|
Moola posted:how old is the first GH? Six months. Probably the right time to gather feedback if they plan to release another one in the summer.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
A new edition every year is ridiculous e; a new edition you have to purchase every year is ridiculous Moola fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Moola posted:A new edition every year is ridiculous It wouldn't be, if it was free. You know, the rules were supposed to be free?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Yep it's a ludicrous loving walkback, especially when they claimed prominently that the free rules would be a 'living document' and stay up to date.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
I can think of a few suggestions. Maybe square bases that lock together that form units with facings, and heroes can join them. Maybe limit shooting into/out of/between combats. Ooo, how about charge reactions!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
TKIY posted:I can think of a few suggestions. You lost me at square bases 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Moola posted:You lost me at square bases Skeletons have trouble with geometry, it's okay buddy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
I'm happy they're openly taking feedback on the game. It does seem a little soon for a next edition but there's some things that could stand to be changed. I think shooting out of close combat is doofy as hell, as is measuring model to model. I'd also like to see them throw a bone to old Fantasy players, even if it's just something like some historical scenarios for playing in The Old World with AoS rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Honestly this is the wrong thread for this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
So, they didn't say when GHB v2 would be out, I assume its at least a year away. Writing and publishing takes time. $25 for an updated rulebook? sure I have no problem with this, more than that, and people will balk. At my store, WFB players hate AoS and wont even consider playing it because they personally feel insulted. I really don't understand this. WFB is 40 years old, it was less than 5% of GW gross sales, the existing player base was not buying models (they had their armies already) and were not getting new players into it at any meaningful rate. Granted this was all under the previous CEO Thomas Kerby. They did not tell people that they cant play WFB anymore, just that there would not be new rules for it. Then comes AoS, its base rules were so bad, but people responded, it was initially around 20% of their sales, a good indication, later came GHB, this is where I tried it, its a loose set of rules, but its "fun" put dudes on table, roll dice and kill things, everything is powerful and models die quickly to keep the game going at a good pace. Something are woogy, like measuring from models and not bases, but everyone just measures from the base issue solved. Shooting into and while in combat seems weird but its fine, you get to use the model to its fullest for the points you paid, maybe models with good melee and ranged need to be higher points. At my store new wargamers get into it because its accessible and they have a great time. I've had a couple people come over from Warmachine and build armies and they too have fun, its a different game, not a replacement for WMH. Since the new CEO (Roundtree) took over GW has been doing much better and it accounts for 50% of my stores sales each month. I have played a LOT of miniatures games, I started with 2nd edition 40k. To me, AoS has flaws, it could be better in some areas, but I don't care for what it is it plays well enough and we have fun. Even if you think AoS is a bad game and other people could be playing something better it doesn't matter because they are enjoying AoS, weather its the models, the rules, or just the people they are playing with they are having a good time and thats really all that matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
SRM posted:I'm happy they're openly taking feedback on the game. It does seem a little soon for a next edition but there's some things that could stand to be changed. I think shooting out of close combat is doofy as hell, as is measuring model to model. I'd also like to see them throw a bone to old Fantasy players, even if it's just something like some historical scenarios for playing in The Old World with AoS rules. If that happened it'd still just be 40k lite in the old world and while the setting was a nice selling point for WHFB I think a big reason the fantasy community was pretty distinct from 40k was the mechanics of the game and the fundamental emphasis on flanking and ranked movement. I suspect at this point, almost 2 years past fantasy getting squatted, that most people interested in playing a game of ranked fantasy miniatures have moved on to either Kings of War, Dragon Rampant or Ninth Age. I think GW just needs to double down with what they have, acknowledge that the player base of what was once the second biggest miniatures game in the world has mostly moved on to other things, and just make AoS a simple game that can partially cannibalize 40k spend while being more accessible to people who haven't played miniatures games at all. Edit: LumberingTroll posted:At my store, WFB players hate AoS and wont even consider playing it because they personally feel insulted. I really don't understand this. Do you really not understand that people might be slightly angry if the game they sunk thousands of dollars and hours into was killed suddenly and replaced with a 4 page PDF and a bunch of halfassed joke rules after three months of total silence? tallkidwithglasses fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
LumberingTroll posted:At my store, WFB players hate AoS and wont even consider playing it because they personally feel insulted. I really don't understand this. WFB is 40 years old, it was less than 5% of GW gross sales, the existing player base was not buying models (they had their armies already) and were not getting new players into it at any meaningful rate. 40k sells well (for GW) and is only slightly younger. There clearly isn't a fundamental issue with the game that inherently means nobody's going to buy anything for it. Also literally nobody has ever sourced the percentage of sales for WFB, it's just become common knowledge it didn't do well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
LumberingTroll posted:At my store, WFB players hate AoS and wont even consider playing it because they personally feel insulted. I really don't understand this. WFB is 40 years old 33. And, it received edition updates right up to the end, including a very expensive End Times set of books, rules, and models. People who bought into late 8th edition books and models, and even End Times, reasonably believed that their game would survive in some way. They were not warned of the complete finality with which their setting and game would be discarded. quote:, it was less than 5% of GW gross sales This is unsubstantiated rumor. GW has never broken out its sales numbers between fantasy and 40k in its financial reporting. quote:, the existing player base was not buying models (they had their armies already) Each new release generally sold well. The last release before the End Times event was wood elves; with a good book and good models, wood elves sold out completely of the intitial run, which GW underestimated, and continued to sell well. And this was one of the armies GW assumed was unpopular. It turns out Fantasy sold quite well, whenever the company bothered to give a faction a decent rulebook and some model support. Older poorly supported armies, and especially armies that had broken crap army books in 8th edition, performed poorly. GW never made the connection between good rules and good sales, probably because it lacked anyone capable of distinguishing between good and bad rules, and had deliberately severed and shut down its forums, hosted gaming events, in-store gaming, and other avenues by which customers could have concievably given them feedback. Famously, the CEO bragged about market research being "otiose in a niche." So, A) the existing player base bought new models whenever they were released and not awful, and B) GW had many options for discovering why some models sold poorly, but chose to ignore or avoid all of them in favor of its CEO's gut feeling about what is or is not good gaming. quote:and were not getting new players into it at any meaningful rate. Possibly reasonable, given the huge expense of a full Fantasy army. When folks argue that GW did a Bad Thing by killing off Fantasy, they rarely if ever argue that 8th didn't have serious problems, or that the game line was doing great financially. Yet, GW's attempts to recruit new Fantasy players - entirely based on sales representatives pushing expensive boxes of models on people visiting their stores, with no affordable entry point to the game - was obviously stupid and often counterproductive. The argument - and it's a good one - is that GW did not have to blow up its beloved setting and trash its entire rule set in order to revitalize the Fantasy game. Most Fantasy players believed that a new edition that was being rumored would be a significant update to the core rules. There were a handful of problematic rules like Steadfast that had radically altered army building and discouraged a lot of players. A rebalancing of the armies, refactoring of points values, perhaps some simplification of certain parts of the game, all would have been well received. Instead, GW decided what Fantasy players really wanted was a skirmishy type game with round bases and free individual model movement, plus fantasy space marines. And then they shat out an insultingly terrible ruleset and terminated the old setting with prejudice, including in several cases killing off factions in really stupid ways. They made people who were fans of their own faction feel bad about their own little army guys. quote:They did not tell people that they cant play WFB anymore, just that there would not be new rules for it. That's true, and it's why 9th Age is a thing. And also Kings of War. A rival company and a fan-organized effort have both shown that GW did not have to terminate the entire idea of a rank-and-file maneuvering large scale fantasy army game on the tabletop. But 8th edition play is dead, because it's now unsupported. You can't go into a GW and get an 8th edition pickup game. There will never be a new release of an 8th edition army book for the factions that didn't get one. Warhammer Fantasy Battles is gone, and it's totally reasonable for fans of that game to be disappointed and angry about it. Games Workshop could have put Age of Sigmar out as a companion game, for people who wanted something like that, while continuing to support 8th. Or a new 9th edition. Or they could have written 9th edition in a way to support smaller-scale skirmish play. And regardless, they could have introduced their new Sigmar faction without destroying the Old World, which - flawed thought it was - was a far better developed and far less embarrassingly stupid setting than the one they're half-assing for AoS. quote:Then comes AoS, its base rules were so bad, but people responded, it was initially around 20% of their sales Again, based on what? I have read the financial reports of this company in detail. Perhaps I am forgetting some throw-away comment by Kirby or Rountree, but I don't recall GW actually breaking down their revenues by game line. If you're confused about why a lot of WFB players hate AOS and won't even consider trying it, I think you're being a bit obtuse. They hate AOS because it replaced their game with a different game that was and still is poorly designed, unbalanced, has pathetically terrible lore, and somehow manages to be even more expensive on a per-model basis. Many of those players invested thousands of dollars and thousands of hours into the Warhammer Fantasy game line, and at AOS's release, Games Workshop's executives expressed naked contempt for them and what they wanted in a game. The creation of a points-based version of Age of Sigmar is more or less a quiet confession on the part of Games Workshop that they were wrong to consider people who wanted a balanced game where players can design their armies in advance and then find matched pick-up games as subhuman trash that you shouldn't even consider playing with. But even with points and some semblance of balance, it's still not a rank and file battle game, and never will be; it's not the Old World, either. The new names for everything are so bad that one feels a flush of shame just saying them out loud. It's too expensive. It's impossible to care about the lore. It's tough to trust this company with any more of your money, given how frequently and repeatedly they've canceled or gutted their games in the past. It's not the angry ex-Fantasy players who won't even consider Age of Sigmar who are being unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Just have to +1 that Leperflesh. Exactly encapsulates my feelings as a Wood Elf player. Let's not forget stuff like how you still can't legally run the twins in the WHFB ruleset and they never FAQ'd it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
 Edit: Seriously I always hated people saying Bretonnia didn't get updates because its models didn't sell... Of course they didn't sell when it had been 10 years since they had a release and were only able to be marginally competitive because their old rules interacted oddly with the new ones. Pash fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Thats cool, people have different opinions and Im fine with that, it sells well in my local community, and people have fun thats enough for me. Can someone give me some tips on Khone Bloodbound? I feel they are under-performing but I read a lot of people saying they get stomped by them. I own just about one unit of everything in the line, just dont know the best combination to use I suppose. We have been playing 1000 pt games, and the players I play most with play the following: Nurgle (gently caress blight kings), 2x Storm Cast, 2x Saraphon, Fyrslayer, Dispossesed, Orruks and 2x Sylvaneth. we have many other players but they play at different times than I do. Im not opposed to getting into another part of Chaos, but id like to do something with what I have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
LumberingTroll posted:Thats cool, people have different opinions and Im fine with that, it sells well in my local community, and people have fun thats enough for me. I mean, you don't get to play "Agree to disagree" on matters of factual record (or lack thereof). You can't have an opinion that it was 5% of their sales when there's no such fact in evidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
LumberingTroll posted:
Bloodbound are all about the buffs and synergy your heroes give your rank and file. You wanna jam in as many Bloodsecrators, Bloodstokers, Bloodpriests and Bloodgrinders in as possible. Allying up with Khorne Daemons isn't a bad idea either, there's some buffs that hit anything with the Khorne keyword. Out of curiosity, what does your list look like? Would help giving more specific tips.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I mean, you don't get to play "Agree to disagree" on matters of factual record (or lack thereof). You can't have an opinion that it was 5% of their sales when there's no such fact in evidence. Actually I can, I had an opinion, I stated it, and don't want to argue with people on the internet that wont care to see any side other than their own anyway. Id much rather talk about the game and enjoy my time with the hobby than complain and nit pick. Just to address the specific point of your comment, the sales figures are never released that is true, though it was originally stated from a "reliable inside source". If WFB was doing so well, why would they gut it in the first place? This question is rhetorical as it doesn't really matter it happened, this is what we have, picking it apart doesn't do anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
SteelMentor posted:You wanna jam in as many Bloodsecrators, Bloodstokers, Bloodpriests and Bloodgrinders in as possible. See this here I think is the problem, KBB have 11 leaders, and 2 battle lines, all the ones you mentioned are Leaders, at 1k points I can only have 4 of them, that means one of each, and I forgo some of the better solo figures. LumberingTroll fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
LumberingTroll posted:Actually I can, I had an opinion, I stated it, and don't want to argue with people on the internet that wont care to see any side other than their own anyway. Id much rather talk about the game and enjoy my time with the hobby than complain and nit pick. You can't. You're not expressing a different opinion, you're making a factual claim. This claim is unsupported by evidence. This makes you wrong, not the other side of an aesthetic debate. quote:Just to address the specific point of your comment, the sales figures are never released that is true, though it was originally stated from a "reliable inside source". If WFB was doing so well, why would they gut it in the first place? This question is rhetorical as it doesn't really matter it happened, this is what we have, picking it apart doesn't do anything. Given the actual release of AoS, "being idiots" probably about covers it. They have no market research department, how could they know gutting WFB was a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
^ Yep im wrong your right, move along please. SteelMentor posted:
Let me see if I can recall what my last list was. Lord of Khorn On Juggernaut 3x Mighty Skullcrushers 3x Mighty Skullcrushers Scyla Anfingrimm 5x Khorn Blood Warriors 10x Blood Reavers Bloodsecrator LumberingTroll fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
LumberingTroll posted:
That only comes to about 840pts, so you were playing a little understrength unless there was anything you forgot. Personally, I'd drop Scyla. He's nice on the charge, but such a glass cannon with his 5+ save. If you want a big beastie I'd go with a Mutalith or a Slaughterbrute. Bloodreavers are sweet, but you really aught to be running them as 20 man blobs, ensures enough of them survive to get into combat and with a Bloodstoker/Bloodsecrator babysitting them you can drown anything and everything in dice. And again, Bloodstokers, at 80pts they're a steal. I'd go: Juggerlord 3x Skullcrushers 3x Skullcrushers 5x Blood Warriors 20 Blood Reavers 20 Blood Reavers Bloodsecrator Bloodstoker
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
ah I had 2 kogoraths! forgot about those, ill try your list next time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Speaking of, here is my Slaughterbrute for my bloodbound: Just finished him recently and used the Bloodthirster video as a guide for most of it. Here is one of the gorechosen:  And for my bases, I'm using water FX mixed with blood for the blood god and various inks: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
I don't think 25bux for an annual rules update is terribly unreasonable if you're playing the game regularly, and if you aren't then just don't bother picking them up. In truth though, they should really be asking for suggestions for updates to the basic rules, not "what extra stuff and hourserules and points adjustments would you like to see". Still, it's a pretty good trend, and a complete 180 away from the 'we proudly do no market research' of the Age of Kirby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
 This is gotta be a Aelf thing right? C'mon Aelf thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
How is the Salughterbrute? his stats dont seem that good for a $85 model unless im missing something. You did a wonderful job painting them though GreenMarine
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Not to belabor the point, because it feels a bit loutish since people are trying to steer the topic back on track but I still feel this needs to be said.LumberingTroll posted:^ Yep im wrong your right, move along please. Frankly, it's good that you and your local community enjoy Age of Sigmar and GW actually listening to feedback and adjusting accordingly is good, but... When someone responds with a post you appear to have put some effort into with a post of equal or greater effort, to immediately shut down any further discussion reads a lot like you started that discussion in bad faith. It gives the impression that you thought you could pre-emptively "win" the elephant-in-the-room AoS argument with (what you believed to be) facts to back up your, yes, valid personal experiences and opinions and when those facts were proven spurious, you took your topic ball and went home. Leperflesh engaged the discussion using the terms you set down and examined the premises you established, and even if you disagree with him, completely shutting down the conversation with a half-hearted agree to disagree clause does make you look like the more unreasonable party. It's obvious you two won't see eye-to-eye on the issue, but it doesn't take much effort to admit that you didn't really want to make this into a real discussion and that perhaps using dodgy numbers to back up your premises may have been a mistake. What shocks people reading the discussion isn't the question of right or wrong, it's the lack of good grace. I mean, LP wasn't trolling you like a lot of the Good Thread regulars feel the urge to, come on now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Texmo posted:I don't think 25bux for an annual rules update is terribly unreasonable if you're playing the game regularly, and if you aren't then just don't bother picking them up. This is the real problem: the "free" rules are garbage. It's obviously a little disappointing that GW has stepped so far away from their plan to have free rules, but at the very minimum, the free rules should try to show the game in the best possible light. If nothing else, they should rework the sudden death mechanic, since it's so easy to exploit without even really meaning to. There are obviously other issues, but to my knowledge they haven't yet done anything to improve the free rules. Texmo posted:Still, it's a pretty good trend, and a complete 180 away from the 'we proudly do no market research' of the Age of Kirby. They've got a long way to go to compete with other game companies who do things like run livestreams where the players can ask questions about upcoming releases (CMoN's Dark Age) or have player-run rules committees to address errata, FAQs, and design smaller releases (Mantic Games). However, if GW continues the turnaround and can show, over a period of several years, that they're committed to improving their games and treating their customers better, then I might consider spending some money on their products. They're going to have to do a lot of work to show that I should get invested in their game systems again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:This is the real problem: the "free" rules are garbage. It's obviously a little disappointing that GW has stepped so far away from their plan to have free rules, but at the very minimum, the free rules should try to show the game in the best possible light. If nothing else, they should rework the sudden death mechanic, since it's so easy to exploit without even really meaning to. There are obviously other issues, but to my knowledge they haven't yet done anything to improve the free rules. Yeah, this is the funny thing. Sample stuff is usually trying to show your game in it's best light to attract interest in the full product. GW released a sample book that's a complete mess and half the printed units are designed to shame you into not playing them. It's like releasing a demo copy of FIFA where everyone immediately glitches into the ground while a giant football vibrates in the background. quote:They've got a long way to go to compete with other game companies who do things like run livestreams where the players can ask questions about upcoming releases (CMoN's Dark Age) or have player-run rules committees to address errata, FAQs, and design smaller releases (Mantic Games). Honestly the products are still insanely overpriced, especially for how many of them you need.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
SteelMentor posted:You wanna jam in as many Bloodsecrators, Bloodstokers, Bloodpriests and Bloodgrinders in as possible. I can't NOT comment on this are you trolling? This can't be real!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Basically the General's Handbook being re-released already makes it seem like the free rules were a short term marketing gimmick, like the implications of support for all armies prior to squatting brets and TK. between that and the BATTLETOME releases it feels like GW are already headed back where they were at the end of fantasy's life. spectralent posted:Honestly the products are still insanely overpriced, especially for how many of them you need.  . I windowshop a lot of miniatures and GW don't seem so horrendous any more, altho they do still have some standout ludicrous poo poo like the AoS character and centerpiece models. GreenMarine posted:Speaking of, here is my Slaughterbrute for my bloodbound:
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:They've got a long way to go to compete with other game companies who do things like run livestreams where the players can ask questions about upcoming releases (CMoN's Dark Age) or have player-run rules committees to address errata, FAQs, and design smaller releases (Mantic Games). It's probably telling that the 'best' ruleset GW has is blood bowl - which got outsourced to a external rules group ages ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:It's probably telling that the 'best' ruleset GW has is blood bowl - which got outsourced to a external rules group ages ago. And even Blood Bowl is a swingy mess with little if any thought to actual balance. Going back to classical historical scenario play, wasn't a big component of that that after the game, you'd switch sides and play it a second time so both players got to experience both sides of the scenario? The problem with Age of Sigmar before the GH is that even switching sides, it's really loving easy to bring an unbeatable force to the battle. I also have to chuckle at the idea that WFB just didn't sell well enough to justify its existence. Kings of War needed a Kickstarter to get going, but now is making enough money to expand its line through traditional means. Mantic has been able to accomplish this despite a large percentage of the players just repurposing their old WFB armies. But as it turns out, if you make a game people enjoy playing and make models that people want to buy at an affordable price, people will do so. Mantic isn't perfect though, but we'll leave that for the Mantic thread. GW has done annual or bi-annual compendiums in the past. If that's what the GH turned into, it wouldn't be the end of the world, but each release should be distinct rather than just an updated version of the last one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:GW has done annual or bi-annual compendiums in the past. If that's what the GH turned into, it wouldn't be the end of the world, but each release should be distinct rather than just an updated version of the last one. I'd actually argue just making it the new updated rules and have "General's handbook 2017" replace the previous edition would be a step in a better direction. I mean if you're trying to foster a balanced and competitive game you put out rules tweaks and clarifications or overhauls frequently enough. Of course that would go against their current model of print the new books to sell the new dolls and trashbin the old ones. If the cost of upkeep is $25-50 bucks a year, I think that'd be fair, and would answer the "But all of our players have decades of old dollies built, and we don't wanna put in the effort of casting prettier ones, how do well sell them more junk?" problem when GW is admittedly a business and needs to make money off its players.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:I'd actually argue just making it the new updated rules and have "General's handbook 2017" replace the previous edition would be a step in a better direction. I mean if you're trying to foster a balanced and competitive game you put out rules tweaks and clarifications or overhauls frequently enough. Of course that would go against their current model of print the new books to sell the new dolls and trashbin the old ones. The problem is that the contents of the book is still largely the same as the previous edition. Slight changes to wording, a single additional rule or two, and the tweaking of points is stuff that is traditionally handled in an errata or FAQ and those are always free. Now, if they replaced the previous GH with the GH 20XX and then put up the changes as a free PDF so people with the previous edition didn't feel like they had to pay $25-50 per year just to keep playing the same game, I'd actually think that was pretty neat. Every couple of years they might do a serious overhaul that justified buying a new one, but I would be really annoyed if I had to buy nearly the same book every year because someone noticed a comma was out of place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
LumberingTroll posted:ah I had 2 kogoraths! forgot about those. You should probably continue to do this. They're garbage. I've had fun with the following list at 1000 points: Bloodsecrator Skullgrinder Slaughterpriest 20 Bloodreavers 5 Blood Warriors 10 Bloodletters Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster The army as a whole is definitely all about the synergy. I'm looking to add a Chaos Warshrine in the near future to run near the Bloodreavers. This way I can give them Meatripper Axes for the -1 Rend because they don't need the reroll 1's to hit from the Reaver Blades. Plus it's a Totem so they get the bonus attacks from this if the Bloodsecrator is elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:The problem is that the contents of the book is still largely the same as the previous edition. Slight changes to wording, a single additional rule or two, and the tweaking of points is stuff that is traditionally handled in an errata or FAQ and those are always free. Now, if they replaced the previous GH with the GH 20XX and then put up the changes as a free PDF so people with the previous edition didn't feel like they had to pay $25-50 per year just to keep playing the same game, I'd actually think that was pretty neat. Every couple of years they might do a serious overhaul that justified buying a new one, but I would be really annoyed if I had to buy nearly the same book every year because someone noticed a comma was out of place. Well it depends really on if it's a new printing or actually iterative. Like 70% of the book is scenarios and campaign specifics that can be replaced with new stuff next time around. The pitched battle rules are only about 4 pages of rules and 23 pages of point costs so you're right in that there really is no reason not to add them to the website. Just add the points costs to the warscrolls that already exist on every model page of the store.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
If they release a free changelog PDF and the annual update actual has new content/scenarios, then I'm 100% on board, especially at $25. I'm also bemused at people upset over the idea of an extra $25 rulebook every year when this is a game that people spend hundreds and hundreds on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:31
|
|
