all your GW stuff and Fantasy players will thank you graciously for your wise decision. Like fun skirmishes? Infinity, Malifaux, they do it better and cheaper. The more complex AoS gets, the more it opens itself to competition far more capable of dismantling it.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1257
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 06:43

All I'm going to say to that is that market share is a hell of a drug.
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1532
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 07:59

Weeeell. Nice reading for breakfast. :-) Let me add a few:

Unbound is a fun addition when you get bored out of your skull and have a similarly perverse friend. Getting anyone to consent to an unbound game around here is as easy as riding a pony covered in chainsaws. DftS - same thing.

As for AOS - Generals Handbook. Always. No "plastimash" on the table. Matched play only, save for scenarios and even those consult the book to balance out the forces.

WHFB is dead, but it was dead whole 8th edition. AOS didnt kill the game. It killed the fluff coming from GW. But the stuff goes on in 8.5 and 9th, so I dont really see why people have a problem with that. I regret losing TK and Bret models though. AOS system itself is growing on people around here. Even those who opposed it very loudly. Most people try to perceive it as a basic ruleset that is being tuned by tournament scene, which is being done in much more complex W40K too so I see no problem there.

And as for fluff... NOTHING stops me from playing battles in Old World using AOS rules. Did that already and I was not struck down... :-)

Kings of War - tried, no, thank you. I felt like playing chess. 8.5 or 9th? No, thank you. Similar problems as WHFB 8th and thats what drove me into W40K.

Infinity and Malifaux? Maybe if I had the inclination to play with 5 friends over and over again.

AOS is for me a very good off-game, when I want to step away from guns and orbital bombardments without having to learn another 100 page rules.

And as for that "wise" decision - I dont usually go along with the majority opinion exactly because the wisdom and majority go hand in hand very very rarely, so yea. Grumpy hurt fantasy players may thank me... but not for my wisdom, but for indulging their own feelings of hurt and need for vengeance for what may not have been the best GW decision, but in its consequence is limiting exactly noone. Save for Brets and TK...

So to sum it up - Gods forbid that W40K becomes AOS. But so far the things it learned from it were not exactly bad, were they? And that was the original thought behind this thread. Trying to step back from the "OMG we are going to get AOSified!" and try to see the good stuff. AND pointing out how much of the system we are actually already playing concerning listbuilding.
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1349
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 08:32

DftS is a supplement that replaces flyer rules. When people ask not to play using it I usually ask they leave whatever supplement they brought along out of the game as well. Usually this is Curse of the Wulfen. Alternatively I'll pull out Warp Spiders to fill the gap my flyer formation would have occupied because if they want to play like this is the ITC I will play like it is the ITC. Naturally this tends to see my flyers rejoin my army.

As for unbound, I usually only do this for yucks or if I have to fill a points cost. For instance, if I can't cram enough models into a formation I might have a stray unit of Scourges or something because I was shy of 2000 points that night or whatever and run Unbound to make it up.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1532
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 09:21

Well I do differentiate between the game system supplement as DftS and army-specific supplements. DftS is not played here just because it adds to already bloated game. Army-specific supplements dont usually do that.

Wait - are we speaking about the whole DftS? Or using just the formation without the "phase"? That formation would prolly be OK.
Back to top Go down
Ynneadwraith
Twisted
avatar

Posts : 1236
Join date : 2016-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 10:28

@amorrowlyday wrote:
I mean that's literally happening as we speak though. The Visarch and Yvraine should be Prince Yriel and Lady Malys respectively. We're going to see first hand how that substitution goes over.

about the Diaz sculpts I think we're missing each other, I think your point here is spot on, but misses my point which wasn't relationally about similar sculpts. I was suggesting that those 2 sets sculpts can't be held up as any metric because they are the best 28mm sculpts ever made, for any game, period. Setting the bar that high is unusable because nothing will ever reach it. That aesthetic could very well be the basis of the reset though so we're just going to have to wait and see.

Oh the Visarch and Yvraine are absolutely Yriel and Malys. No doubt about it. Those are just titles/honorifics.

I've already said over on dakka that I'll eat a hat of your choosing if I'm wrong. Sombrero. WW1 German helmet with a spike on the top. Weird ozzy stetson with all the corks. Any of them.

Some b*stard suggested a beefeater which I'm genuinely worried about though...

I'm with you on the Diaz sculpts. They are truly brilliant. I was just dissecting them from a design point of view with a hint of psychology. What most people deem to be 'beautiful' can be handily summarised as 'symmetrical'. People find people with symmetrical faces and bodies more attractive. The Juan Diaz daemonettes played on this to a perfect degree. Their human bodies were perfectly symmetrical, but their (sparse) daemonic parts were out of kilter. Brilliant way of making something seem attractive, but give a little hint of 'something's not right here'...

Couple that with the general sensuousness of their posing and they're an absolute masterpiece.

If they can bring any semblance of that back to daemonettes I will be ecstatic Smile

_________________
Check out may pan-Eldar projects Smile Exodites, Corsairs, Craftworld, True Kin, Croneworld (soon) and one Shadowseer!: http://www.thedarkcity.net/t14405-corsairs-exodites-craftworlders-and-hopefully-kabalites-soon
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1349
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 13:58

"ait - are we speaking about the whole DftS? Or using just the formation without the "phase"? That formation would prolly be OK."
The entire thing, especially reserve manipulation and flyer formations.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1532
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 14:13

Yea. OK, even I dont want to play this in its entirety, so... :-D And I am not using any supplements either. :-D
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 15:51

@TeenageAngst wrote:
DftS is a supplement that replaces flyer rules. When people ask not to play using it I usually ask they leave whatever supplement they brought along out of the game as well. Usually this is Curse of the Wulfen. Alternatively I'll pull out Warp Spiders to fill the gap my flyer formation would have occupied because if they want to play like this is the ITC I will play like it is the ITC. Naturally this tends to see my flyers rejoin my army.

GREAT! I like playing ITC rules, and have no problems dealing with warp spiders! Very Happy

_________________
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1349
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 16:11

My friend hates DftS and then says how much better it makes his Dakka Jets, which he adores, and he loves bringing them when I have the supplement. I think people only hate DftS for the entirely optional dogfight phase. The other rules are damn nice for flyers.

You're unique then, BTW, because everyone I play sees Warp Spiders and has some kind of mental hemorrhage. Especially Space Wolf, Tau, and Grey Knights players, of which we have too many around here.

As for AoS, I don't currently have an army for it, but I've liked the idea of it since I played some demos when it came out. It's never something I would buy things for specifically but I have some random Chaos Daemons now and I like the idea of being able to just download some rules and slap them against someone else's hodge podge. The moment I have to blow $70 on a book and worry about troop requirements is the moment I stop caring. I think 40k could use some faction breakdown like they have but not nearly as extreme.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 21:44

@TeenageAngst wrote:

You're unique then, BTW, because everyone I play sees Warp Spiders and has some kind of mental hemorrhage. Especially Space Wolf, Tau, and Grey Knights players, of which we have too many around here.

I'm going to attribute that to people pre-emptively providing an excuse in case they lose. There are things that are very difficult or even impossible to deal with for some armies. Warp spiders aren't one of them, in my opinion, except maybe for Tau. They're good, but all you have to do is account for their mobility when you're planning all of your phases. The reason they worked so well when people first started using them is that people didn't realize what special rules they had, and so didn't compensate for that special rule in their movement phase, in order to secure their success in the shooting phase.

_________________
Back to top Go down
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1257
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 21:47

Being broken on release also helped. The errata is huge.
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Would AOSing army building be so bad?    Wed Jan 25 2017, 22:33

@amorrowlyday wrote:
Being broken on release also helped. The errata is huge.

True, but that part was altered by ITC and other major tournament circuits after the 1st time it was put on display at last year's LVO, so nothing really changed there for me with the FAQ/Errata.

_________________
Back to top Go down
 
Would AOSing army building be so bad?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

OTHER DARK ELDAR DISCUSSION

 :: Rules Development
-
Jump to: