Jump to content
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

Sarkazim

Members
  • Content count

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Celestant-Prime

3 Followers

About Sarkazim

  • Rank
    Protector
  • Birthday March 10
  1. Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

    Fair Enough. So how is this not the same thing? Trying to be sincere here and not trolling, and trying to keep it relevant to the topic. I've had a great experience here compared to other places, like Dakka. I try to have an open discussion, but it's the same thing every time. The ITC has evolved to cater to the discontent and hatred toward the rules. We've had to listen to this vitriol and hate for at least 3 editions of 40k now. This AoS packet is a reflection of the same thing happening.
  2. Anyone else bummed because they were hoping it was an 'Aussie man reviews' video?
  3. Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

    How do we say ‘Don’t ruin AoS like they did with 40k’ in a way that will have any impact on the decision to avoid running this ******? If he is the same kind of ‘Reasonable’ as the 40k side, then it won’t have any impact, and there won’t be any point. Im not trying to be disrespectful (or trolling), but you don’t create balance by removing core elements of scenarios and/or adding other mechanics. I’ve found the complete opposite of what you said to be true. The ITC missions were utter ——, and are probably the most unbalanced scenarios out there still. I’ve heard the whole ‘I couldn’t have won vs. X if we played the straight missions’ argument so many times. What I found was that those players who struggled with it, had a more difficult time adjusting their army to the scenarios. It was easier for them to ignore having to deal with that so they wouldn’t have to adapt. 7th introduced the Maelstrom cards, and even I ignored them until I got a grasp on the changes. After that, I went back and incorporated them into my lists, and found it to be VERY competitive. The ITC went the other way, and helped destroy the whole thing by avoiding incorporating it. They couldn’t leave it at that either. They replaced it with some brainless attempt to try what they thought was the intent, then managed to convince the players that they were somehow still playing Maelstrom from the book. This didn’t become a problem until it spilled outside of their events. Independent events were now playing the ITC instead of 40k. Casual games / Batreps started showing the ITC instead of 40k. In some cases, a players first exposure to the hobby was the ITC, not 40k. I gave the scenarios a good year of playing them, tried to enjoy them, modified and adapted my list to succeed, just like anyone else. I ended up not having fun, being pigeon holed into running units that didn’t perform well in 40k, knowing that a HUGE part of the game had been ripped out. There is nothing competitive about the ITC, unless you’re changing the definition of competitive to also mean nerfed?The BIGGEST tradgedy of all of it was that they HAD the opportunity to scrap their system with 8th, but didnt even bother. The insult is that they got to play test it, write articles on how armies are going to change, and then show us that it’s still not good enough by continuing with what they’ve been playing with for years. There are plenty of competitive lists that will never get their opportunity to shine because of what they’ve done on the 40k side. This packet is emulating that, and is just the start of continuing to divide the community between those who play the ITC, and those that play AoS. In the end it won’t make one... bit... of difference... to FLG. What matters to them is that they fill those seats, and they will,do that as long as they cater to those who want to avoid adjusting to the current game state. An effort is no longer being made to create a truly competitive event. The rest of us will continue to wait for Competitive 40k/AoS to return to the US.
  4. Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

    I think you simply might be putting the who instead of the what. What happened is simply that Competitive events still happened. You've associated that event with those names, and you're implying that without these players that we wouldn't have any competitive events. After the fall of the GW spine (No more GT's, Games day, removal of the Outrider program, and no more tournament kits), it simply fell back onto the Clubs, FLGS stores, and loyal players to organize players. Several stepped up to the challenge, tried to establish themselves, and setup something with the intent of making something of it. Having to fight by not having an established name, FLGS store owners being bitter about lack of support for promoting the product, or simply protecting their own communities, to players wanting to 'correct' problems within the game, were just a few of the things that had to be overcome. Those names are those who were successful. I have ZERO doubt that if they failed, we'd be talking about someone else who would be succeeded. That's not to say that what these giants haven't done something impressive. They have absolutely done something amazing. They aren't the reason competitive GW events exist. Every player, even those who prefer these alternate rules sets, are the reason that we have the events. There are plenty of people willing to organize it, some are just more known.
  5. Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

    This is strictly not true. We could talk forever on why the scene died and was resurrected, but there were plenty of events around long before the ITC. It's all off topic but the ITC did not save the competitive scene.
  6. Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

    (I'll do my best) It alters how victories are determined for purposes of ranking. More importantly, will force players to adapt their lists to focus/achieve objectives that are outside of the mission. - The ITC has a point differential system where player wins aren't the same when comparing them cross game. ie. The win on Table 1 isn't the same as a win on Table 2. * In their defense, this is an amazing solution in an event where you have more players than rounds to find that single, undefeated player. A 5 round event would have to cap at 32 players to get a single undefeated player. These bonus points are tacked on to score after determining the result of the main scenario. The outcome is that two equally matched players should have a close game and the winner will actually rank lower than an unbalanced match for the next pairing. - The next problem is that out of the max 19 points possible, a Major Victory accounts for less than 1/2 of that score. The MAIN objective accounts for LESS than the total score. This means it's possible for a player to score more points on the back end than is possible in the actual scenario. Statistically, this is a rare occurrence, but it is possible. It becomes frustrating, because in a Tie situation and even a minor victory, the losing player who has compensated for the additional objectives will actually win. * In the ITC, this isn't really an issue in the larger events. While the loser might be ranked higher, they'll still be under those that have won their games AND scored the additional VP. In smaller events, this actually creates more problems, because you could end up pairing a winner with someone who lost the main objective in the previous game. Regardless of either of these two points, it distracts from the main objective of just playing scenario but adding in these extra bits to skew the results. As above, I don't have a problem with this as long as it's limited to the venue. Players look at the results of these events to see what's performing well and what isn't. This is problematic for two reasons. The results are based on being able to perform with these additional scenarios. While this number will be low, the potential for lists to play to a draw on the main objective and win off of secondaries is possible. This confuses newer players when they base their purchases off of the results without understanding the format. The second problem is that it potentially alters the value of other units. MSU, # of heroes, Output/Survivability. I can't thing of which AOS units this applies to because I'm still just working on my own army. I've seen it in 40k too many times though. It ends up dictating that players can't succeed unless they take units. The internet bullying re-enforces this with words like 'That's an Okay list for Casual Play', 'You need to have XX if you want to be competitive', 'My advice is DON'T play that', and 'There is a reason why XX is in every list'. ----- The STUPIDITY of going through all that effort is that you still end up with a power level / ranking system of where armies sit on the ladder. It's unnecessary since simply playing the Battleplans as they are will still filter out top armies from bottoms armies. The difference will be that they will be reflective of how the game is written, and not some artificial ladder which has conditions in it that aren't required when building an army within the game.
  7. Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

    WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with your statement. The problem is they don't consider the Battleplans as part of the package. As long as they aren't altering the core rules, then it's still AoS right?
  8. Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

    I'm trying to NOT turn this into another one of my rants, I'm done with most of that and don't need the stress in my life. The thread topic was relevant and I offered my opinion. I've actually had several Chats with Reecius and one of the top ITC Ranked players is a personal friend of mine. I went through this rant on Dakka about 3 years ago. Lots of trolling, but I was able to connect with some guys who understood my problems and were able to keep me informed with events that didn't play ITC 40k. My hiatus from 40k right now is mainly because none of my armies have codexes yet, so I'm being patient there, and my current work schedule. After those though, anytime I manage to squeeze in time for a game I usually prefer AoS as I'm surrounded by an 'ITC or Die' 40k community. This may have been the original intent, but the ITC has evolved to cater to those who dislike the changes. I'm in the minority, but I felt that the Maelstrom Missions from 7th were the best thing to happen to 40k. The ITC insured that no one would ever find that out, because instead of adapting to 40k, they decided to maintain their game. Similar with 8th. New rules, but the scenarios are going to remain the same. Competitive 40k ceased to mean anything, but the zealots based which units are effective or not based on ITC and not 40k. I'm not concerned about a ranking system, as long as it's limited to the venue. Being a top ranked ITC player has no reflection of how good of a 40k player someone is. I'm not saying that they're bad by ANY means, but it's no longer a way to tell who is good or not, since the mechanics have been altered. It only becomes a problem when players look to these lists, copy them, get advice based on them, and buy/build/paint them, then can't understand why they don't do what everyone said they would do. Example: I ran into a guy who had built the popular dual detachment SM list where all the transports or whatever was free. He was looking for a game and no one would play him. So I volunteered. We played 2k Maelstrom, but he had ONLY every played ITC. So he was confused when everything that he had been told wasn't working as he almost got tabled. Great game, and he managed to close the gap toward the end for a narrow victory to me. I ran into him a few days later you know what he was told by the online community? Oh it doesn't count because he wasn't playing a competitive scenario. Imagine that, Including all the rules made it somehow less competitive. I agree that the AoS tournaments are pretty much running the scenarios out of the book currently. When the ITC was just in the early on stages it was pretty much limited to the BAO, and we saw effects of that at Adepticon and the Nova Open fairly quick. The dual-objective scenario style was present at Adepticon when I last attended. As above, it's mostly just a fear, but this is the beginning of that. They'll take the feedback from this, and modify it to enhance it. I doubt they will scrap it, but we'll see. If it becomes successful, then it might be adopted over the standard format, which will ****** up recommendations and army building. While I don't want the ITC to go away, I would like those who support it, to be aware that they are in the minority, and that the ITC (Or any other modified event), doesn't dictate what 'competitive' is. I'm not dodging this question, but I'm a bit more vocal about it in person than I am on forums. I've been in the game a LOONNGG time. It's off topic, and if you really want to know, feel free to PM me and we can continue this discussion there if you wish. On Topic: NOTHING good will come from the ITC Scenario packet.
  9. Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

    I'm using 40k/Aos Tournaments from a perspective of using the Missions/Scenarios from the books. The events themselves are established, but they've evolved, which isn't an issue. The issue I have is that those events are no longer limited to their venues. With 40k/ITC, it's impossible to NOT play their scenarios, or watch/read Battlereports that use book missions. Even when I show up at a random FLGS for pickup games, I get turned away because I'd rather play 40k, over the ITC. ie. Not every game has to be a practice for an event I don't wish to attend. For those that approach the game outside of these events, we simply pick up the rule book, read the rules, then go from there. This was even a recent Warhammer-Community Article where they talk about choosing and army. Despite being a 40k article, it applies to AoS. Here is the quote from that article where I butt heads with the ITC (and other events.) Keep in mind, I don't have an issue with any of their changes as long as they remain restricted to their venues. This has not been the case with the ITC for at least 3 editions now. The ITC has split from this. They have their own scenarios which do not fit into this. In fact their 7th ed. Scenarios were designed to avoid the existing Maelstrom missions instead of having players include them. They went further than that, and included scoring objectives how Warmahordes does it, and not 40k. When you removing having to include/prevent Maelstrom Objectives from being factored into your lists, and have to shift from units that need to stay on an objective for a turn instead of just being able to claim it, it creates and bubble environment where the value of certain units shifts to perform something that doesn't exist within the game. Especially to those of us who read and practiced based off of the rules. (Necron Wraiths were a prime point of contention for me as the ITC exaggerated the value of this unit because of the scenario requirements) 8th edition was a slap in the face because FLG got to sneak peak, early test, 8th ed. Even writing the army teasers for the Warhammer-community site. Only to keep their current scenario pack. So all of the 'This is good in competetive' still doesn't mean anything outside of the events. Back on Topic, this is pure bad news for me. I'm playing a difficult army to begin with, and I'm still balancing it out with the existing Battleplans. This LVO packet shows that they're going to eff over AoS as well by forcing players to once again, deal with mechanics that don't exist within the game. At this point, it simply means that I won't be attending the LVO. My fear is that it will become so widely adopted, that any advice, recommendations, lists, etc, will all be based on this. Worse if I end up unable to find a game that plays the normal book scenarios. My main AoS force will be unable to deal with these additional choice, and I can see it being problematic for the one I'm planning on doing.
  10. Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

    This just ticks me off to a whole new level. They've already made Tournament 40k unplayable, and now they want to shaft over AoS? I read an article a few months ago where they were having a discussion about adapting the 40k scenarios to AoS, but it looks like they're going to actually attempt it. I was even going look at attending events since I can't find any 40k events that don't play using this bubble. It's going to be worse if the FLG Zealots adopt this as the standard over AoS. It's pretty tragic when the only way I'm going to find a 40k, and now AoS Tournament, is to travel to Warhammer World for one of their event. I simply don't money to do that.
  11. Dark Aelf (Shadowblades)

    I wouldn't go that far as to combine them. It would be difficult for me to see that fluffwise as they were mainly Exiles in the Old World, unless I'm way off. Of course, personally I feel that the Dark Elves would've been bitter about not being able to take Ulthuan and would've joined Destruction forces instead of trying to find a place among the forces of Order. The first thing that most of my opponents find uncomfortable when I play is how I can start putting pressure on pretty much any element of his army from the start. Especially key characters. It's very difficult to not be able to reach something. It pretty much has to be completely hidden, or in reserve. The Assassins are pretty great at killing stuff with a 5+ save, which would include most casters. Getting the Assassin to those rear models has been more of a trick and in a Shadowblades force, shooting them has been MUCH easier. Where Assassins are needed is for those heavy hitting Characters, which usually have a better save, some sort of shield, or a way to regain wounds. It's here that they usually fail me. The biggest success I had was killing a Slaanesh Demon because his 'I'm going to activate and attack before you do' doesn't trigger off of the Assassins. The Assassins didn't kill him, but got him down enough for the Dark Riders to finish him off. Unfortunately, he did get to activate off of the Dark Riders going, and managed to kill 2 of the Assassins before dying. I'm confused by how you think they're good in 'Duality of Death' though. Yes, it's nice that they can be kept hidden until you get them on an objective. Where I'm struggling is keeping them alive after that. They need to get down as soon as possible because you get points for every turn you control the objective. So it becomes a challenge to decide if you have enough board control to protect them for more than one turn. I'm hoping the Hydra's will help out here, and I'm debating hiding an Assassin in each of them for that scenario. Thank You for reading. This is also the reason I posted all of it here and not in the Rules thread. I'm not looking for an answer to how it's played, but reasons it should stack and open the discussion to see if there is some broken combo I'm missing. Or some valid reason WHY it shouldn't stack. I also don't think it needs a massive re-write. All they need to do is add in 'this unit' in the same place everyone is assuming the interpretation 'any unit' to exist to prevent it from stacking. Regardless, I appreciate your thoughts on allowing it, and how the units are working in a different force. ----- In other news. I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE!!!! Another player has reached out and he said that he has a Shadowblades force. It's not his main force, but I'll admit I'm a bit jealous because he said it's painted. He contacted me on here and is willing to help out. (I'm not going to call him out, as he'll make himself known if he wants). Still just happy to hear that someone else has a pile of Horse Riders out there!
  12. Multiple Bloodshield

    Thanks @heywoah_twitch I did read those at the beginning of this discussion, but now that I've got a better understanding of the mechanics they make much more sense.
  13. Dark Aelf (Shadowblades)

    The Hurricanum is another one that came up a while ago when trying to get my Assassins to actually do something. I even had a great conversion idea for one with a Sorceress on it. Let's assume that it was an ally option, and I didn't need the Battleline requirement, it posed a few different problems. - I could hide the Assassins in it, and when they pop out, they'd get the bonus to hit. Really only effective if my opponent consistently went after it with his heroes. Combo with the below ability of needing to keep my Riders in range, this becomes more difficult to do. - Even with it's move, it's still too slow to keep up with the army to provide a buff that'd be worth it. - The range limitation of the bonus to hit makes it difficult to maintain more than 3 units to get the hit. This MIGHT work well for the shooting, but the army would have to be focused around the Hurricanum and it's movement. I I have figured out a way to get 5 units to benefit from 1 Hurricanum, but then it just limits my mobility and preferred target options for a bonus to hit. Oddly enough, this discussion helped me figure out the Hydras. I have a slower unit that provides a much needed damage output to the army that I have to work around. The biggest difference is that the Hydras aren't providing the buff, the Dark Riders are.
  14. Multiple Bloodshield

    Did you miss this? So forgive me if I don't agree with you that a model must be allocated a wound before it can trigger. Allocation happens here after the damage is worked out, but before it's applied to the model. If a model has this particular wargear, then doesn't he get to make his save before the wound is allocated to him? I agree that if he takes this save, then the wound has to go onto a model with the shield, but it still doesn't get allocated until after the roll. The bit about assigning to a different model if it was a mixed unit was me just trying to figure out why this rule would possibly be worded to include 'before allocation to a specific geared model'. The Bloodshield is worded differently than the Orruk Shield, but that could also be due to the fact tat the Bloodshield isn't sourced by the model being affected. Yes, we haven't really discussed whether those models outside of the range of the Bloodshield even qualify for the save. I don't think we need to cover it because no one has an issue with this. We simply check to see how many models are in range of how many Bloodshields, and work our way down. We could have 10 in range of both Cauldrons, 5 in range of the one on the left, 5 in range of the one on the right We just gotta remember to count which ones we're rolling for first, and remove casualties from their respective ranges first. After that, it's business as usual. So the player could decide which group to roll for, then reach a total number of wounds the unit suffered prior to allocation. If we follow the Orruk shield though, then we still determine the number of models in range of the Bloodshield (just like we determine the number of models with an Orruk Shield), then make the additional roll. This still happens before any actual allocation of wounds, which is how I'm still reading the rule. I've yet to see support for this and you're switching the definition of what a 'Suffered Wound' is. Unsaved Wound = Suffered Wound - then you change it to Allocated Wound = Suffered Wound. If you follow this then it becomes difficult to tell when any of these 'Ward-like' abilties apply, because you've created TWO different points when wounds are suffered, instead of just one. We determine the number of wounds suffered by the total damage. It changes from Damage Inflicted to Damage Suffered between the two steps. I see no indication that a unit or models are treated any differently at this step. We we get to the 'Allocating Damage' step, the only instructions here are to assign 1 damage to a model. Once the damage suffered is equal to the models wound score, the model is slain. Again, no distinction that a model 'suffers wounds' at this point, but that it has already 'suffered them'. It's difficult to convey the subtle difference. The only evidence that you've been able to state is that it is 'implied'. I actually don't have an issue if that's how you've chosen to resolve it. As I've said above, it's unnecessarily complicating a mechanic to achieve the same result. I'm afraid for me, you're going to need some other reference to state that the unit suffers wounds when damage is determined, but a model doesn't. Then switch to a model that has 'suffers a wound' when it has already 'suffered the wound' at this point. Simplified: We have a 'break' in the rules where 'Ward-like' abilities fit in nicely. After Damage has been determined, but before Allocation. It's simply much easier to take it at this stage and not disrupt the flow of play, come up with a total number of wounds a unit will suffer before allocation. Then pull from a pool of 'suffered wounds' at the Allocation step.
  15. Multiple Bloodshield

    So there are multiple situations when and where these 'Ward' saves apply. I'm using the term 'Ward' to represent anything other than the standard Save. - When the unit fails a save . This would be re-rolling the individual hit, before determining damage. Most basic shields work at this level with the re-rolls. Not sure if there are any other units with rules that work at this point. I've seen generic re-rolls used here as well, since each save would prevent multi-damage weapons from landing. - Before the model is Allocated a Wound. Pretty self explanatory, the rule will state in this specific case that it will trigger prior to allocation, like the shield. While I do think this is odd, I think it would only come into play in a mixed unit. Like some of the models would have those shields you listed, while others wouldn't. Since it happens prior to allocation, you could take any of the failed saves and apply them to the non-shielded guys. Not an element of either of my current armies so I'll easily admit I'd be way off. - When the unit suffers a wound. This is where I think I'm getting confused. From what I'm reading, the rules determine this independently from allocation. How I'm reading this is that we determine the number of wounds inflicted/suffered by a unit at the end of the 'Making Attacks' portion of combat. If a unit has different weapon types, we repeat the steps for all the weapons in the unit to total up the combined damage. This lines up with what @Nicosaid above. Weapon 1 (Hit/Wound/Save/Damage), Weapon 2 (Hit/Wound/Save/Damage), Repeat. The Impression that I'm getting from @Squirrelmaster and @EMMachine, are that a unit doesn't actually suffer any wounds until it actually gets allocated to the model. The only evidence that I see to support anything like that is in the 'Inflicting Damage' portion. Unless you're operating under the assumption that they must be allocated first because rules like the bloodshield omit the specific timing, like the Orruk shield. As this is the only place that even mentions the word suffered I can kind of see how it could be read as Allocation=Suffered, instead of at the Determine Damage step. Although in this case I still don't see the supporting case for that order of operations. This just tells us that when the allocated wounds equals the wounds characteristic of a model, to remove it from the game. It's specific to the result of the wounds suffered, not the application of it. Otherwise we'd end up into a huge time-sink scenario mentioned above. Common sense would kick in and determine that the outcome would be the same regardless of the resolution method chosen. ------ That aside, I've had my main question answered in that when Multiple Abilities are triggered, like the Bloodshield, each use is triggered after the results of the previous one, and not the initial one. In the original scenario, I was concerned that should there have been a 3rd or more Cauldrons around, he'd get the full 10 rolls for each, instead of diminishing them for each saved Bloodshield.
×