BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11

    Default

    However Heralds of Tzeentch are Chaos Wizards...

  2. #12

    Default

    Brief response regarding super hero 1 man units...

    Yes, morale/psychology as you know it (as a state) is no longer a thing. Now, whenever you take casualties, you take ADDITIONAL casualties to represent troops fleeing.

    So the unit with 1 guy is not going to be rolling every turn like you are used to (because thats not how it works), except for whatever casualties got them down to 1 in the first place.

    At that point, if the 1 guy is not removed via battleshock, then yes he will be on the table. And will probably die.



    I think you are misunderstanding the rules because you are looking at them through a WHFB perspective.



    Does that make sense?

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acrimonger View Post
    Brief response regarding super hero 1 man units...
    I believe they're talking about heroes or monsters, how they don't use their bravery for a "morale" check (battleshock check) ever, however do remember that many spells use the bravery characteristic! You can still be destroyed for low bravery, just not from battleshock

  4. #14

    Default

    I actually favour Battleshock over break tests.

    It helps to mitigate Rubber Lance syndrome, or worse, losing a points intensive unit being lost due to a single double six.

    I find it makes me consider my combats in more depth, and encourages ganging up on enemy units in order to clear them out quicker, and stop them being such a thorn in my side in protracted fisticuffs.

    And I'm only just getting started in understanding how to get the most out of combat. My next trick? Learning how best to place my opponent in 'rock and hard place' situations when they're choosing the next unit to fight with, without winding up with a similar decision myself.

    Best lesson on that one so far was when my opponent didn't choose his Greatswords, who promptly got flattened by my Ironguts before they got much of a chance to swing.

    How best to use 'chaffe' units in such a situation? Dunno - I don't have enough experience yet. I was confident of their role in 8th Ed - just go for the flank, where the benefits almost always, barring some spectacular rolling on my opponent's behalf, worth the risk of presenting a soft, squishy unit (assuming five deep ranks, only five models would get to fight. Basic A1 infantry could kill 5 at most, whilst Gnoblars brought 3 Ranks, Flank and countered his own rank bonus, even if I didn't strip steadfast). Now? Not such a sure thing.

    But hey, that's another advantage Battleshock has over Break Tests. Just because you picked on my weedy unit, my tough unit isn't going to care - they're just going to keep hitting you, and hitting you, and hitting you until you're murdered to death.

    It's changed up the battlefield dynamic and no mistake, especially if your chaffe unit is one of those that gets benefits from being large sized!
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  5. #15

    Default

    I missed this thread before, and I don't want to jump on the bandwagon of commenting on the rules, but I have to scoff at the comments from Path Walker that I see being quoted at the start of the thread. Now I'm sure he has zero friends in the studio, or they outright lie to him.

    There's no way AoS had more playtesting than any prior version of Warhammer. It's a whopping four pages of rules and a bunch of warscrolls for existing armies that clearly were never meant to be balanced anyway (as they're eventually going to be phased out, and often have rules that would embarrass the staff at a GW store if enforced). So you've got four pages and two small factions to playtest.

    So, what, we're supposed to believe that in the past they did absolutely zero playtesting on a much larger set of rules? All the variety in Warhammer that was carried over between editions, they didn't test it to make sure it still worked right? Or they suddenly had the time and spent the money to do months and months and months of playtesting on four pages of rules?

    And yet, in that playtesting, they didn't spot some of the issues that came about quickly? Why are the rules so ambiguous in areas that people seem to have more disagreement and confusion about four pages than they have with 200+ pages?

    And why would they even playtest it that much? The game has no balancing mechanics and isn't meant to. The one "balancing" mechanic, based on number of models, is horrible. Actually, anything based on number of models is horrible. An army of Ogres can be 3/4 the size of an army of Skaven in terms of numbers and have a bonus in the game, despite being more powerful (if you're just using basic models). Even battleshock is bad on that front because multi-wound units like Ogres can suffer 13 wounds in combat, but only lose three models, so their Battleshock is +3; if they dish out 10 wounds to basic infantry, that infantry unit takes a test at +10 and is likely to lose a lot more models, despite "winning" that round of combat.

    But balance and all doesn't matter if your intent is just to let people use whatever models they want to buy, in any combination, and make a story.

    So, again, why would they try to do all that playtesting that they don't have the bodies or time for?

    And, if he insists they did so much more than previous versions of Warhammer, why are the rules still so ambiguous in places, and lacking in any semblance of balance or logic in others? You playtest a game to tighten the rules and make sure it's balanced. The "selling point" of AoS is that it has neither of those, players are meant to just balance it themselves and determine what they want the rules to mean. So, yeah, we come back to the point that there's not even a need to do much of any playtesting, and if it's more than any prior version of Warhammer, that means they weren't playtesting Warhammer at all, yet it lasted for 30 years until their attempts to squeeze more money from even new customers came back to bite them.

    I don't mean all this to bash AoS, just to point out how stupid the claim is and how unbelievable it makes any other claim PW makes about "friends in the studio." At best, his "friends" lie to him. More likely, there's no "friends," just someone wanting to defend a game and making up nonsense.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Setzer View Post
    I missed this thread before, and I don't want to jump on the bandwagon of commenting on the rules
    It's harder to write 4 pages of rules that are strong than 400 pages of rules.

    The people who are saying AoS has had the most play testing are the same people who leak "rumours" that are 100% accurate and are never incorrect. So you're right, why should we believe these sources?

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nsc View Post
    It's harder to write 4 pages of rules that are strong than 400 pages of rules.

    The people who are saying AoS has had the most play testing are the same people who leak "rumours" that are 100% accurate and are never incorrect. So you're right, why should we believe these sources?
    Because it suggests that somehow the studio is either exceptionally incompetent, wasting months and months (if not years!) in testing something while still not spotting easy to notice issues, all for the purpose of balancing a game that inherently doesn't concern itself with balance, or in the past they somehow did a darn good job without really trying.

    I'm not saying the game wasn't playtested at all, but to claim it had more testing than any prior edition is laughable. It's either a lie or it shows gross incompetence. (Oooorrrr.... The studio figured out they could play games on company time and get paid to do so, and continued to claim they were "playtesting" in order to just play games all day. So still a lie, but one I could totally understand.)

  8. #18

    Default

    As an added bonus, I dropped the guy from my Ignore List long enough to go trawling through old posts and, what do you know, he doesn't really have history as a rumor monger, much less one that's "100% accurate." The only rumors he's mentioned are the ones going all over about Tau next and HH coming late in the year, hardly news and safe for anyone to mention. He even once said that no talk of AoS got outside GW HQ so he didn't know anything about it, and admitted to his gaming group sending false rumors just to troll websites.

    Didn't see a single claim of playtesting on the 9th edition rumor roundup, except one person claiming they were testing all books after Dark Elves to be compatible with 9th edition... which of course isn't true.

    So, yeah... Care to try again? Back up your claims a bit? Direct quotes and links would be useful.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Setzer View Post
    As an added bonus, I dropped the guy from my Ignore List long enough to go trawling through old posts and, what do you know, he doesn't really have history as a rumor monger, much less one that's "100% accurate." The only rumors he's mentioned are the ones going all over about Tau next and HH coming late in the year, hardly news and safe for anyone to mention. He even once said that no talk of AoS got outside GW HQ so he didn't know anything about it, and admitted to his gaming group sending false rumors just to troll websites.

    Didn't see a single claim of playtesting on the 9th edition rumor roundup, except one person claiming they were testing all books after Dark Elves to be compatible with 9th edition... which of course isn't true.

    So, yeah... Care to try again? Back up your claims a bit? Direct quotes and links would be useful.
    He owes you nothing. Ever. None of this is necessary. You're stirring up trouble.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaric View Post
    He owes you nothing. Ever. None of this is necessary. You're stirring up trouble.
    Answering a claim someone made, when that person has in the past admitted to trolling for laughs, is "stirring up trouble?" Seriously, people love to claim that any disagreement, especially if it can't be answered, is "stirring up trouble." Much easier to attack a person than answer valid points.

    See, this attitude is what's hurting the GW community. If people are critical at all, they're attacked. They're not allowed to make a point, because such points can't be answered, and thus they must be stoned. Eventually it's either the more rabid pro-GW and anti-GW crowd yelling at each other, because those of us on neither side of that fence get sick of it, and eventually take the hint and leave the games (not the hobby) and go to spend money with someone else in the hobby, thus further harming Games Workshop and the community. Bring up valid points? Nah, folks can't answer those, gotta be all vitriolic and nasty and accuse you of being mean or something, because God knows that anything other than "Games Workshop makes the best products in the world!" is going to be frowned on.

    Sorry I'm honest and a realist and that I dislike trolls. Maybe I should try to lie more. Seems that's how you get people to like you. I could never do that, though. Rather be hated than dishonest.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •