Talk:Age of Sigmar/Tactics/Old/Chaos

From 1d4chan

We need to discuss the relevance of this page at the moment. If there's nothing listed then why keep it? -- Triacom (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  • The Grand Alliance Chaos abilities. You can't get those unless you specifically go Grand Alliance, and they aren't on any other page
There's no tactics with those, it's pointless for a page to exist only to have those abilities. If you really want to keep the Grand Alliance abilities as a separate army, then you need to re-add every unit that the army can take, and undo every single edit you've made to the page as a result. Taking Grand Alliance is no different to taking the Host of the Everchosen for 8th edition, it either needs its own list, or it shouldn't exist at all since you can just mention the abilities on any of the other Chaos pages and be done with it. -- Triacom (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "it's pointless for a page to exist only to have those abilities" - I agree there should be more content on this page - ideally there should be some talk about which battlelines are better, some sample lists and some general tactics talk. Take a look at the honest wargamer mixed chaos lists [1] - this proves people are playing mixed chaos and not just with Archaon. This page should be all about discussion of tactics of what's the best way to build up a mixed chaos list, what to take, what no to. There is a huge amount of choice playing a grand alliance, and that's what this page should be capturing. Yes, none of that is here.... yet.
  • "re-add every unit that the army can take" - are you really asking for every single nurgle, khorne, slaanesh, tzeech warscroll? or do you just mean everything that was here before? If the latter, then all that stuff is repeated elsewhere on other pages, or is completely invalid due to having no points. Neither help anyone. Maybe there is a better way to easily show all the stuff you can take without repeating elsewhere.
  • Maybe this is a separate discussion - but some of this might boil down to what is agreed should be in an entry for a warscroll. I think back in the midst of time, the idea was for each unit, just discuss what is awesome and not awesome about it and sneaky things you can do with it. Looking around today, many tactics pages have devolved into each unit just being a list of all its abilities. Both are useful, just a different approach
  • I'd be happy if all the Forgeworld Chaos stuff got moved back from the Monsterous Arcanum to this page. Just don't have it on both. I guess there is ultimately no point to the Monsterous Arcanum page if everything moves to the faction/alliance pages.
  • If you are going to put a Delete marker on here, then you should be putting one on Order and Death too as they have no warscrolls and have the roughly the same content as this page - at least that would be consistent. (Ok, Order page has Firestorm stuff, but you could easily argue that belongs on a Firestorm page like the other expansions).
  • I do think this is a good discussion to have - getting rid of pointless crap is good, but I still think we have a use for this page A74xhx (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm seriously asking for every single nurgle, khorne, slaanesh and tzeentch warscroll, as well as every single monster compendium warscroll, every single beasts of chaos warscroll, and every single undivided warscroll with references to where they're found. That's exactly what I mean. Saying neither help isn't true at all, and in my opinion they should never have been split the way they are now because it doesn't help in making an army or deciding what to take in a Grand Hosts army. Just look at the Legions of Nagash page for an example of what this page could've been, and still could be. An easy way to list everything an army could use would be to redirect those pages here under their own specific section, or just keep those pages separate if you really wanted to for some reason. As for the delete template, I wouldn't mind putting one on Order or Death at all if they're the same as this page.
"Looking around today, many tactics pages have devolved into each unit just being a list of all its abilities. Both are useful, just a different approach" I'm addressing this separately for a second because it isn't helpful at all to list what's on a unit's warscroll. Anyone can see what's in a unit's warscroll either by looking it up, or looking at their opponent's book and since you can see literally all the warscrolls in the game for free (just use the app which is very helpful for this), relisting all of their abilities isn't helpful. That's why when I go back and edit tactics pages I try to take out these kinds of descriptions unless they're pertinent to a description of its role, and then I work it in there. You can see this with the CSM tactica which is the last one I did, where my revamp of it took out 124,089 bytes used to just repeat info anyone with eyes already knew. I don't have as much time as I used to though, so I can't prune these pages that spring up.
If you'd like to see what this page could be, then I'll show you over the course of this weekend when I have the time to redo it. I'll add in all of the units, I'll prune their entries, I'll separate the factions, I'll add interplay between the hosts so that they support one another. I have no problem with giving that so long as it stands as an example of what a page like this could be. -- Triacom (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, go for it! Look forward to seeing it. A74xhx (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately I got tied up in the weekend and was only able to finish about 1/3rd of the revamp. I'll continue working on it through the week after work and will probably have to push it back to the upcoming weekend. I do feel it's necessary though, since the pages are too tied up as if they are their own separate armies, which hamstrings armies that have an interest in combining the various forces or using them as allies. There's also so little actual tactics on them, and there's way too many duplicated entries from people trying to find reasons to use the units alongside each other. -- Triacom (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks like I've gotta admit I'm going to be at it longer than I thought. I didn't think that I'd need to go through and look at 99% of every fucking unit and every fucking ability in every fucking book or that every fucking book would have more command traits and artefacts than actual units. I didn't think that initially because I had thought that tactics pages would have actual tactics on them, but these pages are atrocious, so many of them are just listing the abilities of the unit and then stopping there, as if we're unable to read the warscroll linked in the unit's name. Give me another week at least. -- Triacom (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe a section regarding noteworthy leaders would be useful. Though outside of the Chaos Lord and Sorcerer, I’m not sure what else would work. GreySeerCriak (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I should probably warn you that a lot of your edits are going to be undone, especially on the warlord traits and artefacts, which are both out of date. As I said before, I'm working through it, and should be able to get through it this weekend. -- Triacom (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Fine by me mate. Just happy to contribute.GreySeerCriak (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The contributions are fine by themselves, the issue is that they're attached to rules that no longer exist. GW did a bit of an overhaul on both the Warlord Traits and Artefacts, which is why those edits are going to be changed or removed eventually. -- Triacom (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)