wayniac

Members
  • Content count

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

113 Celestant-Prime

About wayniac

  • Rank
    Protector
  • Birthday 06/26/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

98 profile views
  1. I also like to do smaller point games, 1000-1500 is generally my limit so I'm curious how they play at this point level too, as it might influence my decision.
  2. Hi all, I am considering a new Order army and Fyreslayers popped up as an option because they don't seem that popular and seem like a good army. I didn't want to make another thread when this thread is active, so could I get a brief like overview of how they play? I've been told they are a solid all-around army, not super competitive (I'm not going super-competitive though) but solid, if limited. For reference purposes I currently play Flesh-Eater Courts and absolutely hate how they play because it's no real punch and just drowning the opponent in dice, which I can't stand. I'm trying to decide between Stormcast or Fyreslayers as an army, leaning kinda towards Fyreslayers because they aren't nearly as popular and from a fluff perspective the fact they are mercenaries seem like it could be fun as it would give an narrative reason to fight against other Order armies, something Stormcast cannot really do.
  3. The problem as I see it is this, and it's several things: 1) AOS has three ways to play ("Open", "Narrative", and "Matched") 2) Open and Narrative are essentially two sides of the same coin, as you are either playing whatever you want and discussing with your opponent if they feel it's fair, or your forces are determined by a specific narrative you are recreating or one of your own creation. The only difference between Open and Narrative seems to be that Narrative is encouraging predetermined armies, such as keeping the same force between games. 3) Matched is the one people gravitate towards as it is "balanced" (or, rather, the illusion of balance) and as a result, is the assumed default because it removes the need to come up with a narrative that determines forces or simply decide what is or isn't fair. As a result, for the majority of people Matched becomes the only way to play, because wanting to play Open or Narrative at best gets you a "Thanks but no thanks" from a prospective opponent, or at worst starts an argument over how Open is unbalanced and/or how a game can't be played without points. The result is that Matched Play is bleeding into everything. The FAQs are a perfect example, as I tried to point out in a threat specifically talking about tournaments before being told I was "off topic" for mentioning that Matched bleeding into everything is the entire problem, because it ends up affecting everything as a result of it being the playstyle the majority of people gravitate towards. The limitations imposed on Matched Play make sense from a tournament point of view, but not elsewhere, and that is the entire issue: People are blindly applying restrictions to help corral tournament play into every game of AOS because Matched Play is always cropping up as the default, and it's Open and Narrative that is the outliers instead of it being the other way around, Open being the default, Narrative being encouraged and Matched being the exception when you want to reign things in a bit with a baseline set of guidelines.
  4. Correct. Which has the effect, whether we want it or not, to sliding back to the discussion of Matched Play subsuming the other two styles, because for so many people Matched Play is the only style, and the General's Handbook started on page 98. So rules like this seem contradictory in that mindset, because "the rules" (i.e. what is commonly used in all situations, all the time) preclude the ability of working as its written. The rule is fine, the playstyle is what is being discussed here. They have to support all the styles of play (although not always see: Grombrindal not having points and not ever going to get points), not just one. I don't have anything more to say other than what I already said, that things like this seem to make it clear there are three ways to play, and one is intended for leagues/tournament type games where you want as close to "balance" as you're going to get in a GW game without needing to discuss things with your opponent beforehand. Most of the issues I see about rules, FAQs, etc. are always in the context of Matched Play.
  5. One thing to remember is that a well-balanced rule set benefits everybody while a poorly balanced rules only benefits the people who find combinations to break. That has always been the problem GW games, in the fact that they care more about what will sell and what looks cool rather than how it actually interacts in the game. It may sound like GW bashing but it is true and has been true for probably the entire life of the game and that they have never really written good rules just that in the past there weren't so many things that can break it. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
  6. As I said in the other thread, the main thing is that I feel a lot of these things might be to encourage Open/Narrative play as options, instead of making Matched the default, since a lot of these things don't always make sense as everyday rules, but make perfect sense in a tournament environment. Of course the issue is that too many people labelled AOS "unplayable" without points, so as a result GW took the competitive players and got them to make tacked on competitive rules for a not competitive game, because people insisted on trying to shoehorn it into being played competitively. The result is that I hope people become more open with things, but I fear it won't be so. I have found that when the competitive players get their hands on something, it never escapes from the shadows. I already see comments like "Don't take X it's worthless" or "Take Y in Z numbers for the best effect", and I fear that if GHB2 adds points per model or similar we will be right back to min/maxing math-hammer where it's Well for Unit X you want to take exactly 14 models, with 3 of <special choice>" type of things, the same kind of mentality that I find plagues 40k and plagued Fantasy, where things devolve into "how good is unit X" or the dreaded "What is the best army?" type of questions where people base choices solely on what will win them games, not what they want to play or what they will enjoy.
  7. Unfortunately I think the issue with "competitive Flesh Eaters" is that you either have to spam certain things (Deadwatch, or Monsters) or try to drown the enemy in numbers, which while it works well enough is IMHO an awful way to play. I can't speak too much about competitive because I am awful with my FEC but I had a 1k point game yesterday against a mixed Stormcast/Ogor force, and I went from handily winning to having a good chance at losing the minute my Crypt Haunter Courtier (who was also my general) and Crypt Ghast Courtier were sniped off the board; the only reason I won is because I had a unit of 40 ghouls that was able to overwhelm my opponent with sheer dice (rolling 30+ attacks on average), but that seems to be the key with competitive FEC anyways, you take a ton of Ghouls and try to simply roll so many dice that your opponent fails enough saves, but as soon as your heroes die (which I find to be VERY easy, my opponent had for shooting one Knight-Venator, a unit of 5 Judicators w/bows, an Ogor cannon and 2 Concussors who had the breath attack from the dracoth) your entire army is basically worthless in combat and can't take hits (which I find they can't soak hits anyways, Horrors for example are basically bags of wounds but a 5+ save means that virtually anything that hits them is going to damage them, and 4 wounds isn't that much).
  8. I have never used any FEC command abilities at all thanks to Matched Play's handling of summoning. I definitely think it should be updated or, more likely, summoning itself needs to be adjusted so it's not so crippling to do in Matched Play. At the very least I'm hoping the King on Monster gets a point reduction in GHB2 as it's hugely expensive compared to most other behemoths, presumably because of the fact you can also summon things.
  9. @budebear Did you miss where I said that at such low points, the points levels are weird to figure out? If one person has 835 points, what, do we play 1000 points? Do we play 800 and make him drop a unit or hero? Why bother with minutiae at such a small level of play anyways? Also I find your tone to be fairly rude and condescending for no apparent reason other than I feel differently to you.
  10. Because when you're playing with only a small handful of things anyways, the points are superfluous IMHO and are essentially just there because of dogma and the thought that everything needs to have points or it's somehow imbalanced, without really adding anything to it. Take for example someone who wants to play and they have just a Start Collecting set and another unit. The points for that would be really wonky (likely some weird number like 740 or 820), so I would honestly just say ****** it, I'll use a comparative equivalent to their SC box (assuming I don't have the contents of the one for my respective faction), and we make a fun game out of it. I have found there's a lot to be had from fun games where you don't use points, if you actually you know see what your opponent has, maybe even take some time to discuss the type of game you want (this is especially true for lower points games that tend to go faster anyways, so you aren't wasting that much time by talking), often even coming up with an ad-hoc scenario. Hell most of my AOS games have been with some weird made-up-on-the-spot scenario, I think only two have used an actual Battleplan from one of the books. And it was a blast, when your goal is to storm a castle or seize a single point on the map, especially when you have slightly different armies that are selected within reason rather than for pure power or to game the scenario. So no, I disagree completely that there is "no point to using open play instead of points"
  11. Sadly, here Matched Play overtook everything else, just as I (and many others) feared it would. If you even make mention of not using points, you get a "no thanks" at best or a lengthy rant about how points are necessary at worst. I am probably the lone voice at my GW trying to push people to do something beyond straight points games, as a little talk goes a long way even with a lot of concerns. It is not working out so well. I continually talk to people who claim that AOS was "unplayable" pre-General's Handbook and how the General's Handbook "saved" the game from being a disaster, etc. It's an uphill battle and one I don't think I can win. Also, RE: Requirements, I think the points count as the lower level until you hit the highest; that's how I always played it. So 1000-1999 uses Vanguard, 2000-2999 uses Battlehost, 3000+ uses Warhost. For < 1000 we only play with 1 Battleline required for ease but really for < 1000 points I try to just push using Open Play and eyeballing it, but people usually want some "but muh points" type of thing with it.
  12. I am curious with Disciples of Tzeentch going on pre-order this weekend and this being Tzaanuary in general, what do we know about this new army playstyle wise? I am looking for another faction and they are a possibility because I like the general look of the models (still getting used to the weirdo daemons) and because I normally paint in a very muted, gritty style and I think it would be interesting to do a brightly colored army for something different. From what we've seen so far, what sort of playstyle are they going to bring to the table do you think? I'm not too concerned with it being uber-competitive, but want to gauge how they will play so I can see if it matches my playstyle preferences.
  13. I actually think less than 2000 is probably the best bet with 1500 as the upper level. I tend to prefer smaller point games although I feel with the way AOS points are 1000 1500 2000 etc should be adjusted upwards a little bit because of how some of the points are. To answer your second question I have always done it where if it falls in between it uses the lower so in the case of 1500 it would be treated as 1000 (e.g. 1000-1999 uses 1k point levels) and not 2000, but I could see it go either way. However I also strongly dislike the battle line stuff in general so I am probably biased. Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
  14. In my opinion Red Fury is better on the zombie dragon because it's attacks are slightly more offensive. On the terrorgheist I prefer ruler of the night since while its attacks are nasty it seems you want to use it more as a support / defensive piece because of the spell which gives you double saves on a key in it or lets you put it on something and have it be more than 10 inches away from the general. Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
  15. I might actually look at buying those if possible if I am going to do the Tzeentch army. I just wish that they gave more dice because with the amount of dice that you end up rolling you sometimes need a lot. And let's be honest here they are grossly overpriced for just being dice but they damn sure look cool Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk