Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
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?

stratigo

Members
  • Content count

    401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

stratigo last won the day on June 17

stratigo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

193 Celestant-Prime

About stratigo

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. stratigo

    AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion

    yep. Getting out is at the start of the hero phase, the hero phase move is not
  2. stratigo

    AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion

    I actually have a fairly comprehensive list of changes I'd like to see to KO. 1. Arkanaut Company. I want their point reduced to 100, I want the light skyhook to lose 6 inches of range and one rend, and I want the pike to become a 3+ 3+ weapon. 2. Grundstock Gunhauler. Make this go down another 20 points, add 6 inches to the range of its big guns 3. Frigate. Add 6 inches to the range of its big guns and give it a 4+ save 4. Ironclad. Add 6 inches to the range of its big guns, except for the volley gun, and make it a 3+ save 5. Gundstock company. Make the battleline if KO allegiance and either reduce thier points by twenty, or make their special weapons 2 per 5. 6. Endrinriggers. Increase their points by 20 7. Endrimaster. Reduce his points a further 20 8. Khemist. Reduce his points by 20 to 40. 9. Wardens. Reduce their points by 20 Reasoning: 1. Arkanaut companies have absolutely no reason to take anything but the skyhook, and the skyhook as it stands dictates a lot of how you can play KO. Weakening the skyhook and strengthening the skypike gives players a reason to take the melee varient, and adds some much needed flexibility into the army. To compensate for a weaker skyhook points were reduced. The Skyhook's overwhelming effectiveness was the only reason to be 120. 2. The gunhauler is still an overall poor choice. At 140 it will remain a poor choice in most lists, but the grundstock escort wing is actually on the cusp of greatness, and a slightly cheaper gunhauler may push that type of list into viability. Also, upping the ranges for all main guns adds a bitof flexibility in the KO lists once more and allows for a bit more synergy with other units, as the big guns are all rather weak statistically. 3. The frigate's save isn't reflective of its battlefield role, and since behemoths lost the ability to gain cover, there's no good reason for this unit to be a 5 plus save any longer. 4. The same reasoning applies to the ironclad from the previous two ships. 5. Grundstock thunderers were heavily nerfed and have subsequently disappeared from every KO list. KO needs another battleline unit as there is frankly no excuse to saddle them with just one. Literally no other battle tome has this restriction. And, at 100 points, they fail to preform a battlefield role. They either need the ability to mass their special weapons, though not to the extent they used to, with an eye to receive a khemist buff, or they need to be cheaper. 6. In light of the buffs to all other units, nerfing this one a bit is reasonable to keep the army well balanced. The points increase also later justifies a point decrease from the khemist. 7. The endrimaster remains the odd man out of the army, especially now that navigators have found a purpose, struggling to find a place in any list. At 100 points and increased ship effectiveness, he may actually have a purpose. 8. The Khemist was over nerfed, and with nerfing both units the khemist's buffs most strongly impact (riggers and arkanauts with skyhooks), reducing him back down to 140 or 120 is entirely justified. 9. Even returning them to 20 points cheaper than riggers via a rigger nerf, at 120, this unit still feels weak. I continue to suspect their nerf was more to hurt fyreslayers and KO were collateral, but please don't nerf one army's units because another army makes an effective use of them. Nerf that army instead.
  3. stratigo

    AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion

    The grind stock escort wing is, ultimately, too many points. By like 400 or so points. Not that your army is going to be that wing at min size, three companies and then roughly two characters, and the only variation you get is what characters you want to bring (I suggest an ordinater and then probly a couple navigators) Ultimately your force simply isn’t substantial enough on the board.
  4. stratigo

    Buying Command Points

    The answer to "Command points are too strong for some armies" really shouldn't be "lol, why are you playing other armies?"
  5. stratigo

    6 Nations take aways

    See, this is the epitome of my problem. The imagination that this is some sort of zero sum game where every second balancing the game means that the narrative must go to ****** and GW completely just forgets lore or backstory and deletes the setting. Balance is good for everyone. Everyone benefits from a better balanced game. If you think abuse is a non issue for narrative, I question if you have ever played a narrative game really. The idea that you waggle your fingers and go "oooooh, narrative" like you're casting a spell and abusive rules suddenly cease to matter and people won't take advantage of them is kind of laughable. Unless you're okay with someone pulling off auto win combos and just go "well, sucks to be you, but narrative right, we had fun?". Or you could, as narrative often encourages you, add in your own changes and scenarios that help shift balance (in whichever way may be most thematic or fun). Which, *legasp* tournament organizers ALSO do. Mien Gott! It's almost as if shifting and playing with the balance is important for both narrative and competitive gamers. And often towards the same goal of a better balanced system, though the last stand kind of scenarios are fun in of themselves. Do you really consider infinite ripper exploding attacks a fun option for your narrative game? Is it narrative that your great big monster ridden by a hero of the ages got pecked to death by three high pterodactyls because their attacks explode on and on to infinity. That's not very narrative to me. A good narrative would see your great hero matching his blades against the vile demonic monstrosity, not dragged down because a Grot with 64 damage poked him. I can't think of anything LESS narratively climatic than a stardrake getting merced by a handful of grots. Unless you're going for a farce, that's not a great narrative to tell. And you can't just go "Oh no one would do that" because, hell yes they would. Is the other option simply ostracizing players who abuse the holes in the rules? I suppose you could do that, but man that sucks for a person who just wants to play a good game. But mostly you sneer and go "oh, well, You're competitive. You have no place among us narrative players" like it's some real divide in the players. Like, are you serious? The people who exclusively play events and tournaments and the people who exclusively play narrative battles are very rare (and there's more the former than the latter). Most play both. And balance is good for everyone. realm rules are a fine lark. Some people dig the randomness. I disagree with tournaments requiring them *stares at NOVA*, but otherwise, eh? Since I am rarely motivated to play my dwarves, and my local community tends to avoid these sort of random shenanigans, I likely will not get to play with them much, if at all. But they aren't, like, awful. What's silly is the idea they're meant for matched play. They aren't and anyone trying to work them into matched play is just making a mistake, which is why, after this summer, I am predicting it will see very little play, and none at tournaments. I'm honestly not sure if Endless spells are here to stay at all, firestorm kind of whiffed the landing sadly, even though I like what they did there after they closed the loophole.
  6. stratigo

    6 Nations take aways

    He literally said narrative players don’t always want balance, with the idea that it is somehow fluffy to have a bad army. There’s often a sense of pride with people who go “my army is bad and I am proud of it because I don’t do competitions” like that being competetive is some sort of stain. They’re just as bad as the people who build a mean list, try and essentially cheat with it and rules lawyer, and not pick every single inch of their opponent. As someone who straddles the fence between competetive in that the people I play are very good and go to competitions, and not, as I don’t go to competitions myself and would love to play more firestorm campaigns. The ultimate thing most competitive players want is nothing but a good thing for everyone playing the game. Of course they can be wrong about how to get there, and maybe often are, but the end goal is a better game for everyone and I am boggled whenever a player bristles at it like balance is some sort of zero sum game where every thought a gw dev puts into balancing the game is taking away from some sort of ephemeral narrative thing. Which is laughable. GW has NEVER interwoven its narrative into the game stronger than what soul wars and malign portents represented. They are knocking it out of the park is presenting a developing narrative AND adding rules to reflect it
  7. stratigo

    6 Nations take aways

    Frankly, narrative players benefit from competitive balance. A well balanced system (with imperfect balance) benefits all players. Having a variety of viable factions (and letting all factions be such) benefits all players. To me it boggles the mind when people who focus on narrative go "Nyah! ****** competetive players! They suck!" when.... the balance they want is beneficial to everyone. Specifically since almost everyone plays straight up matched play rules no matter what they're doing, using points and rules limiters. I wouldn't want to be able to cast the same spell over and over and over no matter what kind of game I'm playing. That would be as broken as allowing someone to stack the same command trait over and over. Most people playing narrative based games, like open war or firestorm or a custom campaign, recognize this. So, fixing the balance of armies and closing exploits does nothing but benefit everyone. Gw is also clearly NOT ignoring the fluff or narrative and indeed strongly incorporating it into their development. Indeed, there is very little to criticize the way they've added narrative into the game. I dunno what else you want here. GW is doing a good job. I may have quibbles about how developed the setting is (It's not developed enough for my tastes, but that's a time and not an effort issue, which gets better every passing year.) what, exactly, do narrative players want that they aren't getting? And what do competetive players want that a a narrative player would hate?
  8. stratigo

    6 Nations take aways

    It depends on your meta, with the caveat that most metas have that guy in it who power builds just cause he wants to beat everyone else. My meta is competetive. The players I usually played are competetive even though I don’t go to tournaments any longer(I have low ****** tolerance and there’s always a few guys that go to an event and are just complete asses to play, super nit picky and often more then a little cheaty) l want to be able to play and not feel like the army I am using had no chance from the second I set up. I no longer have that feeling and it makes me quite upset. I also know that gw takes into account people’s comments. If everyone who was upset about Kharadrons just shut up, then gw would never balance them as they’d never show up at the tournament meta since they suck I also hold gw to a higher standard than the old “sorry your book sucks, see you in five years” that the company used to indulge in. Gw’s old management were, frankly, morons, and the company suffered under their management. The current company is vastly more responsive and willing to change things and communicate on a regular schedule. I think people who work at gw or people who communicate with those people read threads like this and incorporate them into their descisions for the development of the game. The fact that I am even willing to still engage with AoS is a testament to my faith in the company’s new direction. Under old GW, I’d simply leave the hobby again, and while that may satisfy a handful of posters on a forum who want nothing but affirmations and hate people disagreeing with the direction of the game, it doesn’t really do much good for a company that in the end is profit based
  9. stratigo

    Is "Inspiring Presence" too powerful?

    inspiring presence also just does something a lot of armies can do for better too.
  10. This whole "Oh we have to trick new players by not telling them how to play the full game that people are using. They'll be too scared to start if we reveal all the rules" Is both condescending and dishonest.
  11. stratigo

    AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion

    My main problem with the iron sky squadron is that it's 130 points. That's a company. Is, if you minmax, 4 shots on turn 1 before than three skyhooks every turn of the game? I don't think to, the math just doesn't seem to work out considering how weak your army is going to be to try and fit in 4 frigates.
  12. stratigo

    Can Age of Sigmar 2 be a competitive game?

    40k is in an odd place that the meta changes literally every month of not more since they are rolling out codexes constantly and most armies in the game are able to mix in a broad manner. AoS usually (for a given definition of usually considering it's only been a few years) changes yearly. They might be more active in plugging bad exploits, but I suspect the balance we have now is what will last out the year
  13. stratigo

    Can Age of Sigmar 2 be a competitive game?

    I think AoS 2.0 has changed it so that only a very narrow number of factions and lists are viable actually.
  14. stratigo

    AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion

    The save for company and thunderers is fine. If anything, the save for fyrslayers is too much XD. But, like, magical plate armor clad dudes only get a 4 up. 3 up is reserved for things very large and bulky from what I can see, which I would hope includes the ironclad in the future.
  15. stratigo

    Can Age of Sigmar 2 be a competitive game?

    Most people play matched play. Even when they don't play matched play missions, they play matched play points. It is very rare for a person playing a game to play without some kind of balancing mechanic. People trend towards feeling comfortable when things seem more fair to them. Whether they are really more fair isn't particularly important, but the appearance of a kind of balance is important for, I would say, 90 percent of people alive, much less the percentage of people who willingly play a war game.
×