Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[RuneBrush]

Just want to point out that on the WHTV Twitch game on Wednesday, Rob won using a KO list against Ceri's Nighthaunt, playing the new edition.  Rob played the objective game and used his command points in a way that really benefited the army, ultimately giving him a hard fought win.  I wouldn't have even said that he was playing what we've come to recognise as an "optimal" list, so I think it's far too soon to write entire armies off until we've actually played some games. 

That actually leads onto the next thing - we all are going to have to change our lists so that they work better in the new edition.  Not only have there been point changes, but there have been game-changing modifications to the actual rules - those 5 wound heroes can now use their command abilities as an example.  I'd also say that list changes are 50% theory and 50% practice.  Something that looks amazing on paper can be awful on the tabletop, so playing games is key to getting a winning list.  It's also really important to remember that it's not all about smashing your opponent's army off the table, with each year that passes achieving the objective has a bigger part of the game.

[Dragobeth]

With the FW pdfs for AoS2 up Carmine Dragon comes with a +4 ignore spells and endless spells

In case that matched play keeps the rule of allies from the core rules instead of the "400 pts top" that we already have I can see that monster has a good ally anti-magic tank (440 points for 14w 3+save, +5 mw save, a ranged weapon with 12" that on 5+ does D6 MW and that +4 ignore spells plus all the melee profile that he comes with) It may not be cheap but it looks like a cool option

I'm a little sad becouse Dread Saurian goes up in points but now it's summoneable with 40 celestial points (not sure how many turns generating points is that)

About the KO topic, full competitive players usually junmp from army to army looking for the current 'hot' list even if their current amy can give a good fight. I'm not saying KO is in a good spot right now, but high end competitive players changing armies is just a signal that there is something better right now, not that the army is unplayable.

I personally think that KO (like some other armies) suffers for having a low option count, a "wave 2" for KO, Sylvaneth, IJ, BCR,etc could do great for the meta and those armies.

[Tip4Tap]

25 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Just want to point out that on the WHTV Twitch game on Wednesday, Rob won using a KO list against Ceri's Nighthaunt, playing the new edition.  Rob played the objective game and used his command points in a way that really benefited the army, ultimately giving him a hard fought win.  I wouldn't have even said that he was playing what we've come to recognise as an "optimal" list, so I think it's far too soon to write entire armies off until we've actually played some games. 

That actually leads onto the next thing - we all are going to have to change our lists so that they work better in the new edition.  Not only have there been point changes, but there have been game-changing modifications to the actual rules - those 5 wound heroes can now use their command abilities as an example.  I'd also say that list changes are 50% theory and 50% practice.  Something that looks amazing on paper can be awful on the tabletop, so playing games is key to getting a winning list.  It's also really important to remember that it's not all about smashing your opponent's army off the table, with each year that passes achieving the objective has a bigger part of the game.

Didn’t see the game, do you know what the lists were? Or where I can find them?

[Karol]

41 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Just want to point out that on the WHTV Twitch game on Wednesday, Rob won using a KO list against Ceri's Nighthaunt, playing the new edition.  Rob played the objective game and used his command points in a way that really benefited the army, ultimately giving him a hard fought win.  I wouldn't have even said that he was playing what we've come to recognise as an "optimal" list, so I think it's far too soon to write entire armies off until we've actually played some games. 

That actually leads onto the next thing - we all are going to have to change our lists so that they work better in the new edition.  Not only have there been point changes, but there have been game-changing modifications to the actual rules - those 5 wound heroes can now use their command abilities as an example.  I'd also say that list changes are 50% theory and 50% practice.  Something that looks amazing on paper can be awful on the tabletop, so playing games is key to getting a winning list.  It's also really important to remember that it's not all about smashing your opponent's army off the table, with each year that passes achieving the objective has a bigger part of the game.

Ok, but if your a new player and jump in to the try to find something about how to change your list for the next edition, and see people that play far longer then you and with much bigger collections, talk only how your army and all the units in it are worthless and shelf worthy, and at best you may want to try to run 400pts of caster in the army and that maybe that will save the army, your in a rather tough spot. I doubt I can invent something better then people who play a lot longer then I do, and who can test using more units then I have. The closest thing I saw to something optimistic, is someone saying to single models from the army in a different chaos army.  And it wouldn't be a problem, if most of my opponents had the same problems, but they don't, save for one guy who played Overlords and switched to fyreslyers and dispossed for 2ed edition.

[Tip4Tap]

I think like @Dragobeth said in a previous post the issue is the limited about of models for armies such as KO, Ironjawz, Fyreslayers etc etc. They are massively lacking in depth. Until they get a new release they kind of feel one dimensional.

[Karol]

Well blades of khorn have a lot of models, but from what I have seen in the 2.0 thread almost every unit they have is considered bad or their combinations are considered bad.  I doubt GW is going to update a line with a lot of models anytime soon. They will probablly focus on new armies and stormcasts.

[Dragobeth]

2 minutes ago, Karol said:

Well blades of khorn have a lot of models, but from what I have seen in the 2.0 thread almost every unit they have is considered bad or their combinations are considered bad.  I doubt GW is going to update a line with a lot of models anytime soon. They will probablly focus on new armies and stormcasts.

Of course in the case of Khorne and other armies the problem resides on the point cst and curren flow of the game (In Khorne's case the big focus on magic makes them a little bad if not builded agaisnt it, of course it all depends on the local meta, on my local group the Khorne player has no problem but again, my local meta is not a very competitive one) In KO case for example, if you unit is "bad" and you only have that option you can solve it by either A) make that unit good  B) give them a good unit or C) give them a new unit that makes good that "bad" unit

Different problems, different solutions, you can always say "Khorne problem can be solved by giving me an OP unit like in the KO's case" but in a case of an army with such a amount of different models I could suggest points and warscroll changes instead.

[Karol]

I don't really care about KO, and their units. I do not play them, so they can be as bad or as good as GW wants them to make. I was more wondering what a new player who invested some money in to an army, but doesn't have milions of models yet, is suppose to do at the start of an edition, when every veteran player around him is saying that his army is good as a paper weight only. What do people do when they armies are bad?

 

I thought that with the new edition all armies would just get better. I did expect magic armies to get a lot better, no idea if that is true, but the players of those armies do seem to be buying more stuff. Why I on the other hand go through the list of BK units and everyone seems to be saying that each unit got worse, is unplayble, costs too much, the way it was played is no longer valid because the battalion got nerfed etc.

 

Do people play their bad armies as some other army, like stormcasts, till it gets better ?

[Dragobeth]

22 hours ago, Karol said:

I don't really care about KO, and their units. I do not play them, so they can be as bad or as good as GW wants them to make. I was more wondering what a new player who invested some money in to an army, but doesn't have milions of models yet, is suppose to do at the start of an edition, when every veteran player around him is saying that his army is good as a paper weight only. What do people do when they armies are bad?

It all comes down to what do you want from the hobby and what you can do.

One could easily say "well, just buy another army" but not everyone can do that, I know that it's your case and I know what is to be in that situation, I was in that situation too a long time ago.

What happend? Well I played other game, not WH. I started playing it with what I could get just before a new edition came out and while the rest of the players could get away using their big collections that wasn't my case and I couldn't buy new things neither.

What did I do? I my case I started playing that game becouse my friends played and it was a way to do things and have a good time together so having "the short end of the stick" some time wasn't a problem with me becouse what I wanted from that game was play with my friends, have a good time with games, a couple of drinks and that was all.

So what could people do when they army is bad? If you want to play and win at least sometimes just keep playing, sometimes you will win, sometimes you don't and that doesn't comes only from your army, there are a lot of random things in this game that can change anything.

If you want to play in competitive and you can't afford new minis or a new army you have 2 options A)suck it up and look/things for ways to counter your local meta with all the minis you have ***,  B) wait for another edition/change on your minis

If you just want to play keep playing, you just want to play, not to win so who cares if your army is bad? you just want to roll dices and move plastic soldiers around.

If you just want  to have a good time with your friends just keep playing, your army being bad or good doesn't keep you from playing with them and a friendly group will always try to make games balanced

TL;DR: It all depends on your local group and what you want from the hobby, if your local group is very competitive and you just want to win you either suck it up and try or stop playing untill your army is "good", If your local group is friendly (like mine) just keep playing becouse in those types of groups wining/loosing doesn't really matters.

Also you should care about KO, you might have to play agaisnt them so knowing if they are in a good or bad spot can help you a lot. For Sigmar's beard I could even say that you should want all the armies to be good so they can give you a good fight!

*** This happens A LOT in other games like card games (Magic, YGO) where a player goes to a tournament knowing the meta and making a list/deck centered in counter that meta with just what he have, sometimes they break the meta, sometimes they fail.

[AaronWilson]

So release day tomorrow, what's everyone plans? Sadly I'm out all playing a Guildball event so I plan to take a read of the books Sunday and carry on painting my Pink Horrors. How about everyone else?

[Charles]

Yes. My Khorne Army was bad last edition and much worse in this edition and I will still be playing with it. 

At least Khorne will be pleased when all my guys die at Throne of Skulls.

[RuneBrush]

18 minutes ago, Karol said:

I don't really care about KO, and their units. I do not play them, so they can be as bad or as good as GW wants them to make. I was more wondering what a new player who invested some money in to an army, but doesn't have milions of models yet, is suppose to do at the start of an edition, when every veteran player around him is saying that his army is good as a paper weight only. What do people do when they armies are bad?

Can completely see what you're saying.  The best bit of advice I can give is when you read a comment by a veteran player about how unit X isn't worth it for the points or how army Y is bad is to take what they're saying with a massive pinch of salt - that's their opinion (which they're entitled to), but isn't necessarily factually correct.

Each person in the hobby will have a different way of rating how good they feel an army is, normally it's based on the people they play with regularly and their own ability to win a game.  I lost count of the number of times when I started when people would look at my list and go "Why are you fielding a Skullgrinder?  He's rubbish/not good/poor".  Truth was that against a heavy shooting/magic army I found him to be pretty poor and generally would be sniped out.  However against a melee army he can comfortably take out 5 wound models and push out some brilliant buffs to nearby units.  It's very much a matter of perspective and who you're playing.  Lots of people tend to focus on the tournament/competitive side of things, but I would hazard there are far more friendly games played than those.

It's really tempting to go off at a waffly tangent, but to surmise - don't let somebody else tell you how bad your army is, play some games as you're building it and see where the weaknesses are and try to fill them.  Also as a warning, people love to "theorycraft" how good things are without having ever played with/against them

[Beliman]

10 minutes ago, Karol said:

I don't really care about KO, and their units. I do not play them, so they can be as bad or as good as GW wants them to make. I was more wondering what a new player who invested some money in to an army, but doesn't have milions of models yet, is suppose to do at the start of an edition, when every veteran player around him is saying that his army is good as a paper weight only. What do people do when they armies are bad?

If you are a competitive player, you really know that every edition/season or even between faqs/patches, the meta will shake things up, and some armies will go down, others will go up, and that's the power-gaming cycle. 

I know some pr0-players that use that in their favour, and alot of them will just sell their armies and buy the new so called "OP" ones (or just try to have more than 3-4 armies to have enough tools to always be competitive),  the other option is to try to break the meta with crazy combos using their old armies (sometimes this is not possible btw). That's how things always worked.

Now, it's up to you how do you want to play. Warhammer players are a bit more handicapped to other games because they invest alot of time and money (armies are not cheap enough!). In my case, I can't afford to switch armies (I already did that in the past btw), and I don't have enough time to paint.

[Brad Gamma]

13 hours ago, stratigo said:

A kid who comes in and gets beat every single game likely is gonna find his interest waning unless he got in for the hobbying (Rare for a 13 year old, but not unheard of)

I know neither us have data to back this up, but EVERY kid I knew who played warhammer when i was 13, and every friend I have now who used to collect as a kid, started because the models were cool, and actually never properly played the game. I've never met anyone who has entered the hobby to immediately join the local tournament scene either.

When I got my first models, for the first year I just used that as toys for my imaginary games between me and my brother. My first 5 or 6 purchases were from completely different armies. When I stopped buying a few years later (a fairly common cycle amongst wargamers, start as a kid, come back as an adult) it had nothing to do with playing games and my army sucking. Granted the the internet wasn't as big at the time so we wouldn't even have understood what a "meta" was, but it was mainly browsing through white dwarfs and thinking things looked cool and buying those things.

Nowadays it is easier to get straight into the game, but I really don't see this scenario where a kid buys a KO army and gets creamed every single time they play and then gives up the hobby. Are people pushing new starters into 2000pt, basic scenario, matched play games all the time? Are the bad armies bad under every single combination of game-type, realm-type, terrain-type and scenario possible? Can nobody house rule stuff to adjust for better balance when playing against children who are relatively new to the game?

This isn't to say that better balance isn't a good thing, and every time an army is adjusted to improve its competitiveness it is great for the game. But to suggest young people don't get into the game for the hobbying I think is too completely misunderstand the appeal of the game.

[Tip4Tap]

So for me personally I have 5 armies in total and I have just brought into a 6th. So my secret is strength in depth.

however, when I was first starting out at a 13/14 year old boy the only thing that mattered to me was how the models looked. I didn’t even know anything about the game when I started. I only cared that my models looked cool to me.

I was lucky because I had 5 friends who started collecting the same time as me. Some of my fondest memories of Warhammer are setting up our armies/terrain on my mates full sized snooker table Saturday and then playing a massive 6 way game Sunday. So so much fun. I think that’s the most important thing I’d tell a new player, have as much fun as you can. This hobby is expensive and timely, what’s the point in investing if you aren’t enjoying yourself.

Some of my posts may seem a little salty, I’m sorry for that. The 6th army I just invested into is KO and I did it right before the FAQ of death! 

[Vanger]

1 hour ago, Karol said:

I don't really care about KO, and their units. I do not play them, so they can be as bad or as good as GW wants them to make. I was more wondering what a new player who invested some money in to an army, but doesn't have milions of models yet, is suppose to do at the start of an edition, when every veteran player around him is saying that his army is good as a paper weight only. What do people do when they armies are bad?

 

I thought that with the new edition all armies would just get better. I did expect magic armies to get a lot better, no idea if that is true, but the players of those armies do seem to be buying more stuff. Why I on the other hand go through the list of BK units and everyone seems to be saying that each unit got worse, is unplayble, costs too much, the way it was played is no longer valid because the battalion got nerfed etc.

 

Do people play their bad armies as some other army, like stormcasts, till it gets better ?

No matter what army a new player has, if they game against veteran people, they will always have a rude awakening.  It's never the army, that they play, it's the inexperience in list building, knowing the rules, playing the mission.

I just played on Wednesday against a 40K newbie. I even helped him put his list together and I brought a fun army with myself. Even tough I couldn't scratch part of his army (he brought a Land Raider, which is one of the toughest units in 40K and he shot down my anti tank in the first round), he still lost. He didn't space out his units enough, he didn't know how to position units and didn't really play for objectives. I on the other hand knew my army, how it is supposed to work. He fell for my bait units, I could hop from close combat to another and played for the objectives. In the end I won 10 - 4.

I'm new to AoS and so far I only have starter box armies. I expect to get utterly destroyed the first few games, until I figure out , how this game is supposed to work what units do well for me, and which don't.

What I'm trying to say, the perceived balance by veteran players in an entirely different thing how casuals and beginners look at the game. In open and narrative games  the armies are balanced.  Matched play on the other hand is entirely different. But that comes with being competitive.

[chord]

I think these issues occur when AoS turned into a list building game.     

[Xasz]

Do we know if we can still pick an army allegiance like Nurgle but choose our artifacts n stuff either entirely from the GA Chaos table or Nurgle tables?

I haven't found anything if we can default back to the Grand Alliance tables like we could in the previous edition. 

[Asamu]

4 hours ago, Tip4Tap said:

Didn’t see the game, do you know what the lists were? Or where I can find them?

Allegiance: Kharadron Overlords - Barak Ziflin
Arkanaut Admiral
Aether-Khemist
10 x Arkanaut Company
10 x Arkanaut Company 
10 x Arkanaut Company 
6 x Endrinriggers
3 x Skywardens
5 x Grundstok Thunderers
Arkanaut Frigate 
Grundstok Gunhauler 
Grundstok Gunhauler 
Grundstok Gunhauler 
Grundstok Escort Wing 

Total: 1950/ 2000
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 108
 

Pretty sure Rob had this. One of the heroes had the item that gives them the ability to attempt a dispel every turn.

[bsharitt]

2 hours ago, Karol said:

don't really care about KO, and their units. I do not play them, so they can be as bad or as good as GW wants them to make. I was more wondering what a new player who invested some money in to an army, but doesn't have milions of models yet, is suppose to do at the start of an edition, when every veteran player around him is saying that his army is good as a paper weight only. What do people do when they armies are bad?

I'm lucky enough to have the options of playable armies and armies mostly done for hobby reasons. My KO army falls into the latter. While I haven't played them in 2e(but assuming they'll be much worse with the shooting nerfs and no reciprocal buffs), even in 1e they already were't a tine of fun to actually play. They had a couple of tricks to be competitive, even in tournaments, but if you weren't running one of those lists, there was a huge drop off for army to keep up with any remotely competitive army. So it was either lose all the time or play one of the couple of combos that got boring after while, therefore my KO army rarely sees the table. I'm still doing hobby stuff with it some, painting a Necromunda Squat bounty hunter as a pirate lord admiral, but it's almost entirely a hobby-only army. It might see light in a narrative game, and sometimes as allies, but I'll almost never grab it if I'm going for a pick up game. I

All that being said, I don't think they're hopeless. I think they have lots of parts to what could be a good army, but for being one of the new armies, they almost feel like of the old High Elf stub factions(or pre-LoN death factions) where's there's some little sparks of neat stuff, but just don't have the options for a fun army to play over and over again. A second wave of the right models and new battletome would be great. And it doesn't even need to be a huge release either. My only wish list item would be a new battleline option, preferably one that's not awful on combat. Some sort of aethermatic hammer squad or something that's a KO only battleline. I also wouldn't mind a behemoth that feels like a behemoth. Even with the point drops, the boats still just don't feel worth it(disclaimer: I'm basing this just on seeing the point changes and know how bad they were for the points in last edition, but haven't played at the new points), I think GW is really putting too much stock in the value of a transporting. Either fix the boats in a new battletome, or add something new like aethergolems.

[Gecktron]

1 minute ago, bsharitt said:

I'm lucky enough to have the options of playable armies and armies mostly done for hobby reasons. My KO army falls into the latter. While I haven't played them in 2e(but assuming they'll be much worse with the shooting nerfs and no reciprocal buffs), […]

Thats the point! Just play them! 
I have a 80% winrate with my KO in all my 2e test games. To me it doesn't feel like much changed. Im still in the same position I were last edition with my duardin. 

[Infeston]

I think the issue really comes down to the people you are playing with. I for myself don't want to ever game Warhammer competitively. I played a lot of online games, where there is a lot of competitive play happening and for every game (even if it is the most casual game ever) exists a competitive scene. 

But I would say that there are games out there who are suited for competitive play and other games who are not suited for competitive play. And I recognize this with many games that the competitive crowd slowly gains a big influence in games everywhere.

The reason I chose to play Age of Sigmar was because I really wanted to have a break from the competitive mindset which I have to face in many other games I play. But I also have to say that the introduction of points in AoS has changed my mindset a little bit. I recognize that I argue more about points and lists etc. I don't like that my mindset has changed this way. And every time I recognize that I look at this game in a competitive way I have to remind myself that this is not the reason I play this game. 

But the problem is that the mindset of the player base has also shifted. So I am more likely to find other players who want to play competitively than open play or narrative play. I know for many people competitive play is very fun, but for me personally it often just ruins the gaming experience and the fun. I don't like it to destroy my enemy or to defeat other players. I play AoS, because I want to tell a story. This is also why I don't want to minimize randomness for myself in the game. Because every random dice roll and every random event is a new interesting twist or event in a story which I like to tell on the Tabletop.

Still. Sometimes I argue with people about which points are fair and which points are unfair. After these discussions I always have to remind myself that I don't have to focus on the points, which GW hands out or that I don't have to play an even match.  

But I also find it cool that there are still people who push narrative and open play or even organize narrative gaming events. And GW also seems to give narrative players a lot of possibilities to design the match the way they want. There are so many cool narrative rules in the new books.

I think the lesser you focus on list building and points etc. the more likely both players will have fun playing the game. But this is just my opinion. If people only enjoy the game if they play it competitively it is also totally okay. But for me competitive play has ruined many other games, which I enjoyed playing before. Sometimes I am also looking for competitive play, but not in Age of Sigmar. If I want to play competitively I choose other games. 

[stratigo]

5 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Just want to point out that on the WHTV Twitch game on Wednesday, Rob won using a KO list against Ceri's Nighthaunt, playing the new edition.  Rob played the objective game and used his command points in a way that really benefited the army, ultimately giving him a hard fought win.  I wouldn't have even said that he was playing what we've come to recognise as an "optimal" list, so I think it's far too soon to write entire armies off until we've actually played some games. 

That actually leads onto the next thing - we all are going to have to change our lists so that they work better in the new edition.  Not only have there been point changes, but there have been game-changing modifications to the actual rules - those 5 wound heroes can now use their command abilities as an example.  I'd also say that list changes are 50% theory and 50% practice.  Something that looks amazing on paper can be awful on the tabletop, so playing games is key to getting a winning list.  It's also really important to remember that it's not all about smashing your opponent's army off the table, with each year that passes achieving the objective has a bigger part of the game.

Yeah, all those command abilities that... KO don't have. KO got strictly worse as an army.  Let's not pretend otherwise. It's sort of insulting.

 

KO was already an objective play army and not a murder based army.

 

5 hours ago, Dragobeth said:

With the FW pdfs for AoS2 up Carmine Dragon comes with a +4 ignore spells and endless spells

In case that matched play keeps the rule of allies from the core rules instead of the "400 pts top" that we already have I can see that monster has a good ally anti-magic tank (440 points for 14w 3+save, +5 mw save, a ranged weapon with 12" that on 5+ does D6 MW and that +4 ignore spells plus all the melee profile that he comes with) It may not be cheap but it looks like a cool option

I'm a little sad becouse Dread Saurian goes up in points but now it's summoneable with 40 celestial points (not sure how many turns generating points is that)

About the KO topic, full competitive players usually junmp from army to army looking for the current 'hot' list even if their current amy can give a good fight. I'm not saying KO is in a good spot right now, but high end competitive players changing armies is just a signal that there is something better right now, not that the army is unplayable.

I personally think that KO (like some other armies) suffers for having a low option count, a "wave 2" for KO, Sylvaneth, IJ, BCR,etc could do great for the meta and those armies.

KO weren't the best army before 2.0. The tournament guys who played them stuck with them for more than razor edge optimization.

 

4 hours ago, Tip4Tap said:

I think like @Dragobeth said in a previous post the issue is the limited about of models for armies such as KO, Ironjawz, Fyreslayers etc etc. They are massively lacking in depth. Until they get a new release they kind of feel one dimensional.

 

The thing is, the KO could have depth. But GW prefers simply nerfing anything that is good with the army. GW has a vision of how KO should be played and try to adjust to it. The problem is they lack the balls to make any real groundbreaking changes to benefit their vision of the army (ship heavy) and have been overly reliant on nerfing any unit or rules that stand out as good. I'd be fine with a ship heavy KO army. If ships were good enough to carry the army. But they aren't. They'll do for fun games (the gunhauler still doesn't), but against anyone playing a remotely strong army, and in the new edition that's a wide swathe of free summon armies, will stomp all over a ship KO army, so GW killing every single good KO list every time it emerges from the meta is really really annoying.

 

3 hours ago, Brad Gamma said:

I know neither us have data to back this up, but EVERY kid I knew who played warhammer when i was 13, and every friend I have now who used to collect as a kid, started because the models were cool, and actually never properly played the game. I've never met anyone who has entered the hobby to immediately join the local tournament scene either.

When I got my first models, for the first year I just used that as toys for my imaginary games between me and my brother. My first 5 or 6 purchases were from completely different armies. When I stopped buying a few years later (a fairly common cycle amongst wargamers, start as a kid, come back as an adult) it had nothing to do with playing games and my army sucking. Granted the the internet wasn't as big at the time so we wouldn't even have understood what a "meta" was, but it was mainly browsing through white dwarfs and thinking things looked cool and buying those things.

Nowadays it is easier to get straight into the game, but I really don't see this scenario where a kid buys a KO army and gets creamed every single time they play and then gives up the hobby. Are people pushing new starters into 2000pt, basic scenario, matched play games all the time? Are the bad armies bad under every single combination of game-type, realm-type, terrain-type and scenario possible? Can nobody house rule stuff to adjust for better balance when playing against children who are relatively new to the game?

This isn't to say that better balance isn't a good thing, and every time an army is adjusted to improve its competitiveness it is great for the game. But to suggest young people don't get into the game for the hobbying I think is too completely misunderstand the appeal of the game.

 

I got an army and I played it. I wasn't very good, I lost a fair bit. But I also won sometimes. Like, yes, kids dig the models. But do they dig MAKING the models (eg, what I consider hobbying)? Sometimes, but my experience is playing games with friends is usually the first drive.

 

 

[Kirjava13]

16 minutes ago, Infeston said:

I want to tell a story. This is also why I don't want to minimize randomness for myself in the game. Because every random dice roll and every random event is a new interesting twist or event in a story which I like to tell on the Tabletop.

My attitude as well. This is why it doesn't matter whether my Warlock Engineer gobbles down warpstone to supercharge his spell and then drops dead immediately- I'm not trying to win as highest priority, I'm trying to create an entertaining tale about what happened between the two armies, and "things go wrong" is usually more entertaining than "everything goes right". What's that, warpfire thrower weapon team? You went above and beyond in your duties and exploded? Brilliant!

[hughwyeth]

58 minutes ago, Kirjava13 said:

My attitude as well. This is why it doesn't matter whether my Warlock Engineer gobbles down warpstone to supercharge his spell and then drops dead immediately- I'm not trying to win as highest priority, I'm trying to create an entertaining tale about what happened between the two armies, and "things go wrong" is usually more entertaining than "everything goes right". What's that, warpfire thrower weapon team? You went above and beyond in your duties and exploded? Brilliant!

Fellow skaven player! The most damage the doomwheel has done for me was killing my warpfire team, removing the last few wounds on my warp lightning cannon and causing 3 wounds to my grey seer, after rolling 2 6s for movement having declared I'd overcharge it and my opponent gleefully moving it through those units. 

Things Go Wrong could be the skaven motto really. It's why they're so much fun to play!