Jamopower

Members
  • Content count

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

112 Celestant-Prime

About Jamopower

  • Rank
    Protector
  1. Happy midsummer from the east across the gulf
  2. I would still wait for some time before claiming the game to be really well balanced I think the etc will give a benchmark to see what's the actual status.
  3. That might true in a very competitive environment. I'm maybe wrong person to say, as I have seen skyfires and kurnoth hunters with bows only in the display cabinet at the Warhammer world We don't basically have any sort of "tournament meta" in the whole Finland, it's all very casual here. There has been one 2000 point tournament, that had maybe 7 players and IIRC it was won by a deathrattle army. On the other hand, the 40k scene here is very competitive.
  4. Even then, alpha strike is bit of a gimmick "meta breaker" tactic and I wouldn't say, even if some armies are able to do that well, that close combat would be the king of hill. If close combat would be the primary phase to do damage, then the assault marines and such would be the "go to" units, and I somehow think that won't be the case in the new 40k either. Edit: I put it this way. If in 40k close combat is the main point of the game because genestealers and some other similar units are very good, you could say that AoS is primarily a shooting game, because Skyfires and Kurnoth hunters are so good. It might be so in some special scenarios, but when looking the game overall (especially outside tournament environment), there are limited amount of that kind of units. This is shown well in that there are armies in 40k that don't have practically any close combat (like tau, imperial guard and such) similarly as there are armies in AoS that don't have much of shooting (chaos outside skaven and chaos dwarves, the whole grand allience death, etc.).
  5. There is the third part, that I think is the most important. Shooting is very much more effective , you have more range, more shots, more rend, more damage, more movement on shooters and rolling 2+/2+ is not rare.
  6. The combat phase works very well with elegant and simple rules. Also as (almost) everything can hurt everything, there's plenty of room in army building, without fearing that the game will be over before it started (where of course the battleplans help as well, though I don't think the scenarios are in anyway core rules of any game, as in most cases you can play the same scenarios in what ever game you desire). And of course the good old warhammer setting, with some new spicing and possibility to play with smaller unit sizes.
  7. Yes, that's a valid point and one of the reasons why I like the AoS combat phase more.
  8. I meant that in AoS you don't need to retreat to shoot the units stuck in to the screening unit, otherwise the screening works the same. If you want to see same kind of moves happening, get some skinks on the table. Of course again the shooting is less effective and there is lot less of it in general. Also there are plenty of units with enough hitting power to destroy the screens in a turn, so there won't be anyone left to retreat. In the new 40k, many of the close combat units feels more geared for destroying elite units and monsters (as the extra attacks from additional weapons and charging were lost) and those big hordes are pretty easy to make fearless (like with synapse) so screening is quite effective. Of course stuff like berzerkers should have no problems cutting though bigger mobs. My initial feeling is that in 40k, it's a drawback if an unit suffers from morale, more than that it is a strength to ignore it, which is bit sad.
  9. Isn't the rule exactly the same as in AoS, with the difference that flyers can shoot afterwards? I guess that the real difference, is that there are limits on unit sizes and notably there aren't as easy ways to make units immune to battleshock. There is inspiring presence, but using it leaves you without other command abilities and it is just for one unit. Especially the tyranid synapse rule is quite bad for the game. The dynamic is also bit different as you can shoot the units without needing to retreat your own models out from the combat.
  10. My big project is finishing my new gaming board. I have some good stuff (tabletop world houses etc.) ready for me to actually start doing something. Other than that, my mixed order army has some units bought that need to be painted. Although blocks of infantry are bit frightening
  11. One the other hand, one could say that there could be a possible flaw in the core rules, if they require all of the shooting in the game to be quite mild to prevent the breaking of the game...
  12. Well the new 40k is in such an early stage, that I wouldn't dare to say that yet. My first game was with my dark eldar with little bit of everything against close combat tyranids, the close combat wasn't too impressing from either side, although it had it's part, mainly for mopping up depleted stuff. The game was more of me flying away from combat and blasting stuff from the table. Shooting and flyers (and masses of cheap fearless gaunts) on the other hand felt very strong. And I understand the issues with shooting in Aos, but as said, besides those few really strong shooting options, there are papers for shooting rock. Stuff like empire handgunners or wood elf glade guard are hardly overpowering as they are mostly easy to kill and the damage output from their shooting is not so great. Still I agree, that there should be more ways to counter the shooting by playing, like being able to tie down the shooters. On the other hand I don't think it would change much, the skyfires just would have big bubblewraps of marauders around them. The problem is more in the actual units that have slipped through the game design process. I'm sure that there will be similar problems in 8th ed 40k as well. For example, the imperial guard armies sound awful. Edit: That said, this doesn't change my intial view, that I think AoS is more interesting game, because they are very similar games, but in the end AoS still has less shooting (there are many armies that don't have any shooting options after all) and the close combat has bit more depth in it. I also like that the army composition is not so complicated and requires less of "slot-optimizing".
  13. I don't think you undertand at all where I'm trying to get here. The part about applying flying units is just the type of list optimizing what I meant that is not so nice part of the game and which has too big influence on the end result. To be honest, all miniature games are more or less R/P/S games, but to have it working well you need to have lots of different kind of rocks, paper and scissors and those need to be present in all armies for the game actually be determined after the models are deployed. Otherwise the game can easily lead to a situation where there is something on the table that can't be countered by any means other than that you need to have the exact counter on the table. There are some issues like that also in AoS, but the fact that almost everything can hurt everything helps a lot in that. Yes, there are some cases where it's bit different, but I was talking mainly about combat, which is, outside of certain powerlists, still the main phase where the games are won or loss in AoS. I don't play either of the games in competitive meta, so I don't have so negative experiences from shooting in AoS, but in 40k, the shooting is always prevalent and as I said, it's not very interesting in this kind of games where you don't have any sort of reaction possibilities (like in say Infinity, Dropzone commander, Bolt action, etc.). It easily leads to "who can shoot most" competitions, which is exactly what is seen from the lists that start to emerge for 40k in the net. The competitive lists I've seen (and I've access to the local ETC team's closed forum) have most been just spamming the most optimal units together and there are not many close combat units in those, other than for tying-up enemies shooters and screen own from preventing that happening.
  14. I don't agree. If I play 40k and my opponent brings say 8 razorbacks on the table and I have general all around list. There will be very big uphill battle to climb, because the opponent's list needs more tools that I don't have and there is little that can be done by playing to counter that. AoS equivalent would be something like army full of stuff that has 2+ rerollable save which shoots a lot. If you don't have reliable mortal wound output, preferably ranged, you're out of game. Lukcily in AoS, there isn't many this kind of combos available where you would need those counters. Whereas in 40k, there are both of those kind of units available, but still having less optimized army will lead to losses even against players that don't know how to play too well, just because their rock is so strong. About positioning in close combat. I didn't mean positioning between units, it's very similar in both games. I meant positioning inside combat. In AoS larger bases are bad for your units, in 40k they are plus as the ranges are not from the model itself, but from the friends. Thus while in AoS second rank of stormcasts can't strike in combat as they have 1" range, in 40k they would strike from 1" + 40mm + 1" -> more than 3" range. That has a big impact especially for stuff on 32 mm bases. And bout overwatch, to be honest, I don't see it mattering much. One unit rarely does much on overwatch and when doing multiple charges, you can charge just one unit and move bit over 1" from the other units you want to strike, thus not triggering overwatch and then pile-in on those units, and as you are charger, still strike before them. Edit: And in general, I'm talking about game as such, not individual units. Skyfires might be broken, but they are not end and all of the whole game. Edit #2: I don't actually think that the "op shooting" is so much a problem of the basic rules either (though I would like to have some sort of possibility of counterplay to that in addition to just killing the shooters), but more of a mistake in the design of some individual units. The shooting on grand alliance book level is pretty tame and especially short ranged, which means that the shooters end up easily taking fist in their face. Few longer range options like warmachines are on the other hand quite easy to kill. Then for some reason they decided to add up stuff like kurnoths, savage orks and skyfires that have long effective range, are hard to kill and do lots of damage (in the case of arrerboyz due to volume of fire) reducing the downsides.
  15. The combat phase is similar, but there are big differences. The ranges in combat are such, that positioning has a lot less impact as everything can hit at least 3" from enemy and you have 3" additional consolidate. Also allowing all charging units to strike first, there is lot less of risk/reward in the combat as you can charge "all in" and the advantage is strongly on the charger. About rock paper scissors, the less of that the better. It makes the game a lot more list oriented and at least I think that the list shouldn't be the main influence for the outcome of the game, but actually what you do on the battlefield would be the main factor. In which the AoS combat system is good.