6 Nations take aways

[Xasz]

4 minutes ago, Vextol said:

I understand now.  I was mostly talking about removing the battalion bonus of going first.  It's kind of like a "Once per game, you can go first as long as someone else doesn't also have this ability" except it costs a lot to do it and  you limit what you can take.  I think if you remove the perk of getting to choose who goes first, battalions should drop by like 80% in cost.

I've never disagreed with a statement more than this one on this board.

The matter of the fact is, battalions would be taken almost exactly as frequently as they are taken now. Going first and dominating first round is just the icing on the battalion-cupcake that GW has been baking for quite some time now. The prevalence of battalions is one of the major pitfalls of AoS and instead of relieving the issue they made it worse. It's almost like they've learned nothing from Formations in 40k.

[Skabnoze]

1 minute ago, Xasz said:

I've never disagreed with a statement more than this one on this board.

The matter of the fact is, battalions would be taken almost exactly as frequently as they are taken now. Going first and dominating first round is just the icing on the battalion-cupcake that GW has been baking for quite some time now. The prevalence of battalions is one of the major pitfalls of AoS and instead of relieving the issue they made it worse. It's almost like they've learned nothing from Formations in 40k.

They learned a little.  At least AoS requires you to pay for the battalion...

[Vextol]

15 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

I would make the argument that armies, and the game as a whole, would be better off if armies had more/better tools than an alpha-strike.

Fair.  But's let be honest, they aren't going to do that.  They'll simply wreck one army and leave them in the dust.  I'd love a rework to make armies more playable in other areas, but they usually just nerf them into the shadow realms instead.

13 minutes ago, Xasz said:

I've never disagreed with a statement more than this one on this board.

The matter of the fact is, battalions would be taken almost exactly as frequently as they are taken now. Going first and dominating first round is just the icing on the battalion-cupcake that GW has been baking for quite some time now. The prevalence of battalions is one of the major pitfalls of AoS and instead of relieving the issue they made it worse. It's almost like they've learned nothing from Formations in 40k.

Thank you!  That's the most extreme reactions to one of my comments ever! ?  I like batallions.  Helps new players recognize combos a little, lets people build toward a specific style, but I understand your concerns.  I do believe that the first turn drop is a huge portion of what makes batallions good though.  It's pretty extreme to say it would have no impact on how often they would be taken because I can think of one person, me, who would definitely reconsider some options in future builds.

[Skabnoze]

5 hours ago, Karol said:

It does create problems though, and it is not like it is just those two armies. Whole destruction has rather meh casters, so even allying stuff in helps a lot.  Plus the points adjustments to some armies, mean that armies like slyers don't have free points to buy casters.  I am not saying that removing magic is the way to fix problems, but the problems are there, and will only get bigger the more armies get battle tomes and more streamlined the already good magic armies like LoN get.

It would have been better if they had added more ways, or items, that functioned like Warhammer Fantasy dispel scrolls.  The increased range to dispel is a good thing, but the game is currently quite magic heavy and very anti-magic light.  It's too early to make the call right now, but I feel that they should have hit a better middle-ground.

[Xasz]

1 minute ago, Vextol said:

Helps new players recognize combos a little, lets people build toward a specific style, but I understand your concerns.  I do believe that the first turn drop is a huge portion of what makes batallions good though.  It's pretty extreme to say it would have no impact on how often they would be taken because I can think of one person, me, who would definitely reconsider some options in future builds.

Don't get me wrong.

I like battalions and they are cool for exactly the first reason you have stated but in their current iteration they are just overloaded and provide too much stuff to the point were they are borderline mandatory, sometimes just for the 1-drop.

On another note, I wrote that a change would impact how frequent battalions would be picked but that number wouldn't decrease as much as many people think.

[ianob]

Dreadwood Wargrove: Still take it for ambush.

Shadowstrike Starhost: Still take it for deepstrike

Lords of Sacrament: Still take it for the spells

Dracothion’s tail: Still take it for the reserves/deepstrike

And let’s not forget these all give you an artifact and a command point.

Why do they also need to make you go first or reduce your drops? Don’t tell me that battalions are pointed in such a way as to include points for making you lower your drop count. In fact don’t even tell me that 90% of the battalions in the game are pointed by any scientific method whatsoever. Battalions are mostly pointed completely arbitrarily, let’s not pretend otherwise, and let’s not pretend that they are anything like balanced across factions either.

AoS has pretty good balance, for a wargame, but battalions are not one of the things that are well balanced and as such drops/turn 1 cannot be either.

[Vextol]

5 minutes ago, ianob said:

Dreadwood Wargrove: Still take it for ambush.

Shadowstrike Starhost: Still take it for deepstrike

Lords of Sacrament: Still take it for the spells

Dracothion’s tail: Still take it for the reserves/deepstrike

And let’s not forget these all give you an artifact and a command point.

Why do they also need to make you go first or reduce your drops? Don’t tell me that battalions are pointed in such a way as to include points for making you lower your drop count. In fact don’t even tell me that 90% of the battalions in the game are pointed by any scientific method whatsoever. Battalions are mostly pointed completely arbitrarily, let’s not pretend otherwise, and let’s not pretend that they are anything like balanced across factions either.

AoS has pretty good balance, for a wargame, but battalions are not one of the things that are well balanced and as such drops/turn 1 cannot be either.

Good examples except they are basically giving you a similar advantages to going first, just wearing different clothing.  Deepstriking and alpha striking share some similarities-you can hit things that don't want to be hit in ways they have a hard time defending.  If the issue is going first, those batallions will be  some of the least impacted.  I would argue that deepstriking is much more tactical/concerning than alpha striking. 

Also, there are a lot of batallions that give very minor bonuses that you pay a lot for that don't give nearly the same benefits.  I would argue most batallions don't give such overwhelming goodness.  Blight cyst would be a good example of a largely used batallion that gets great benefits from the first turn placement that is not ambushing or deepstriking (though very very good on its own).  Take away going first and that will remove a big part of its benefit.

The command point/artifact thing is a pretty big plus, but these are also under attack a little from critics.  Everything is fluid.  If you hurt good artifacts AND lose the first turn AND can't stack command abilities, most batallions are starting to look pretty expensive and unappealing. 

If some batallions are seriously broken, they should fix those to make others more attractive.  I don't think it's necessary to remove a useful element from them all.  That will just make the broken ones (especially the ones listed) even more powerful.

 

[ianob]

I definitely agree that widespread battalion fixes would be preferable. I think deepstriking adds good tactical elements to the game, but I’d prefer to see it used in waysbthatbwasnt simply as a vector for alpha striking. So I sort of agree there too.

But I think those fixes are incredibly unlikely. The game is what it is. And in lieu of those things, changing the turn roll - a simple fix that solves most of the issues created by the root oroblems you rightly mention - is much more elegant. And much more likely, given its ease of implementation.

[dmorley21]

Hey all.

I'm returning to the hobby after stopping around when WHFB 8th ED came out; I always loved strategy and am enjoying this discussion to better understand the game, but I don't understand the different between a deep strike and an alpha strike. Anyone care to explain? Thanks!

[Vextol]

2 minutes ago, dmorley21 said:

Hey all.

I'm returning to the hobby after stopping around when WHFB 8th ED came out; I always loved strategy and am enjoying this discussion to better understand the game, but I don't understand the different between a deep strike and an alpha strike. Anyone care to explain? Thanks!

At its most basic, deepstriking is popping up and attacking or claiming key points often behind enemy lines, Alpha Striking is hitting the enemy hard, typically targeting the most key elements of an army, very early in the game.

[ianob]

16 minutes ago, dmorley21 said:

Hey all.

I'm returning to the hobby after stopping around when WHFB 8th ED came out; I always loved strategy and am enjoying this discussion to better understand the game, but I don't understand the different between a deep strike and an alpha strike. Anyone care to explain? Thanks!

Deep striking is a term used from 40k which had the rule of the same name. It simply means the act of setting up on the battlefield using something that “teleports” you somewhere further on than normal. So things like Stormcast coming down viabkightninf strike, or Ghosts popping up from the underworld.

Alpha striking generally means hitting first and hitting hard. Often an alpha strike is achieved by deep striking in and then charging, which is why you’ll see the two terms used together, but alpha striking can also be something as simple as going first and shooting lots of ranged weapons or spells at your enemy.

Hope that helps!

[Skabnoze]

5 hours ago, ianob said:

Unless you think goblins dealing 200 damage is preferential to not incidentally taking away Kroak's ability to use his command ability a few times in terms of maintaining short term integrity, of course.

Well, if we are going to have blatantly broken rules interactions then it might as well be the lowly grot that turns into the nuclear warhead of the mortal realms.

I’ll admit that I find the idea of Archaon, Alarielle, and Nagash being killed outright in a single hit from an angry grot with a sharp stick to be pretty hilarious.  I kinda want to see this happen at a tournament or two before it gets fixed.  If something broken is going to distort a couple tournaments then it might as well be this level of absurd.

One-shotting major characters certainly displays how dumb this stacking interaction is, but it is probably not the most effective way to use this tactic.  Spreading out smaller stacks of the command abilities to explode multiple enemy units and cripple the enemy army is probably the better tactic.

A good rule of thumb for most war games is to avoid exponents.

[TheOtherJosh]

1 minute ago, Skabnoze said:

A good rule of thumb for most war games is to avoid exponents.

And in general, if you’re going for the wins, always aim for your opponents.

[ianob]

4 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

And in general, if you’re going for the wins, always aim for your opponents.

:beatboxes:

[Skabnoze]

14 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

And in general, if you’re going for the wins, always aim for your opponents.

Lol, I meant in terms of rules design.

But your advice is sound as a battle tactic.  Unless you are skaven - and then aim for everyone .  That's what slaves are for.  Just listen to King Edward in Braveheart:

[amysrevenge]

18 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

And in general, if you’re going for the wins, always aim for your opponents.

And if you're really going for the win, aim for your opponent's general.

[Skabnoze]

4 hours ago, Arkiham said:

My take away from it ?

 

All those players who were doom and gloom before launch were proven right. 

 

Almost as if you don't need to play a game to see how broken it is if you know how to play

??

I don't think things are as terrible as a lot are making it sound (even me at times).  This is typical new-system GW.  They have always had the tendency to not understand all of the implications of a lot of rules changes they make and to either be blindsided by interactions or heavily underestimate player's tendency to abuse things.  It is pretty much par for the course with GW game design.

On the bright side, they do seem much more willing to intervene and address issues in a relatively quick manner than they used to be.  So I expect we will have a couple of months of partial rules insanity before they clamp down on some of this stuff.  Expect for some things to be hit hard in an errata and book rewrites to knock out some others.  If the rumors of an upcoming Moonclan battletome are true then I would not be surprised to see the grot spear of doom to be addressed when that book drops.

[Sleboda]

6 hours ago, Andreas said:

Yes it will of course get fixed and he was probably right RAW

In a game that has printed rules, especially when playing at a paid competition, the "AW" in "RAW" is redundant and pretty much only ever used as a more civil way to be snide to the opposition (not saying that's the case for you). 

The Rules say X. The Rules As Written say X as well. Same thing.

[Arkiham]

14 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

I don't think things are as terrible as a lot are making it sound (even me at times).  This is typical new-system GW.  They have always had the tendency to not understand all of the implications of a lot of rules changes they make and to either be blindsided by interactions or heavily underestimate player's tendency to abuse things.  It is pretty much par for the course with GW game design.

On the bright side, they do seem much more willing to intervene and address issues in a relatively quick manner than they used to be.  So I expect we will have a couple of months of partial rules insanity before they clamp down on some of this stuff.  Expect for some things to be hit hard in an errata and book rewrites to knock out some others.  If the rumors of an upcoming Moonclan battletome are true then I would not be surprised to see the grot spear of doom to be addressed when that book drops.

how is it not terrible?

they were warned many times by people in the community that these rules were silly, and dangerous for the game and peoples enjoyment of it for the entire time they were doing the community articles 
they even released a FAQ day 1 im fairly certain purposefully targeting some units, all these issues currently around waiting for the 2nd round of FAQ's for aos 2 ( its only been out for a week ) are ones that should have been in the main rule books. 

they're super obvious, even to the most casual of players of those armies. let alone seasoned tournament goers.

its frankly embarrassing . 

 

being quick to fix an issue you caused isn't something that should be praised its something that should be expected.  
 

[Skabnoze]

2 hours ago, Vextol said:

Have you played against Nagash?  Not a lot of fun for Kharadrons if you can't alpha strike him.  You have to setup in a way that allows you to kill him turn 1 because once he gets rolling you have almost no chance.

I love the turn 1 rule for batallions because without it alpha strike armies/lists are at a serious disadvantage and as a KO player I really don't want any MORE disadvantages.

I know no one likes being alpha striked (struck?) but I don't like dealing with seemingly endless magic, full unit regeneration, 1+ reroll 1 saves and a variety of other things that other armies can do.

Variety is the spice of life. 

Kharadron Overlords simply needs a full-blown rewrite.  It is a visually great army with a great theme.  I appreciate the attempt by the rules team to make an army with a playstyle that runs very counter to the standard way the game plays, but this first attempt fell pretty flat - and that was even before the new edition kicked them in the teeth.  They had severely limited builds from the get-go and the very effective ones trend heavily towards bad play experience territory.

I would rather see KO be a good army with effective builds than a bad one, but I also don't want them to be an army that I simply don't want to play a game against.  I have no issues with losing, but some battles are simply not fun to play regardless of the outcome.  Those sorts of lists should be addressed and KO sits right in that territory.  So I will happily get right in line with KO players and clamor for a new thought-out battletome rewrite.

[Andreas]

3 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

In a game that has printed rules, especially when playing at a paid competition, the "AW" in "RAW" is redundant and pretty much only ever used as a more civil way to be snide to the opposition (not saying that's the case for you). 

The Rules say X. The Rules As Written say X as well. Same thing.

What are you talking about? After that in the matchup against England we all agreed that thats is not the way to play the scenario. Problem solved....(at a paid competition!?!), the rules are not law. The only problem with the first match was that no one knew that this was a way to interpret the scenario rules until after the game was played. We had missed to have the discussion before the game. But it is what it is and it was good that it happend since it highlighted a problem.

[Skabnoze]

12 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

how is it not terrible?

they were warned many times by people in the community that these rules were silly, and dangerous for the game and peoples enjoyment of it for the entire time they were doing the community articles 
they even released a FAQ day 1 im fairly certain purposefully targeting some units, all these issues currently around waiting for the 2nd round of FAQ's for aos 2 ( its only been out for a week ) are ones that should have been in the main rule books. 

they're super obvious, even to the most casual of players of those armies. let alone seasoned tournament goers.

its frankly embarrassing . 

 

being quick to fix an issue you caused isn't something that should be praised its something that should be expected.  
 

None of those issues could really be fixed during the period of time of the Community articles.  All of the books were already being cranked out at the printers.  It was far too late by then.

I say it is not terrible because this edition is filled to the brim with good and fun ideas - they simply screwed up in a handfull of cases as they always do when they issue a new edition for their games.  I have played for 8 editions of 40k, 7 editions of Warhammer Fantasy (if you include AoS), and multiple other smaller games.  They always get stuff wrong on release - especially when they do backwards-compatible editions.  There is always going to be a short period where the game is a bit coo-coo for cocoa-puffs and we just have to deal with it for a bit.  But the sky is not falling.  GW has shown over the last 2 years that they are willing to step in relatively quickly to fix major issues once they are fully known.  I would not chalk up the edition to being a loss in any way yet.  Every single issue we have brought up can be fixed with just a handful of solutions.  Give it a bit of time and lets see what the first major errata brings.

Overlooking bent rules interactions is pretty much the only thing you can consistently expect from GW.  You have not played their games for very long if you expected otherwise.  At least now it seems clear that we won't have to wait for entire new editions for some things to be fixed.  The current situation is far better than it was at points in the past.

[Arkiham]

1 minute ago, Skabnoze said:

None of those issues could really be fixed during the period of time of the Community articles.  All of the books were already being cranked out at the printers.  It was far too late by then.

 

they must have been obvious before the books went to the print. 

you dont print a million books then decide to read the rules & playtest it...

[Vextol]

13 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

Kharadron Overlords simply needs a full-blown rewrite.  It is a visually great army with a great theme.  I appreciate the attempt by the rules team to make an army with a playstyle that runs very counter to the standard way the game plays, but this first attempt fell pretty flat - and that was even before the new edition kicked them in the teeth.  They had severely limited builds from the get-go and the very effective ones trend heavily towards bad play experience territory.

I would rather see KO be a good army with effective builds than a bad one, but I also don't want them to be an army that I simply don't want to play a game against.  I have no issues with losing, but some battles are simply not fun to play regardless of the outcome.  Those sorts of lists should be addressed and KO sits right in that territory.  So I will happily get right in line with KO players and clamor for a new thought-out battletome rewrite.

Hard to disagree with this.  They need some casters, a little less damage at long range, a little more durability and a few REAL buffs or debuffs (none of this 3 inch away garbage on heroes that cant ever make it).  But honestly, who doesn't have a list of things they wish their army had more of?  The KO are just tough because it's hard to have an army that is really good at shooting with lots of models that doesn't feel like an alpha strike army.  They hit you right away from long distance.

The issue for me is always that balance tends to impact uniqueness.  If you take away the things that make an army unique (like their ability to snipe out key targets consistently), they end up feeling like a low class version of an army that's slightly worse at shooting but strong in areas that the KO are weak in.  This isn't a KO specific problem, they are just an easy target to examine.

They key thing is always to make an enjoyable experience for both players and I agree that alpha striking DOES NOT do that.  For the KO, I don't know how to create an experience that is fun and retain even a shred of what they are now.

 

[Karol]

3 hours ago, Solaris said:

Let's put it like this - taking an artefact specifically to stop Kroak is silly unless you expect to face Kroak more than half your games. I faced Kroak at 6 nations. I ate his damage. I healed right back up, and then I killed him. No need for the lens.

I'm not saying it isn't good. It is. It's absolutely fantastic. What I am saying is that it's not the "overwhelmingly best artefact in the book". There are contenders. Our team didn't bring a lens, because all of us saw greater value in other artefacts.

I am sorry, but with the rules he has right now, you would not expect to see him very often at top tables? I guess you could build a tournament list that is ment to end up in the middle, and then running in to a Kroak list would be based on luck in games 1-2, but it still would be a stretch to expect to not face at least one list.