Warhammer Legends

[Kirjava13]

...yes, because you have this insane "only hyper-competitive tournament builds are valid" outlook.

[Thebiggesthat]

8 minutes ago, Karol said:

three is 3 worth playing, and am talking AoS only here. For me that is most.

That just simply isn't true dude

 

[Kamose]

2 minutes ago, Karol said:

The Runesmitter in the Slyer box.

The Fyreslayer box is fine as long as you make the Runefather on the Magmadroth with the Runeson and Runesmiter on foot.  The Runesmiter on foot is prolly better anyway since he can burrow.  If you make the Runesmiter on the Magmadroth then you can only make the Runefather or Runeson on foot, not both.  So prolly not the best way to assemble it but otherwise its a good value.  The Greenskinz box......yeah, that one might not be...great.  ??? Hopefully if you're grabbing Greenskinz its for the love of the models! ?

59 minutes ago, AthlorianStoners said:

So strange seeing all the different gaming cultures.

It is quite cool to see!  However I would remind everyone that we've been having a discussion about a subject where many of us have different opinions.  As per the Law of the Internet, when having a difference of opinion, we're required to interject some baseless accusations, ad hominem attacks, death threats, and angry, hateful ranting.  We been waaaay too reasonable and polite for the Internet and I'm afraid the Hyperbolic Rhetoric Police are gonna come down us.  I'ma help!

"I disagree with you.  You all suck and I hate you." 'GRRRRRR' ?

[Gecktron]

19 minutes ago, Karol said:

the small ship and the gun dudes from the Kharadron starter. Retributors in the Stormcast box, the entire orc, beastclaw and striders box as they give an illusion that those armies are valid or can be bought for cheap. The Runesmitter in the Slyer box. It is even worse for w40k, where boxs drip with dreadnoughts, termintors etc

 

And from the list I have seen being played the only save ones are the tzeench, nurgle, lizard people ones. In every other one ther is either bad stuff, or the faction is too bad to play. Like beastclaws have a box that can make the whole army with 2-3 boxs, but the faction is unplayable.

Hey, I want to be positiv and all but the more I read the more angry I get. 

What you are saying is simply not true. There is no Battletome faction in AoS thats unplayable. Beastclaw Raiders are still good (they are just not broken anymore). 

You can play all of them and have fun. Or dont. Some people just collect and for them SC! Sets are great. You save up to 50% on some.

Saying they are traps is just wrong, both in AoS and 40K.

 

Edit: okay, I need to calm down. Different cultures and all. I just think this hyper competitiv outlook doesnt really fit Games Workshop games as they tend to be more beer-and-pretzel style games

Edited May 11, 2018 by Gecktron

[Kamose]

Its working! 

[TheOtherJosh]

57 minutes ago, Kirjava13 said:

because most of them are really bad value for money.

I suppose ... that if you are aiming for a specific set of models, and those models aren’t in the Start Collecting boxes that would be the case.

The Start Collecting Daemons of Tzeentch has a number of units that are considered “sub-optimal” in a tournament list.

SC:Daemons of Khorne is in a similar state with sub-optimal units purely from a tournament perspective. 

While the boxes have a great value. They aren’t win at all cost “tournament optimized”.

I’m a fan of the Daemons of Tzeentch box because it literally comes with almost all of the available units from the line. It lacks a full unit of blues or Brimstones, the Changling and doesn’t have an LoC... but pretty much everything else from the line can be built from the kit. (Including a kit-bashed Blue Scribes)

[Stealth_Hobo]

9 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

I suppose ... that if you are aiming for a specific set of models, and those models aren’t in the Start Collecting boxes that would be the case.

The Start Collecting Daemons of Tzeentch has a number of units that are considered “sub-optimal” in a tournament list.

SC:Daemons of Khorne is in a similar state with sub-optimal units purely from a tournament perspective. 

While the boxes have a great value. They aren’t win at all cost “tournament optimized”.

I’m a fan of the Daemons of Tzeentch box because it literally comes with almost all of the available units from the line. It lacks a full unit of blues or Brimstones, the Changling and doesn’t have an LoC... but pretty much everything else from the line can be built from the kit. (Including a kit-bashed Blue Scribes)

Indeed. People often confuse what is playable and what is the most optimal choice.

 

[Bosmer Nightblade]

13 hours ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

 

I don't get the really competitive people. The games have never really been designed to played competitively, and to be honest if you are THAT competitive why would you play warhammer to get your ego hit? Why wouldn't you play a truly competitive game? or do sports or something? I don't get what satisfaction there is to be gained from winning at something that is barely a real competition in the first place? You are just kidding yourself.

I always play to win - Its a battle afterall - but if I was interested in "Smashing peoples faces" (being a term I have heard tournament players use) I would get into boxing.. 

 

1000000% this.

I was just having this discussion today with a GW stockist. I just don't get why anyone tries to play AOS competitively. The rules aren't suitable for a competitive environment, and worse, you're relying on random dice that any moment can destroy the best tactics.

I, like you Izalith, get my competitive kick out of online gaming. I've also done Dark Souls and Bloodborne pvp, but I've put serious time into Destiny 'trials' (it may not be the best game now, but you don't find much tougher pvp challenge out there than trials), League of Legends, Smite, Overwatch.

Age of Sigmar is a game with rich lore, models that you paint, on a scenic board, where you play scenarios trying to tell a story. The game is entirely suited for a narrative experience.

Each to their own, but narrative should be viewed as the default for this game and competitive should be the thing we view with a puzzled expression.

[Thebiggesthat]

Competitive snobbery in tabletop is one of the worst things about it. 

I take it you've been to a few tournaments then? 

[Jamopower]

Guys, it might be that the competetive AoS is pointless, but if it's the thing that the local scene is interested, then Karol's outlook is reasonable. You probably don't want to get beastclaw raiders as your army if everyone is playing the most efficient forces. They just don't cut it. No matter how fun they are to play, if you lose 2/3 of the games just because of the list, it isn't fun in the long run and you might feel bad that you have put your hard earned money into them, especially if the local wages are such that the models effectively cost double. As said, there are many ways of playing. I'm all for casual gaming, but I can understand that kind of view very well.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I’ve bought 3 Greenskins Start Collecting boxes ?. 

Value can be very subjective if you don’t want something it isn’t going to be worth anything to you but if you want it, it’s suddenly worth more 

[Lousy Beatnik]

Karol, all I can say is that your experiences with toy soldiers are the exact opposite from mine. Not a single thing rings true for me!

On Legends (and on topic!), It just a very little effort/commitment set of profiles to go alongside a limited re-release. If it doesn't interest people, they can so easily not use them.

As to whether units are dropped from Matched thing, wait for the new handbook?

[Verengard]

17 hours ago, Lousy Beatnik said:

As to whether units are dropped from Matched thing, wait for the new handbook?

They are already - check the warscroll builder / mobile app.

[Twitch of Izalith]

Slightly worried about my Legends order as Morathi dropped from the available models on Wednesday last week after only 4 days of availability. The Facebook team were replying to people "We can't make any more of that model" without any explanation. They must have had a shedload of orders!

Hopefully they will fulfil orders already placed before that.

@Karol no offence, but your local gaming scene sounds really horrible. I'm not sure why anyone would even want to get involved in that! Can you not find anyone with a more relaxed attitude and just play games with them?  

 

 

 

[EMMachine]

28 minutes ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

Slightly worried about my Legends order as Morathi dropped from the available models on Wednesday last week after only 4 days of availability. The Facebook team were replying to people "We can't make any more of that model" without any explanation. They must have had a shedload of orders! 

Hopefully they will fulfil orders already placed before that.

Sounds like there casting mold broke down or all models after a certain point were miscasts.

Edited May 14, 2018 by EMMachine

[Karol]

4 hours ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

no offence, but your local gaming scene sounds really horrible. I'm not sure why anyone would even want to get involved in that! Can you not find anyone with a more relaxed attitude and just play games with them?  

Not in the city I live in, there is only one store where I live that has tables to play and everyone goes there. But it is the same in all other parts of Poland, the polish forums are AoS unfriendly to say the least, but those that do deal with AoS have lists and stuff on sale listed as everyone was preparing for a GT.

 

I know this is a meme, and they don't count to much, but it gives you a small insight what counts as funny in Poland. This is the "Welcome new player thing" on of polish facebook groups

[Nin Win]

On 5/11/2018 at 4:07 PM, Karol said:

I said most of the time. They are most often a trap, give you stuff for "cheap" techniclly, but those stuff you get for "free" you will never use.

This is one of the reasons I think being overly focused on being competitive can shrink one's gaming experience.  If people make lists with less of an eye to always have the strongest stuff then more warscrolls in a given battle tome are viable for the table top.

I know when I pick units the first thing I do is look at painted examples of the miniatures, then look at pictures of the sprues, then I'll read the fictional entry for the unit in the battletome.  Then I'll check to warscroll to make sure the cool or more important thing about them is actually reflected in the rules.  I guess they'll have a points cost, but I can look that up later if I need to.

The idea of only using a subset of scenario material, a subset of available units, a subset of artefacts/command abilities sounds like a really bad trade off for the sake of trying to win more.

[AGPO]

There's a couple of misconceptions in this thread.

1. Many people think almost all games are matched play, because that's what's popular where they play, but that's not reflective of the wider community at all. Many stores and other public environments favour matched play because it's the easiest format for pick up games. On the other hand, there are plenty of store owners and managers (Warhammer Glasgow is a great example) where people play loads of narrative games. A huge proportion of hobbyists also play at home or in private or semi-private clubs, and in these settings there is much more of a balance between the three styles of play, depending on the preferences of the individual players. It's worth remembering that the whole Heresy line started out from a community of purely narrative gamers. Likewise most of FW's products have not been tournament legal for the majority of their existence, but have still sold phenomenally largely due to their popularity with narrative players.

2. Matched play != competitive play and competitive play != WAAC. Many of the friendliest, most sportsmanlike gamers I know play competitively, but almost all would agree that winning in an underhand fashion or being a **** to your opponent is not worth it just to win at a game of toy soldiers. We're talking people right at the cutting edge of the tournament circuit here. Likewise, many people use the matched play format to set up a game, but do it in a very casual, non-optimised fashion to play beer and pizza games with friends, and that's perfectly valid too. Not everyone needs to fit into a neat box of hardcore competitive or narrative purist. WAAC is a trait far more associated with 'That Guy' rather than any particular group of players. Every part of the hobby has its anti-social behaviour issues.

 

Tl;dr - Every style of play is very much both popular and valid, even if it isn't that prevalent where you play. The type of social eexperience you have is less down to the type of play you favour than whether or not you play with nice people.

[Karol]

On 5/14/2018 at 10:11 PM, Nin Win said:

This is one of the reasons I think being overly focused on being competitive can shrink one's gaming experience.  If people make lists with less of an eye to always have the strongest stuff then more warscrolls in a given battle tome are viable for the table top.

This works only if the avarge income of the avarge local player is high enough to stomach accidenly buying a bad unit or army. Plus I wasn't talking just about tournaments. I understand that tournaments are there to play the best of the best army possible, and where cash is a secondary thing. People here that are casuals, start armies by checking what armies are being played, and for you that probablly means tournaments while for me it means just other people around the stores, and they buy those armies. No on starts by buying bad units unless two things happen, they have even less money then the avarge player and they have no other way to play. Those people quit very fast. And the other moment is when they are someone returning after years of not playing, and it is all they have right now.  Techniclly there is also a super small minority of people who were unlucky enough to get bad stuff as gifts from parents etc, but in my expiriance everyone just asks for money.

[AGPO]

You're missing out another group - the people who buy a unit because the models are cool or they like the background. That's a pretty significant chunk of the hobby right there. 

[Lousy Beatnik]

6 minutes ago, Karol said:

This works only if the avarge income of the avarge local player is high enough to stomach accidenly buying a bad unit or army.

25 years of mucking about with mates and Warhammer (some times with little money and second-hand models, others able to buy whatever looks cool) and I don't think I've ever considered a unit, let alone army, "bad". I have a Dark Elf army that never once won a game. It just isn't an issue for some groups.

[Karol]

9 minutes ago, Lousy Beatnik said:

25 years of mucking about with mates and Warhammer (some times with little money and second-hand models, others able to buy whatever looks cool) and I don't think I've ever considered a unit, let alone army, "bad". I have a Dark Elf army that never once won a game. It just isn't an issue for some groups.

Is the salary in your country for an avarge citizent around 700$?

[VBS]

18 minutes ago, Karol said:

Is the salary in your country for an avarge citizent around 700$?

I think that is most likely one of the reasons a more competitive or utilitarian mindset might exist in certain ocuntries.

I remember when living in Slovakia how many "normal" jobs were payed even less than what you mention. Obviously, I did not expect to find a Warhammer scene or anything (some stores stocked GW stuff as a side-product though). I often think about how GW prices are fixed (per currency) independently of the location, and how badly that affects some people. There will be a large difference of income % required to afford these products between countries that have equally large life-cost differences.

This will most likely make GW products much less prelavant in certain countries. Like, User A has 10% of his 3k monthly salary for toy soldiers that will get him a full army in no time, and possibly vary a lot his collection between competitive army and rules of cool. User B has 10% of his 600 monthly salary for toy soldiers, and thus, if wanting to play a more competitive game will be inclined to buy the "strongest" units in order to get an army after a couple of months and pouring ressources that represent an important investment for him.

To me, this makes perfect sense and I can understand that in some places there might be a scene as you describe, Karol. In those cases, I think a possible solution might be to look for other manufacterers that are not GW (that can be just as great for less) or buy second hand (it really does save a ton, and access to otherwise impossible to buy minis!).

[Nin Win]

Seems like a game theory approach aggregating to bite everyone  in the ass.  No one can afford to "waste" money on a suboptimal unit so the average level of competition goes up which means cheaper starter and start collecting models are no longer viable, so then the average cost of an army goes up for everyone.

[Lousy Beatnik]

7 hours ago, Karol said:

Is the salary in your country for an avarge citizent around 700$?

Hi Karol. Nope, not at all. I still don't see what it has to do with what I said, though. Doesn't make my lackluster dark elf army any different (and I didn't say how much it cost...)

To be honest, if money were such an issue, the last miniatures game I'd play, certainly competitively, would be something from GW. This is where I'd think a more narrative approach, buying cheaper starter set models or second hand models and just playing any old way would suit better than a competitive environment.

When I couldn't justify buying GW prices, I've been happy with games with free rules and 1/72 scale models. I'm happy to accept that your local group (or yourself!) may feel differently.

I've made armies for next to nothing, but yeah, they would be utterly useless in a tournament! Or laughed at for being mostly 4th edition mono-pose plastic or Reaper Bones.