daedalus81 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 So they've already planned the move to KoW before they even have all the information and AoS gets its first re-pointing? That's grade A stuff right there. Have we seen people running that seemingly very successful skeleton horde army at a recently recorded tournament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikosan Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Yeah....play testing the Game without virtually any knowledge of the actual changes and declaring it busted. Seems like sound proof to me. Tell me what points values were the skeletons at? How about the discount? How about your opponents armies? This was a conclusion in search of an experiment to justify it. Hordes seem to be a natural answer to the shooting heavy meta you've been banging on about and now it's hordes that are supposed to be the most broken thing ever? Sorry man, I'm sure we would get along great over a game, but these posts are getting ridiculous. Hope you find what you're looking for in KoW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 He didn't play test it. He made the assumption that since he did well with a list (during some time in the past) taking 120 skeletons that any discount on them will irrevocably unbalance the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotrek Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 5 hours ago, Auticus said: We spent the weekend busting the game, gittin gud, and going over the proposed changes with what's left of our group. I know the easy answer is someone complaining about balance is just a bad player that can't git gud, so once more we ventured forth and built tournament lists to show why thats a lazy accusation. I ran a skeleton horde army with three units of forty skeletons and misc sundries </snip>. I ended up going 3-1 over the weekend, tabling two armies by the 2nd and 3rd turn, tabling a low model count elite khorne army by turn 5, and in turn getting tabled by turn 3 by a kunnin rukk army. Granted this is with current GHB rules and points. Another death player went 3-1 as well, also losing to kunnin rukk (who went 4-0 and tabled everyone by turn 3 or less) </snip> Afterwards we shared some notes on what we wanted to do with the proposed changes coming down the pipe that will make horde units even more powerful. </snip> The number one reason cited in that group is that no one wants to go out and by giant blobs of the same unit. Only myself and another guy can do that since we have been playing forever and have a massive collection. </snip> All we know is that horde units will get a discount. We dont know what that discount will be, no rumor site i know of or found has any information about said discount. Consequently, its impossible for you to playtest the discount when we dont have any information on it other than "it exists ". No need to break out the lighter fluid yet. As for no one in your group wanting to buy giant blobs of models, if i remember right, KoW is a rank and flank game that still has a core tax so they'll still need giant blobs of models. I mean, i know unit fillers are the big thing over there but it still doesnt really solve the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevvermore Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Yeah I really fail to see how going to KoW would mean less models to paint... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayniac Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Since I've done a tiny bit of research I believe Kings of War has a rule where you can put half plus one of the unit size on a diorama type base so you don't need to fill out the full unit just part of it I'm not 100% certain though since I'm not aware of it being played around here (I see folks talk but never play) Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevvermore Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 They do have that and I guess it would alleviate the problem somewhat. On that note I find it hilarious how some of the more elaborate KoW armies look more like armies of moving ruins, hills, lakes and graveyards than actual troops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 12 hours ago, Auticus said: number one reason cited in that group is that no one wants to go out and by giant blobs of the same unit. How is that even a thing? Do your local players find it impossible to enjoy a game unless they shift their whole approach to focus on using one rule? That's what it sounds like. "Hey, there is an unpublished new rule of some kind that in some way rewards larger units. How about that!" "What? To heck with that! I can't enjoy my current model collection that has given me so much fun if I know that rule is part of the game now, and since there is that new rule and I have to purchase new models to use it (obviously), I will quit instead. " Seriously, I'll take up a collection to help you move out of D-bagville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 1 hour ago, wayniac said: Since I've done a tiny bit of research I believe Kings of War has a rule where you can put half plus one of the unit size on a diorama type base so you don't need to fill out the full unit just part of it Death to diorama units. Srsly. Toy soldiers, not shrubbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 17 minutes ago, Sleboda said: Seriously, I'll take up a collection to help you move out of D-bagville. I don't know man. I get the feeling that he's the queen bee of the group and their direction is guided by his sentiment regarding the upcoming changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayniac Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 24 minutes ago, daedalus81 said: I don't know man. I get the feeling that he's the queen bee of the group and their direction is guided by his sentiment regarding the upcoming changes. To be honest, i sympathize with him a lot. It's really tough wanting to do fun narrative casual things and having the entire group basically say no, we want to play hardcore tournament lists. I've followed his posts for a long time, and it's definitely the fact that he's the lone voice crying out for something being being a tournament tryhard and being shot down because people only want competitive lists, and especially being the creator of a very good pre-GHB comp system (arguably better than SCGT as I have said before, in my humble opinion) makes it hard to see GW's balance, when you balanced things yourself before they cared. It's like someone coming up with a numbering system and then having it superseded later by one that you feel isn't quite as good but caught on and is now the standard, but you're finding (in your opinion anyways) flaws in it that are just being ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 I just don't get why there even has to be a comp system, or why ppl layer on house rules, make changes, and so on. All those do is fracture the community and reduce the chance you'll find compatible players when exposed to new groups, regions, or events. It is a bit of a self-made problem. I change the game to be how I want it to be, then complain when I find players who didn't magically make that same change - when we could have been 100% compatible by just sticking to the actual rules. :shrug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 14 minutes ago, wayniac said: To be honest, i sympathize with him a lot. It's really tough wanting to do fun narrative casual things and having the entire group basically say no, we want to play hardcore tournament lists. I've followed his posts for a long time, and it's definitely the fact that he's the lone voice crying out for something being being a tournament tryhard and being shot down because people only want competitive lists, and especially being the creator of a very good pre-GHB comp system (arguably better than SCGT as I have said before, in my humble opinion) makes it hard to see GW's balance, when you balanced things yourself before they cared. It's like someone coming up with a numbering system and then having it superseded later by one that you feel isn't quite as good but caught on and is now the standard, but you're finding (in your opinion anyways) flaws in it that are just being ignored. But that's sort of the opposite of what he said. They decided to prove that is was a bad idea. They played some games and suddenly this army full of skeletons (almost literally half the army) was crushing face by just pushing it forward, "because of the math". Then they discussed as a group how to handle the upcoming changes of which they know no details. The conclusion for some? Move to a new game, because they don't want to buy big units by moving to a game that uses big units. That doesn't add up. I can appreciate that he made a comp system. And in that i'll call him biased and unable to view the problem from the outside. I also do math all day long and it's been long understood that math isn't the full picture of Warhammer. I did a very rudimentary analysis earlier in the thread that, in my mind, threw water on the math and it was ignored. Maybe my inclinations are incorrect, but the effort seems exceedingly premature and exposes the pervasive mindset of that group of which he is clearly a strong personality. I also apologize for talking like Auticus isn't here. I'm not trying to be rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayniac Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 31 minutes ago, Sleboda said: I just don't get why there even has to be a comp system, or why ppl layer on house rules, make changes, and so on. All those do is fracture the community and reduce the chance you'll find compatible players when exposed to new groups, regions, or events. It is a bit of a self-made problem. I change the game to be how I want it to be, then complain when I find players who didn't magically make that same change - when we could have been 100% compatible by just sticking to the actual rules. :shrug: Yes but the actual rules also was "unplayable" because there were no points etc. you know how it goes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 53 minutes ago, wayniac said: Yes but the actual rules also was "unplayable" because there were no points etc. you know how it goes It was playable, but look at how many fundamental disagreements there are about so many other things within the community. Is it a reasonable expectation for people to be able to play a game and feel like they had an equal footing? What happens they next time they play under that system? Either they : increase what they put on the table, because they feel too much like the underdog use the same amount of models as last time, but get depressed since they don't feel right articulating that they feel there isn't a fair game being played Of course that is for a competitive player. A narrative type theoretically wouldn't care about such a thing. My first ever game I played someone who had a ton of goblins. He absolutely wrecked me, because chaos warriors were nowhere near as strong and goblins got way stronger. I fully understood what the changes to the game meant. I had to sit down and convince him that goblins were far stronger now. Not everyone out there will do that. There are a wide variety of personality types that would sooner play something else then try to approach the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayniac Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 New article has some info on hordes:https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/31/balanced-diverse-fun-matched-play-in-the-generals-handbook-2017-july31gw-homepage-post-3/Relevant quote:A full-sized regiment of Clanrats, for example, is 40 points cheaper than before, allowing you to take full advantage of Strength in Numbers.Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirage8112 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 21 minutes ago, wayniac said: A full-sized regiment of Clanrats, for example, is 40 points cheaper than before, allowing you to take full advantage of Strength in Numbers. So taking a unit at max size net you a little more than 15% discount? and only if taken at max unit size with all the difficulty that entails? Oh the humanity...... What's really interesting is the other little teasers from that post. Clanrats are now min sized 20 instead of 10. And Stormvermin are max sized 40 and now battleline if the army has a Verminus allegiance. It also means we might see massive regiments on units that are not exclusively battleline. Also no points changes. (not here anyway). I actually think this massive regiments rule might be a good trade off vs the benefits of an MSU list. Previously I'd been taking units at mix size since unit leaders often get a +1 to a stat (either attack, hit or save). Getting a small discount on a full size unit seems like a fair trade off for losing those multiple sergeants. Although I still couldn't imagine running Tree-revenant's in units of 30... For all the "sky is falling" I'm hearing from people who are worried about this breaking the game, I don't see any concrete reason for saying that so far. These changes hardly seem mandatory or broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdkinker Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 On 7/29/2017 at 0:58 PM, bottle said: If the new scenarios have objectives that can only be captured by Heroes or Behemoths its going to make list design very interesting as hordes become a killing machine but not something you can always hold objectives with. The new battleplan, Duality of Death, in the new community article is exactly that, thankfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratty_McRatface Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 This is what I cam here to say but you beet me too it Mirage8112. "What's really interesting is the other little teasers from that post. Clanrats are now min sized 20 instead of 10. And Stormvermin are max sized 40 and now battleline if the army has a Verminus allegiance. It also means we might see massive regiments on units that are not exclusively battleline. Also no points changes. (not here anyway)." the min of 20 Clanrats is a big change, its not easy to just fill out your battleline cheaply with a few rats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galas Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Just yesterday I was looking At the stormvermin sprues and thinking, "you know what, those are some nice rats" No, Galas, you dont need more horde armies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirage8112 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 8 minutes ago, Galas said: Just yesterday I was looking At the stormvermin sprues and thinking, "you know what, those are some nice rats" No, Galas, you dont need more horde armies... I beg to differ sir..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sadysaneto Posted July 31, 2017 Author Share Posted July 31, 2017 20 minutes ago, Galas said: Just yesterday I was looking At the stormvermin sprues and thinking, "you know what, those are some nice rats" No, Galas, you dont need more horde armies... one does not does not need more armies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirage8112 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Sadysaneto said: one does not does not need more armies Is that like "just say no" to not starting a new army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzaangor Management Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 21 minutes ago, Galas said: Just yesterday I was looking At the stormvermin sprues and thinking, "you know what, those are some nice rats" No, Galas, you dont need more horde armies... Looks like Stormvermin get a 60 point reduction for being run at full unit size as well, just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotrek Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 6 hours ago, Auticus said: We played the game as it stands in GHB today where skeletons are already at a discount when at max numbers because of their attack boost that they don't have to pay for. You pay the same for 40 skeletons model by model that you do for 10 skeletons model for model, even though after 30 skeletons they are much more effective in combat due to their size buffs. Being discounted even more is why the lighter fluid is being broken out. you keep saying skeletons are undercosted now, compared to what? i can name a dozen units off the top of my head that can go toe to toe, point for point against a unit of 40 skeletons. hell, against anything with a 4+ save (which is pretty common among the newer armies, KO excluded) each skeleton attack only has a 12.5% chance to deal damage. sure, each model is getting 3 attacks but, hell, you're looking at needing 64 attacks to kill a single korgorath and that korgorath is killing 4 skeletons every combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.