AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion

[Phasteon]

49 minutes ago, cofaxest said:

For me it's not about punishment or reward. It's just rule construction. You always must remember so many little nuances... And the only one thing that I can consider as BAD is that we can't score when our units are in the ship. So 1 ogor count as more models then fully loaded ironclad. (which is so stupid to be honest)

Then disembark? 

 

Edit: Its stupid to think that our GROUND TROOPS should be able to claim objectives from inside a FLYING ship, and I dont care for competitiveness in this regard (I‘m very competitive myself) instead I‘m glad GW put logic and background over „strong“ ruling

Edited January 21, 2020 by Phasteon

[Kramer]

7 hours ago, GoddammitGary said:

100% disagree. Having bad options is worse than only one option.

I know exactly what choices are and I'm forced to make the same ones each time I write the list cos the options are so bad. 

Such a weird argument to make. I genuinely don't get it and i'm trying to understand. First off this:

7 hours ago, GoddammitGary said:

Once per game

Not while in a garrison

Can't do that cos your item /CT is auto chosen.

The books a cluster ****** of bad decisions and anti synergistic writing that activily works against the reader having fun.

Wasn't the conversation and has no influence on the things being conditional battleline. (I also don't agree with it because it basically comes down to you saying you don't like the rules. I also don't like that my Skaven can't be battleline for my Slaanesh army, they are all chaos aren't they  But that's a separate conversation)

7 hours ago, GoddammitGary said:

You don't feel cheated by a Ill thought out book with the later.

And this is what I feel is wrong. You FEEL cheated. You're not cheated. That's on you and managing your expectations. 

This is the part I feel is bull. You argue that having more battleline IF choices means:

7 hours ago, Kramer said:

And you don't want to use 4/5 of those battle line options. You have to make a decision very early on with your list design on wether you want your list to suck or have rigger/hauler battleline.. and then to access these two you limit your army options way more than you did in the last book (while fitting it in to a reduced pool of battalions)....

But you can still just take 3x10 Arkanauts same as before the book* but then say: 

7 hours ago, GoddammitGary said:

Unfortunately in every game I play the 10 arks i am forced to take die in a blaze of mediocrity. I'd much rather use the spare points and get a decent screen like Merc marauders or something from allies. But Thier a clunky battalion requirement and serve the singular purpose of speed bump that could easily have forfilled by almost any other chaff  in the game better ...but low drops are important...so there they are.....

so you can't get 10 arkanauts to work as screens. Which is fine. It might not fit your playstyle. And you can even get the 20 marauders as a speedbump if that works better for you. But guess what.... sure helps you have 5 conditional battleline options if you go that route doesn't it? You say you understand the choices you're making but you definitely aren't taking responsibility for those choices.

TLDR: More choices also means you can also stick with the 3x10 Arkanauts. Taking anything else your choice and responsibility, they're called conditional battleline for a reason  

 

*And any other army with battleline IF choices by the way. This isn't a KO only thing  

[Kramer]

2 hours ago, Borsuk said:

Yeah, I forget to tell what I meant. We used to have 6 ammendments, footnotes and guidelines, that's what I meant.

I agree with you for most parts, and usually I build my list around some idea, or port and tbh thanks to new battline options I never struggle with minimal tax. I consider this improvement. I just mentioned some of my thoughts. Tome is not flawless, but most certainly it's not terrible. 

Oh that's what you meant. haha was guessing something really different. Yeah that's true and a bit of a shame because i'm more and more considering a non skyport list as well. And on your final note. Absolutely the book is not flawless, but my gutfeeling says it's going to do quite good. It might even become a real deterrent against some lists that rely on synergies. But that's speculation of course. 

 

[cofaxest]

51 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Then disembark? 

 

Edit: Its stupid to think that our GROUND TROOPS should be able to claim objectives from inside a FLYING ship, and I dont care for competitiveness in this regard (I‘m very competitive myself) instead I‘m glad GW put logic and background over „strong“ ruling

Normally you can't after you move the ship.

What logic?) Our ship is flying only when it's moving. Then it stays still it can flow not so hight above the point. So I can't see any reason (other then balance) that can stop models in garrison or ships crew from scoring. 

[Phasteon]

20 minutes ago, cofaxest said:

Normally you can't after you move the ship.

What logic?) Our ship is flying only when it's moving. Then it stays still it can flow not so hight above the point. So I can't see any reason (other then balance) that can stop models in garrison or ships crew from scoring. 

But you have a battalion that allows Arkanauts to be deployed after the ships movement which is a very strong rule imo. (Probably thats what you meant by „normally“ so why not point that out as a strong point?) 

 

The logic that a crew garrisoning a ship is not really holding an objective on the ground. They are „holding“ their ship. 

You know that famous „a small step“ quote? Moon wasnt „claimed“ from inside the shuttle. The man had to get out to place a flag lol. 

It‘s ok to disagree, but pls don‘t pretend your argument (balance) to be mine when its clearly not. 

 

Edit: Lets be honest here, because I read most of your posts in this topic regarding the new tome. 

You would have liked to be able to do everything from inside the ship. Shooting after fly high with everything (so min. range 10“), holding objectives, getting all abilities while also getting „better synergies“, so +1A from Khemist, even + to wound or sth so that you just put down your boats fully loaded with troops, teleport them, blasting the enemy away easily while holding an objective with 10+ models. 

And you are disappointed that the tome isnt OP like that. 

Why dont you just say „I‘m frustrated that the tome is not easymode, I dont care for background or immersion, I just want an easy to play army to stomp my opponents without relying on superior decision making“ ? 

Then we can all understand your points and be constructive about it. 

But you hide your true intention behind „issues with the badly written rules“ like many others. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Phasteon

[cofaxest]

2 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

But you have a battalion that allows Arkanauts to be deployed after the ships movement which is a very strong rule imo. (Probably thats what you meant by „normally“ so why not point that out as a strong point?) 

 

The logic that a crew garrisoning a ship is not really holding an objective on the ground. They are „holding“ their ship. 

You know that famous „a small step“ quote? Moon wasnt „claimed“ from inside the shuttle. The man had to get out to place a flag lol. 

It‘s ok to disagree, but pls don‘t pretend your argument (balance) to be mine when its clearly not. 

Just tell me then. Why ship is scoring but it's crew is not? Why models inside building - scoring but when they inside ship - not? What kind of logic is this? 

You know, when you like something it doesn't mean that this is right. And pls stop pretending that you know better.

[Phasteon]

10 minutes ago, cofaxest said:

Just tell me then. Why ship is scoring but it's crew is not? Why models inside building - scoring but when they inside ship - not? What kind of logic is this? 

You know, when you like something it doesn't mean that this is right. And pls stop pretending that you know better.

And just because you dislike something doesnt mean that it is wrong/bad. 

Pls stop pretending you know better. 

Its my right to disagree with you. 

 

Edit: Well I can see why you think the main reason is balance - because it kind of can be seen that way. 

When you get rewarded for leaving the ship, while being inside is the more defensive/safe choice its probably also a thing of balance. 

But imo thats not the main reason. 

GW did a HUGE  buff on the ships, there is no denying that. And to not make it a game of 2-3 floating boats with 30 models inside them that are actually left in your transport box they made rules that make people want to disembark their units. 

But thats where our definitions crash. You say its bad design and unlogical, I say its good design and logical because 

a) Arkanauts for example are labelled ground troops in the background, so they are supposed to do boarding action/ leaving the ships to claim prospects

b) It would be boring if we never actually saw those models we painted on the table because its the better choice to just leave them inside the ship. 

Thats why I think that you dont care for immersion, just for powerlevel because you would be obviously perfectly fine with leaving your units inside the ship, otherwise we wouldnt have this conversation. And thats sad imo. 

Of course they need to „balance“ the rules around their background - otherwise the army wouldnt be played as intended. 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Phasteon

[Borsuk]

I agree, we need a reason to disembark troops and it would be shame to keep models in box and pretend they here.  On the other hand some abilities (not all abilities) might be used from ships, even logic wise or fluff wise. 

[Entombet]

Well one thing is sure Tzeentch gone on top of this update.

[Phasteon]

Just now, Entombet said:

Well one thing is sure Tzeentch gone on top of this update.

Can you elaborate on that? Because, I dont think its sure. 

Its your opinion, and not even a relatable one because you did not explain it. 

So stop being so absolute. 

[cofaxest]

32 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

And just because you dislike something doesnt mean that it is wrong/bad. 

Pls stop pretending you know better. 

Its my right to disagree with you. 

It is bad FOR ME. It's bad from MY perspective. Nothing more and nothing less. 

It's your right to disagree but noone give you right to tell me how I should think and feel. 

And still I would like to see your opinion about question above.

Just tell me then. Why ship is scoring but it's crew is not? Why models inside building - scoring but when they inside ship - not? What kind of logic is this? 

[Entombet]

8 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Can you elaborate on that? Because, I dont think its sure. 

Its your opinion, and not even a relatable one because you did not explain it. 

So stop being so absolute. 

Well for first they are already showing on turnament top tables thats the first clue.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Entombet

[Phasteon]

1 minute ago, cofaxest said:

It is bad FOR ME. It's bad from MY perspective. Nothing more and nothing less. 

It's your right to disagree but noone give you right to tell me how I should think and feel. 

And still I would like to see your opinion about question above.

Just tell me then. Why ship is scoring but it's crew is not? Why models inside building - scoring but when they inside ship - not? What kind of logic is this? 

I already answered to that. Pls read my post. 

2 minutes ago, Entombet said:

Well for first they are already showing on turnament top tables thats the first point. 

What tournaments? A tournament? Come on man, give those books a few months and 5-6 major events before you bring that point up. 

 

But even assuming you are right on your original post: So what? 

Even if Tzeentch came out on top of the update, whats the point in pointing it out? Its just a random thing put in a discussion. 

It‘s like me saying: „Well, its sure KO came up on top compared to Mawtribes and Sylvaneth“ Yeah and now what? Should Ogor and Sylvaneth players feel bad now?

[Entombet]

6 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

I already answered to that. Pls read my post. 

What tournaments? A tournament? Come on man, give those books a few months and 5-6 major events before you bring that point up. 

 

But even assuming you are right on your original post: So what? 

Even if Tzeentch came out on top of the update, whats the point in pointing it out? Its just a random thing put in a discussion. 

It‘s like me saying: „Well, its sure KO came up on top compared to Mawtribes and Sylvaneth“ Yeah and now what? Should Ogor and Sylvaneth players feel bad now?

Well if they want to play competetively some are.

[Phasteon]

14 minutes ago, Entombet said:

Well if they want to play competetively some are.

Sorry, I have no empathy for those people. 

You either deal with what you got or you stop playing. 
Complaining is weak sauce.

 

Edit: Oh and btw. If every army had the same strengths/weaknesses and the exact same powerlevel in every regard you could simply role a dice at the beginning and who rolls higher wins. 

Would save much time. 

The game is about abusing the imbalance between unit types in different armies. 

If you do better shooting you outshoot, if you do better fighting you try to melee, if you do better movement you outmaneuver. 

Show me one army that does ALL the things in the game better than every other army. Hint: you cant, and if you do you probably lie so you dont have to agree that you cant. 

 

The „meta“ is only defined by whats played and what is good against whats played. 

I bet Slaanesh wouldnt have about 60+% winrate if only 1 wound horde armies would have been played. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Phasteon

[Entombet]

3 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Sorry, I have no empathy for those people. 

You either deal with what you got or you stop playing. 
Complaining is weak sauce. 

Well seams not only im absolute

[marke]

No matter how "non-constructive" the complaining is, it is very much needed. Dealing with things is certainly helpful, but rule-development requires feedback. 

[cofaxest]

1 hour ago, Phasteon said:

a) Arkanauts for example are labelled ground troops in the background, so they are supposed to do boarding action/ leaving the ships to claim prospects

b) It would be boring if we never actually saw those models we painted on the table because its the better choice to just leave them inside the ship.

You are right, but the main problem is that I still can't see my troops until ship is crashed. I play barak-urbaz with only one transport ship with big unit of thunderers and 2 heroes. Everything else are gunhaulers and skyriggers. So most of the time I can't use 40-50% of my rules. 

Ofc if you really like sky squadron battalion/zilfin/admiral with command trait your formula will work, but don't you think that this is abit too restrictive? 

1 hour ago, Phasteon said:

Thats why I think that you dont care for immersion, just for powerlevel because you would be obviously perfectly fine with leaving your units inside the ship, otherwise we wouldnt have this conversation. And thats sad imo. 

Of course they need to „balance“ the rules around their background - otherwise the army wouldnt be played as intended. 

 

How is this connected. Even if my units can score when they inside I still would like to disembark them for more dmg. The main difference is that they more tanky inside and more deadly outsoutside.

Unit of 20 thunderers and 2 heroes inside huge ship sitting on the point and doing nothing to protect it. This is what breaks immersion for me.

Edited January 21, 2020 by cofaxest

[Phasteon]

39 minutes ago, Entombet said:

Well seams not only im absolute

I‘m absolute about the options people realistically have if they are unhappy with the game they play.

 

You are absolute about a point you cant even proof. 

2 very different things, but nice try though. 

[Phasteon]

40 minutes ago, marke said:

No matter how "non-constructive" the complaining is, it is very much needed. Dealing with things is certainly helpful, but rule-development requires feedback. 

Wrong. „Non-constructive“ complains are not needed as they create a wrong picture of the problem. 

The problem is not bad rule writing, the problem is that people dont want to adapt to a different style of play.

Sure, GW could take that criticism serious and make KO like their 1.0 version again, then we could thank our „non-constructive“ crybabies on the internet for ruining our army 🙂. 

Edit: Of course they could have made the rules so we can use all abilities while garrisoned. 

Yes they could have let us buff our shooting to over 9000. 

Then we would discuss the topic „Why are KO so OP, GW is nuts“ 

Dont you think they toned down the rules on purpose so the tome is not op? 

The army shall win through superior movement while being barely survivable enough to withstand shots and some combat. 

If they got everything how are people supposed to beat us? 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Phasteon

[Entombet]

2 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

I‘m absolute about the options people realistically have if they are unhappy with the game they play.

 

You are absolute about a point you cant even proof. 

2 very different things, but nice try though. 

I gave you a proof, when army which was nerfed to the ground shows on turnament week after new book and take 2 spots on top 3 in first turnament it sees. And there are KO on 20+ or 30+ place. And you can bend your reality as much you can. End of story from my side.

[Phasteon]

22 minutes ago, Entombet said:

I gave you a proof, when army which was nerfed to the ground shows on turnament week after new book and take 2 spots on top 3 in first turnament it sees. And there are KO on 20+ or 30+ place. And you can bend your reality as much you can. End of story from my side.

You call 1 tournament „proof“ ? 

So if I roll 1 die and roll a 6 the statistical outcome is 6? 

Who is bending reality? What a rude choice of words anyway. I‘m not bending reality, I‘m disagreeing with your perception of it. 

If KO win next tournament will you call them best army then?

Edited January 21, 2020 by Phasteon

[Eevika]

1 hour ago, Phasteon said:

Edit: Oh and btw. If every army had the same strengths/weaknesses and the exact same powerlevel in every regard you could simply role a dice at the beginning and who rolls higher wins. 

Actually if this was the case player skill and decision making would determine who wins 😂 

[GoddammitGary]

23 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Wrong. „Non-constructive“ complains are not needed as they create a wrong picture of the problem. 

The problem is not bad rule writing, the problem is that people dont want to adapt to a different style of play.

Sure, GW could take that criticism serious and make KO like their 1.0 version again, then we could thank our „non-constructive“ crybabies on the internet for ruining our army 🙂. 

Edit: Of course they could have made the rules so we can use all abilities while garrisoned. 

Yes they could have let us buff our shooting to over 9000. 

Then we would discuss the topic „Why are KO so OP, GW is nuts“ 

Dont you think they toned down the rules on purpose so the tome is not op? 

The army shall win through superior movement while being barely survivable enough to withstand shots and some combat. 

If they got everything how are people supposed to beat us? 

It's very firmly bad rule writing....

..or maybe not writing per say. But tome construction. Individualy a lot of the rules are cool/fine. But then the whole book had someone go through it adding restrictions and provisos which make it s ball ache to read /digest/ make lists with.

 

As I said before..and I have no idea how the person didn't get this point ;

 

The lists you end up with are good and fun

 

The process you go through to get to this (same) list are utter garbo/ frustrating/ full off dead ends for no good reason

 

It's like someone faq nerfed the book before it went to print and it reads very very badly 

[Phasteon]

2 minutes ago, Eevika said:

Actually if this was the case player skill and decision making would determine who wins 😂 

And every list/game would look the same. 

Go an play chess then, replacing the tokens with Warhammer models.