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

GH2017: the honeymoon is over

Recommended Posts

As a death player, I'm used to disappointment in AoS. The GH:2017 was the first major ray of hope in about 3 years.  Pre-GH2016, I had made a comp system (limiting summoning) and was begging people to play. GH:2016 was a huge step because it pulled together the fractured community, uniting them under one points system, and in turn increasing interest in AoS about 900%.

In the first year of points, there have been some really wacky things going on that needed to be addressed, and the GH:2017 does a great job addressing them. The most competitive lists, being Kunnin Rukk, Skyfire heavy DoT, billion shot Kharadron Overlords and Sayl megabombs - all received significant nerfs, so now nobody has to deal with the insane horror it was to have to be an opponent to these lists. (Of course, all those people who went out and bought these lists are not too happy).

Not everything was addressed. Prayers continue to be unlimited. No change to the Balewind Vortex. While Kurnoth Hunters received a points increase, nearly everything else in the army received discounts + Wyldwood spam is the same. Characters are still heavily punished for having names. A lot of us were hoping for more specific shooting rules, for a variety of reasons. Many were hoping for some change to how initiative works. 

The excitement of what the new rules of 1 will bring basically amounted to little more than the limitation that you can only have one of each artifact. That being said, the FAQs that came out alongside the GH made a lot of interesting changes that many people were hoping for, so there are a lot of exciting changes. 

Allies is a fun concept which gives more flexibility to those armies with good allegiances. For the new allegiances, it is more of a limitation (I.E. I was always taking a Necromancer with FEC before). Allies is a great idea but in actuality is not going to have a big  change on the way the game has been playing. Regardless its a great idea and makes allegiance lists more interesting.

Horde discounts are nice and, combined with horde-promoting battleplans, we are likely to see more "army" looking armies. Yet the largest deterrent of having a horde army was the existence of insane horde decimating units (pun intended), none of which have been limited in any way. At the same time, a lot of armies received point increases to counterbalance their horde discount, so lists are often unlikely to look much different now.

Then there are the battalion increases. Obviously, there were a handful of battalions that were overpowered, combined with the blanket rule of deployment and a free artifact, were causing issues with the game. While they decided to individually focus on problems one model at a time in the FAQ - for the battalions, they decided to just add 100 points across the board. The effect is that the few incredibly strong battalions are now appropriately costed, but about 90% of the battalions are extremely overcosted .... now no one is going to bother with them. Instead of pricing the entire concept of battalions out of the game, they could have simply removed the deployment and artifact abilities that the battalions provide, making them more usable and useful.

The new allegiances are sadly lackluster. Fyreslayers, Seraphon and Ironjaws are good, its nice to see they got the proper attention they deserve. Old armies like Free Peoples and Wanderers finally got some things, but at the same time half their scrolls were discontinued. Most armies are more affected by the loss of key scrolls than they benefit from new allegiance abilities, most of which are just not satisfying. For death I was most hoping for some new spell lores, which was not to be.

As a death player I have 2000 points of FEC, Nighthaunt and Soulblight easy. The new GH:2017 has taken more away from my lists than it has added, and I've already lost most of my mojo.

There is a lot of great stuff in the GH:2017. Multiplayer battles are super fun. The matched play battleplans are fresh and interesting. GW recognized some serious issues and properly addressed them. We still have to see whats going to happen with the new meta.

Overall, at least for me, the smoke has cleared very fast and already a month into it I've lost most of my momentum to play new games. In contrast, the complexity and tactical appeal of the new 40k has really been drawing me in. The tactics of being able to pin down shooters, the interesting command point rules, etc etc. (and the insanely beautiful detail of the new models) is pulling me toward 40k instead. I have always been exclusively fantasy player, and continue to enjoy the type of gameplay and aesthetic that AoS offers far more than 40k, and yet I'm being drawn toward 40k instead. I'm sure when (if?) an awesome new death army finally comes out I will be pulled back into AoS, but it looks like most of the resources are being used for 40k and the new Shadespire side game, so it may be a while.

How is the community feeling? Are most people excited, or disappointed?
  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just enthusiastic now as I was before GH2017, which is to say excited to play the game and looking forward to more releases.  Sure, some of the GH2017 changes might not have been as stellar as we had hoped, but it is at least something - it's still moving in the right direction.  That said, if I am experiencing any change in my enthusiasm level at all, it's getting even better for me, and I can list why:

- Open War cards.  These have opened up a slew of new ways to play the game.  Whether by using them exclusively, or just as a tool to make other games more exciting, the dynamics of AoS's modularity are only made better by the Open War cards and the sheer number of possible games that can be created with them.

- The new Season of War Alliances.  I have been wanting a way to play a better mixed-Order Allegiance army, and this is giving me another way to play them.  I have in my head a story idea that might translate decently onto the tabletop, and this is another way to possibly match that dream I have.

- My family is getting into AoS.  Specifically my step-daughter with her interest in a Death army, but my wife has also started a Sylvaneth army.  Sure, this doesn't necessarily affect anyone on this forum directly.  But I can say that having opponents at home to play would make things so much better for me, as my gaming stores are 45 or 90 minutes away, depending on which direction I drive.

13 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

While Kurnoth Hunters received a points increase, nearly everything else in the army received discounts + Wyldwood spam is the same.

This is something I noticed as well, and really is my only disappointment in the GH2017.  I play Ironjawz with a Gargant.  With the discounts on my units and the increase in my main Battalion choice, I netted only a 10 points decrease in my 1850 point army.  The powerful stuff going up in points is nice, but when so many units go down in points, it isn't going to change some armies, at all.  I mean, I gained 10 points.  TEN.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im a death player swell so i understand how you're feeling, that being said, i love AoS mores now than i did pre-ghb2017. yes my list got nerved, yes the generic death abilities are lacklustre, but my list was never intended to be top table competitive (and i play down the South London Legion against none other than the dreaded @Nico himself) but I've found that running a list that you enjoy playing with, your opponent enjoys playing against, is flexible enough to cope with the ups & downs of battle and is resilient enough to take a bloody nose and still keep on fighting allows me to play the battle plan/mission that we've rolled and still be in with a genuine chance at victory. writing a left-field list really helps confuse the meta aswell. so all in all I'm loving AoS more than ever!!! 

 

I do really hope you get your mojo back WoollyMammoth!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with pretty much everything you said.  I find it pretty disheartening that, while I have more than 7000 points of "Vampire Counts" undead, I am unable to pull together 1600 points for ANY of the specific factions required to build a 2000 points FEC, Soulblight, or Nighthaunt list.  I guess I should have spent the last 10 years maxing out the ugliest and most cost-prohibitive units rather than everything else, eh? :D 

All of the faction-specific allegiances are very narrow, and require spamming basically the same two units to build an army, which isn't very interesting from a modeling standpoint.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I find the tournament players here are satisfied because they are ok with buying new forces to adjust to the meta so long as the meta stays the way it is (shifting only once a year).  They are largely dissatisfied with 40k because the meta keeps changing and they can't min/max properly without having to re-align and re-buy new models every other month when a new faq nerfs things, which is understandable.

whilst i agree on the whole with this statement, i also don't think its entirely accurate.  myself as the example - I'm not a tournament player per-say, my hobby budget is extremely limited (wife&3 kids) my death army is effectively  iconic models i really like with a bit of a competitive tweak so i don't get rofl-stomped every game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My army got nerfed hugely to stop people from taking my best model to make waac lists with a bunch of random non-bcr units. So now the cheese list is dead (yay), but unfortunately so is BCR, as they did not use a scalpel, they used a chainsaw (and it hit random stuff that wasn't even in the cheese lists like stonehorn). Also our weak matchup type became the ideal way to play across the board. Allies are okay, I have a butcher or two I'm painting up, but if I want bodies I need to ally in grots and I think they look absolutely dumb. If I was Order with infinite options I'd be pretty excited, but for me allies are very meh.

Off the table, though, I have never been enjoying myself more than this stage of painting! My alterations worked out, I'm learning more about painting techniques and things are really turning out nicely. Maybe because it's my first army and I started the hobby a month and a half ago, but the new car smell is not gone and I'm totally enjoying building, sculpting, kitbashing, and painting My Dudes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I second @BunkhouseBuster, I keep finding new ways the game excites me in less competitive and more casual ways. It's not all about winning the game, but about laughing at some of the bloody ridiculous ways a battle pans out. I think it's moving in the right direction and the fact that GW is listening to the community means we do have a say in what's to come. I have a death army too, that I rarely play, so I understand some of your concern. But I think death will receive some more love soon. I know it's a statement overused, but still, I'm sure there will be some fun stuff coming out for every boy and girl awaiting it (me included). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it has been the exact opposite for me and the local group here.  We are a mix of competitive and and casual players and there has never been more excitement.  I am a Death player too and overall am okay with how things played out.  

I have a big Death collection and now can run FEC, Nighthaunts, Soulblight, or a combination.  I see the narrowing of the allegiances as a positive.  I have had half a dozen FEC games since the GHB2017 and between the different powers/artifacts and various builds and ally packages, I have used different lists every time and still have more I want to give a go.  Also the the narrowing has let me get more fluffy as I am already converting some ally models to thematically fit in my FEC army.  

Some of my other armies got nerfed.  I run Bonespiltterz too and even though they got hit pretty hard, I think they are still playable and honestly needed it.  

Overall, my community is in a great place and almost everyone I have talked to is jazzed. 

Just my thoughts, though I must admit that I did not expect super big changes with the GHB2017, like shooting or initiative changes.     

Edited by TheWilddog
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be honest. You are just having a honeymoon with 40k. To me its the oppossite, i stopped playing 40k because you are not playing a game, just throwing dice for the most part.

 

Edit - with this i don't mean that your criticism isn't valid. Just nitpicking in the 40k part.

Edited by Keldaur
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can completely understand how some of the changes would cause keen levels to drop off for some people.  Having your army go from performing really well to averagely and looking at seemingly everyone else's armies get a boost is pretty demoralising.  For me personally I've had to re-evaluate my army composition pretty significantly - it forced me to dig out some half started models to add to the army and changes meant that the battalions I was using are no longer as points effective as extra units any more.  It wasn't what I'd planned or actually wanted to do, but I knew I needed to do something to play a tournament I'd booked in for.

What I would say is that the new handbook has really highlighted that nothing is set in stone, some bits may get tweaked in errata and FAQs whilst others may get done next year in a new handbook.  I also think that Age of Sigmar is no longer a "my army is finished" game, not only will it constantly need changes and modifications but you'll also have the opportunity to re-imagine it in a plethora of different game formats from Skirmish and Path to Glory through to the new map campaign system and not forgetting the three different play styles.  Yes there will be years where one army just won't be able to compete at the same level as your regular opponents.  I think the ultimate goal is to have a smattering of models from across the grand alliances.

Another thing I would say is that sometimes taking a break from a hobby is really beneficial.  As soon as you realise you're forcing yourself to hobby, step back and do something a bit different - it could be for a few hours or a few months.  Nobody is going to think any less of you for doing it, but if you do keep forcing yourself you'll find that you become quite cynical.

I've recently started painting up an Orruk Megaboss - I'm having an awesome time!  I'm thinking what else I fancy painting up and already working out what I need to do to get him on a table.  The moral of this?  I've barely thought about "I really want some new Khorgorath sculpts" or "I really struggle against shooting", it's really invigorated my AoS keen again.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Death are in a stronger position than they were but for a very boring reason - everyone else's filth got nerfed and everyone else's Battalions got slammed (a little crudely but so be it).

The Allegiance abilities for Death aren't great to be honest. Only the Soulblight one interests me and it runs into the fundamental problems that Blood Knights are terribly overcosted compared to Fulminators (and have bad synergies by comparison) and bat swarms don't do their job (as they don't protect nearby units instead they debuff nearby enemies). A new book and a Lore could revolutionise things though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

balewind vortex has been nerfed...repeatedly ... may as well make it Tzeentch only as thats the only faction that uses it anymore ( kroak excluded )... what more do you want??  any further nerfs and they may as well delete the warscroll completely. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on where your motivation comes from and who you are playing against. As a long time Fantasy player I started palying AoS earlier this year after a few years of not playing anything.

Needless to say there was a lot to catch up with and a lot to get used to! 

I decided to collect a Daughters of Khaine / Order Serpentis / Darkling Coven Army because I always liked the Dark Elves but never got around to getting an army together. It didn't take long to realise that while all these factions have some good units it wasn't really possible to make a hyper competitive list either in one faction - or accross a grand alliance version of all 3.

It is totally possible to make good lists though, lists that are thematic, fun to play and fun to play against. They would only leave me feeling that i had no chance if they were up against a meta optimised,  math-hammer spam list and I don't have any current ambitions to take on the top tables at a GT.

Thats not even how the game is designed to be played. Its a thing and i'm completely cool with people doing those lists and taking them to competitions but its not what 99% of players are doing. Most people just want a cool looking collection of models from a faction they like and the ability to create lists that have at least a fair chance of winning as much as they lose - which most armies can do.

I think you just have to work out if your priority is having an army you really like or one that is really competitive. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I never liked batallions so personally to me that change was only a good thing. In the other parts... I'm a casual player, but I play horde armies, so I suppose... I meta now? :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me ghb17 has been for the most part very positive experience. Triumph and treachery is amazing, new allegiances have given me so much inspiration along with all the allies, point changes for the most part were spot on. The only negative I can think of is the battallion cost increases. I wish gw would remove the "deploy your battallion units at the same time"-rule and make artifacts based on points (for every 1000 you get 1 artifact).

The only possibly negative thing I see in the horizon is releases like firestorm. If that stupid allegiance over allegiance stuff becomes tournament standard and costs no extra points in matched play, well this little piggy is not gonna take part on any of tournaments using those rules for sure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@BunkhouseBuster
I'll have to try the open war cards

@Auticus
Tournament players are not going to be happy at all, most of them were rushing to make their Kunnin Rukk, Overlords and DoT armies, which just got totally nerfed. The meta will only take a big shift once a year, sure, but it will also shift with every new army that comes out. This also only changed the matched play rules, who knows when they will decide to make a core rule update as well.

@heywoah_twitch
BCR did get a heavy nerf, sorry to hear that but its great that you are enjoying painting.

@Lysandestolpe
I'm not interested in OP game winning rules, the death allegiances, as well as many of the others, are just not particularity inventive. Nighthaunt for example is just a copy of the Stormcast allegiance. 

@TheWilddog
My community is doing well. FEC has multiple lists in it because it took most of everything left from Vampire Counts and is the only army left in death with a reasonable amount of models. Personally I don't run Horror/Flayer heavy lists so there is not a lot of different lists I can make. FEC is still fun and competitive, there is just some weirdness left in it since it was designed before the new AoS direction. The GH didn't create any new ways for me to play, and didn't really change the way my lists look at all so there is not a whole lot of excitement to be had continuing to play the same kind of list. If they had made more interesting options for synergy and combos and special abilities it would have made the army more fresh and exciting to play. Or if they updated a few of the outdated models to breathe life into the army.

@Keldaur
I have only played two games of 40k, and they weren't particularly good games. I play AoS about twice a week. 40k has a lot more interesting things going on, with the command points and so many options. I'm mainly into it because Death Guard is getting 100 beautiful new models, whereas my Death Grand Alliance hasn't received a single new model in almost 3 years.

 @Arkiham
The vortex hasn't been nerfed, it was clarified that you cant do something obnoxious to get a monster on top of it.  It can be utilized on any army to take a 18" spell and make it 36" to be damaging units first turn, or to exploit a melee only army by making a wizard invincible. Personally I have not seen it used to terrible effect, and I own one myself - I was just mentioning all the things that many people were looking for in the new GH that weren't delivered. A lot of people hate the vortex and think it should be banned.

@angrycontra
T&T is great. I can see allegiance inspiring you if you have the right allegiances, which unfortunate I do not. I think almost all of us would agree balancing battalions that way would have been much better. Firestorm is likely only for this event thing and will not be legal in tournament play, but I haven't looked into it much yet. 

 

Edited by WoollyMammoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't feel the dust has settled at all.

While I do echo some concerns in your post, it's only been 1 month since the book came out. I'm definitely still enjoying fiddling around with lists (A lot of the time for factions I won't ever get the time to do!), and certainly haven't played enough games yet to even believe I understand where the meta has 'settled'. Hell, I haven't even played each of the Matched Play scenarios yet.

Perhaps some of the optimism comes from the fact, that the armies I have been collecting (Majority Slaves to Darkness Chaos and Free Peoples) actually got pretty hefty benefits in the GHB2017. So for the first time in a while, it feels like the stuff I do care about is actually getting some exposure (GHB2017 and Firestorm).

I think it'll take a tournament or so before I start feeling one way or another about the meta. At the moment people are still just chill and happy to get in a game.

 

If there's anything to be critical about, IMO it's more on the models side than the rules side. We haven't had a single new model release since Kharadron Overlords in April (including from Forgeworld). That's 1/3 of the year without any new models. That's pretty abysmal. And while we have gotten content, the models have been rehashed boxed sets (Skirmish Sets, Allies sets, and now Firestorm Great Cities sets). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@WoollyMammoth hmm, I can't find a single piece in my statement insinuating that you or I wished for OP gaming. Rather that I hope for some love and something fun  will come evenetually. I did however state that I am excited about the progress of more non-OP-competitive forms of play in the latest GH.

I play ironjawz, which wasn't a top playing army before GH17 and isn't one after either. But I love the new allegiance abilities because they are super fun. The slight randomness of them makes them either crazy good or flop. So yeah, it's not fun when factions in death get stuff that are less unique and exciting.

I apologize to everyone for this blunt statement but I feel a little stupid for even replying when you clearly not care at all for reading what I had to say, despite the fact that you asked.... I guess we will see if this one is shame on me. 

Edited by Lysandestolpe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was super excited about GH2017, but fear by the time I'm done painting my army it'll be GH2018 anyway, so meh

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear your feelings, most of it makes a lot of sence aswell. I do think however that if you want to go competitive with Death Flesh Eater Courts delivers. I feel that they are less talked about but at the same time do feel their Allegiance specifically is amongst the better ones also. The set up of such armies might not be very dynamic but it´s where GW did put their time into and you see this reflected if you go down that path. Basically GH2017 offered 5 big changes and this is how I feel about them: 

- Allies; cool concept but I don't really feel it has been worked out well. In that same vein I also feel that the whole idea of mixing is good but I still feel this should be the Grand Allegiance benifit because the path we're going now basically removes the whole reason to go for a Grand Allegiance more and more. I am a firm believer of going one route ot the outher. Recieving more powerful Allegiance abilities the moment you restrict yourself more. This would then be the pro to the con of having less unit choices.

- New Allegiance Abilities; fantastic! Worked out well enough for now. I had a conversation with some mates about this and most people like it and I do think this is GH2017's biggest selling point and wonderful added piece to the game. Not all Allegiance abilities are on the same level, that much is true, but at the same time I also feel this isn't a massive issue because some armies just have slightly stronger or more allround units also. Meaning you don't need to have the best of both worlds all the time.

- Horde discounts: fantastic if GW wants us to play with more models. The downside however is that these discounts feel implemented after the cost increases of some other units, which in turn makes me question why certain horde units recieve certain massive discounts. All in all though I do think this improves the game.

- Battalion cost increase: still feel uncertain about this. By large because I understand the reason why they did it but also still feel that the designers of GH2017 still are unable to put a good cost on most of the Battalions. I personally think this 100 point increase isn't really a solution, if anything it indeed filters out more and removes the reason to look at multiple Battalions. I feel that the easiest fix for this (and something that might come with GH2018) is to simply have 1 (maximum of 1) free Battalion per 2000 point army. The benifit of this is that players can figure out what they like without worrying too much and at the same time it also increases the model count, which is also in the interest of GW.

- Open War cards: fantastic! It again reduces time for game set ups and this makes the game more enjoyable overall because it allows you to put time into gaming over set ups.

All in all the result of GH2017 feels good but indeed not as much as a game changer as GH2016. This in itself isn't an issue. What we simply need is some patience to see several armies recieve their own Battletomes in order to be more competative. If you can't wait for it all 40K offers a solution in the sence that they work at an incredible pace now. This too has its downsides in the form of many, many Errata's and FAQ without model releases. So pick whatever you want. Both variants of marketing and game have their advantages and disadvantages now. I do feel that AoS has an overall great balance and the difference in power level between factions has been drastically reduced. At the same time I also enjoy 40K but it cmes with it's own set of "issues" in the form of certain armies not having powerful stratagems and certain armies having acces to great horde units or HQ spam options. These three issues do not present itself in AoS at all.

Edited by Killax
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, angrycontra said:

The only possibly negative thing I see in the horizon is releases like firestorm. If that stupid allegiance over allegiance stuff becomes tournament standard and costs no extra points in matched play, well this little piggy is not gonna take part on any of tournaments using those rules for sure.

I think it's too soon to call that, although we've been told "playable in Matched Play", there could well be some other restriction - playable in Matched Play whilst playing a Firestorm campaign for example.  Until we get the book in our hands (or somebody leaks it - normally from France) we don't know.  I also think a lot of TOs are really switched on with this and will make a call about if their own Tournament accepts Firestorm abilities or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FEC seem the worst of all the subfactions as they cannot get a real command ability (the summoning command abilities are close to useless unless you like failing 9" charges and then getting taken off). The Traits and Artefacts are weak - compare them to Ironjawz.

They need the VLoZD....

Edited by Nico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lysandestolpe
I was just saying that I am interested in fun rules more than more competitive rues as well, I was agreeing with you. I was making the point that I'm not particularity looking for some super strong competitive rules, but more interesting things to do to make games more fresh. Unfortunately the death stuff is not very inventive; instead of wacky or fun rules (or OP rules) we got some basic rules that don't add much to the game play. There are a ton of things they could do to make death more interesting and fun, the GH barely scratched the surface at the possibilities of fun themed rules they could create. 

@Killax
I like the battalion idea, the only issue is some armies have no battalions to speak of. If every army had a handful of battalions, this would work. A minor issue in being that some battalions are a lot more basic than others, but if they evened them out a bit more this could work. I agree that FEC is competitive, but the GH doesn't do much to make them more competitive, other than the fact that it has weakened some of the stronger armies. FEC does not need much, I would say if they released some scroll updates with more relevant command abilities, released a FEC specific spell lore, and released new kits for the ghoul king and Vargulf - the army would be very well established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably not able to comment on things from a competitive stand point in the slightest, I haven't played any games and my limited funds have prevented me from even getting the new generals handbook yet. As mentioned the Allies system is a much needed and fantastic concept that people with limiting factions the ability to get some cool new toys to play with, so that's a tick in the good column. They have adjusted the points on things like battalions and warscrolls, holy ****** they are paying attention after a decade to the scene - tick in the good box.

I don't know about you guys, but I can only get a limited amount done in a work day, and AoS is a huge change from Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition, so it is going to take time to change stuff. Unlike 40k They have changed from a medieval fantasy setting to high fantasy, so the stuff needs a lot more work I guess than 40k which is currently a game changing few months of book spam.

It does feel a bit crappy that there is so much in limbo as far as Elves, Undead and Humans are concerned, but like anyone who listened to Warhammer Weekly the other week when Vince got back from Nova, they are trying to re-imagine things in a cool way that makes sense to the setting, I am glad the change was made because I had honestly got fed up of going through the rulebooks and explaining things to people that barely played in 8th because you needed more neck beard than a Star Trek Q&A panel to get by. 

Yeah it would have been nice if we had got some book spam so everyone had new toys, but I would rather they come up with some cool new ideas for Elves, than just give me broken Wanderers or Swift Hawk Agents (as much as it is paining me to not get some Elves right now).

To summarise, I think it has been a net positive for the most part and it is most certainly has been an improvement every year since release. I just think we all go through phases of liking something else more than another thing. And I am sure you will be back when they release a giant ass pirate ship and a pirate faction for Death. (DISCALIMER: WE CAN ONLY HOPE!)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Tournament players are not going to be happy at all, most of them were rushing to make their Kunnin Rukk, Overlords and DoT armies, which just got totally nerfed. The meta will only take a big shift once a year, sure, but it will also shift with every new army that comes out. This also only changed the matched play rules, who knows when they will decide to make a core rule update as well.

I have very little sympathy for people whose desire to beat others at toy soldiers is so consuming that they are willing to spend hundreds of pounds for that reason alone, hobby and fun be damned.

I have even less sympathy for people who complain and throw their toys out of the pram when this attitude bites them in the ass. If you want to gamble money on the fleeting and ephemeral thrill of victory, you go into it with your eyes open.

 

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not intending to suggest that all tournament players are like this. My post is intended to refer specifically to people who spend large amounts of money rushing to build horrible armies that exist solely to exploit the current 'meta', then become petulant and act like they've been wronged when the 'meta' changes and they realise that they've wasted their time and money in pursuit of something hollow. People with this attitude to the hobby are thankfully a small minority.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...