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

6 Nations take aways

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Solaris said:

Actually, it's not at all the "overwhelmingly best magic item in the book". There are many armies that benefit tremendously from other magic items and don't take a second look at the lens.

It is overwhelmingly the best in the great majority of situations to the point that more armies will include it than not include it. 

I actually misread it as once per game on my first readthrough somehow, mostly because my brain refused to register that something that good with an infinite duration effect got through playtesting intact.

1 hour ago, ledha said:

As for kroak, guys, we don't need more game. You need ZERO playtest to know that Kroak able to bypass the rule of one is ****** and will lead to hilariously stupid results, and command ability stacking is unfair

This. The constant "we need more data" or "you can't know until you've played it more" is frankly ridiculous. No-one needed to play a game with Kroak to see that his nukes and his command ability were broken. No one needed to play a game to know that stacking command abilities was dumb. Some stuff just needs to be fixed, and that's that. I don't get the attitude that these things are fine - they're just bad for the game, bad for the players, don't create enjoyable experiences at any level.

Edited by ianob
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

??

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ianob said:

It is overwhelmingly the best in the great majority of situations to the point that more armies will include it than not include it. 

Nope, it just isn't. It's strong, but situational. I'd specifically take it in an army where spell damage was an issue, not elsewhere. There are several artefacts in the book that rival the lens in terms of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes 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

??

This sounds like confirmation bias. The event proved to me that the new system is a lot of fun to play, and that there's a lot of great people in this hobby. Some things came up that need tuning, which is expected during a transition from one system to the next. I'm thrilled to get home and start experimenting properly with the new edition!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vextol said:

I completely disagree.  If we remove something because all armies don't have it we're going to have an extremely boring game. 

Spell casting is a huge portion of this game now.  Khorne and KO are extremely underpowered because of it.  Sure, we can take some allies like SCE wizards to help but basically the KO army is no longer viable on its own.  I don't believe this means we should "remove magic" from the game because of it.

First turn drops are simply an element of some armies. 

It's fun that on its own, the magic pretty tame in the new edition. I played against four Tzeencth casters today and he got 5? spells though in the whole game against my single Runelord. On the other hand, with some casting bonuses and endless spells and other stuff it can get pretty wild. It's bit like back in old whfb, a single wizard is often pretty pointless, but if you put lots of effort on it, it can win games. ButI would also say that it works only for those armies that have the required tools available.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Solaris said:

Nope, it just isn't. It's strong, but situational. I'd specifically take it in an army where spell damage was an issue, not elsewhere. There are several artefacts in the book that rival the lens in terms of power.

Please name one.  It also doesn't matter if it is situational since it completely obviates having to prepare in any other way against magic based armies.  No single item, unit, ability, spell, or anything else in the game can defend against such an extremely common tool.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

First turn should be changed, but not as a result of 6N - it should have been changed in V2 anyway. As we talked about on our podcast, it's not achievable for every army to 1-drop as a choice, it's not a fair mechanic, and as such it should not be a mechanic that exists as it simply pushes out whole swathes of army types because they are not "low drop enough". Guaranteed first turn should never be a thing.

This is the single most disappointing thing about 2.0... I was rather happy with the new (and sadly wrong) interpretation, only to realize that it remained the same and that battalions became even more powerful through command points.

It's rather sad, when the misread rules are a lot better than the actual ones and I'm really interested if they are going to fix some things with the not so distant FAQ.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

Please name one.  It also doesn't matter if it is situational since it completely obviates having to prepare in any other way against magic based armies.  No single item, unit, ability, spell, or anything else in the game can defend against such an extremely common tool.

Doppelganger Cloak on a Bloodthirster. Ethereal Amulet which I ran on my Stonehorn. The Aqshy thing that gives +4" move and fly. And I think there's a weapon that gives +1 to hit/wound? All amazing. I don't need to defend against magic unless it's alpha striking magic, and even then I can defend by deploying well. I prefer to play to my army's strengths and weaknesses, and if magic isn't specifically a weakness of mine I don't need the lens.

Edited by Solaris
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Solaris said:

Doppelganger Cloak on a Bloodthirstier. Ethereal Amulet which I ran on my Stonehorn. The Aqshy thing that gives +4" move and fly. And I think there's a weapon that gives +1 to hit/wound? All amazing. I don't need to defend against magic unless it's alpha striking magic, and even then I can defend by deploying well. I prefer to play to my army's strengths and weaknesses, and if magic isn't specifically a weakness of mine I don't need the lens.

Let's put it like this: Most spells in the game do D3 mortal wounds per cast. The lens protects against D3 of those wounds per cast for every unit within 6".

Since Kroak has been namedropped: All of Kroak's spells do D3 mortal wounds against a whole bunch of units, and more if those are daemons.

The lens can enable you to outright nullify all of his, and a lot of spellcaster's damage, as long as positioning is on point.

Sure, -you- might not need it, but is it hands down one of the best magic items available as a "into anything.." pick? Without a doubt :)

Edited by Mayple
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mayple said:

Let's put it like this: Most spells in the game do D3 mortal wounds per cast. The lens protects against D3 of those wounds per cast for every unit within 6".

Since Kroak has been namedropped: All of Kroak's spells do D3 mortal wounds against a whole bunch of units, and more if those are daemons.

The lens can enable you to outright nullify all of his, and a lot of spellcaster's damage, as long as positioning is on point.

Sure, -you- might not need it, but is it hands down one of the best magic items available as a "into anything.." pick? Without a doubt :)

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.

Edited by Solaris
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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 turn one. 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.

Gonna have to correct you, as I simply didn't say that ;)

Kroak was an example, not the reason.

The lens is a top contender, not "the overwhelmingly best artifact in the book"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Solaris said:

Doppelganger Cloak on a Bloodthirstier. Ethereal Amulet which I ran on my Stonehorn. The Aqshy thing that gives +4" move and fly. And I think there's a weapon that gives +1 to hit/wound? All amazing. I don't need to defend against magic unless it's alpha striking magic, and even then I can defend by deploying well. I prefer to play to my army's strengths and weaknesses, and if magic isn't specifically a weakness of mine I don't need the lens.

Cloak is a neat trick, nothing more.  That bloodthirster will do 4 to 10 melee damage, why would that bother me?  Ethereal amulet?  Any horde unit cares nothing for it and hordes are a dime a dozen these days.  Some bonus move is decent... But why not just take a model that has high movement to begin with?  +1 hit/wound.  Any number of spells and abilities can do this.  

None of the above provide anywhere close to the benefit of being able to almost completely ignore a very large piece of the game. 

Edit: I do think those artifacts are all good and have places in certain lists and in that certain lists may be more beneficial than the Lens.  The biggest benefit of the lens is that it can fit into any list.

Edited by Richelieu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mayple said:

Gonna have to correct you, as I simply didn't say that ;)

Kroak was an example, not the reason.

The lens is a top contender, not "the overwhelmingly best artifact in the book"

No, I've been writing in response to others who claim the lens is "overwhelmingly the best".

This debate isn't gonna lead anywhere, so I'm tapping out. Ask yourselves this: How often do you take d3 magic damage to the extent that it heavily influences the outcome of the game? If it's often, and you can live with putting everything important within 6" of the lens, take it. If that's not the case, take something that's more likely to bring you victory.

Edited by Solaris
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jamopower said:

It's fun that on its own, the magic pretty tame in the new edition. I played against four Tzeencth casters today and he got 5? spells though in the whole game against my single Runelord. On the other hand, with some casting bonuses and endless spells and other stuff it can get pretty wild. It's bit like back in old whfb, a single wizard is often pretty pointless, but if you put lots of effort on it, it can win games. ButI would also say that it works only for those armies that have the required tools available.

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. 

As for Kroak, if you don't like him bring a stardrake and fly in and eat him ?

Edited by Vextol
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes 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. 

As for Kroak, if you don't like him bring a stardrake and fly in and eat him ?

Yes Nagahs is surely a beast. What I meant that many armies that have wizards are in the same boat as Khorne and Kharadrons because their wizards are not really that good even with the endless spells and other stuff in the game, as without bonuses to cast, you don't get too many of those spells through against those armies that have the bonuses.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

Yes Nagahs is surely a beast. What I meant that many armies that have wizards are in the same boat as Khorne and Kharadrons because their wizards are not really that good even with the endless spells and other stuff in the game, as without bonuses to cast, you don't get too many of those spells through against those armies that have the bonuses.  

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.

Edit: I think you need a few ridiculous ones like the Lens.  The dumb part is that they should have just removed the artifacts that literally no one will ever take.  People wouldn't be upset if each realm had 2 artifacts and they all had amazing potential.  It's just that there are so many that are total garbage it really amplifies the goodness of the other ones.

Edited by Vextol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ianob said:

They've already started the command point stacking fixes to be honest. Nurgle Greater Demons and Freeguild Generals (yeah they were high on the fix list clearly!) were changed. I'm confident they're intending to do it to other models too, which is why I'm happy that comping it for our event is simply doing now what GW might take a while to get round to.

What surprises me is that they did not solve it with a single core rule - like a unit can only be affected by a specific command ability once per round.

I realize that they seem to be planning to handle this within the text of the command abilities themselves, but I honestly cannot think of a good reason for most command abilities in the game to stack.  It seems like stacking should be the more restricted case.  It feels like it would have been much better design to restrict stacking as a core rule and then for the few rare abilities that would be specifically designed to stack to have a clause in their rule allowing them to do so.  It just seems to me that they way they implemented this mechanic is going to be much more prone to issues and result in more work for the developers in the end.  If they had disallowed it and then implemented specific exceptions it would have curbed most issues automatically and resulted in less work from the devs. 

I dunno about everyone else but I am all about making my own job easier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like GW tried to change too much too quickly while also juggling the insane release speed of 40K.

They need to slow down and focus a bit more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

Yes Nagahs is surely a beast. What I meant that many armies that have wizards are in the same boat as Khorne and Kharadrons because their wizards are not really that good even with the endless spells and other stuff in the game, as without bonuses to cast, you don't get too many of those spells through against those armies that have the bonuses.  

Agree.  I think now you either have to accept that you're going to just have incidental magic you can't rely upon, or you have to go full bore (Example: Storm cast wizard battalion +1 to cast, stardrake +1 to cast, celestial warbringers CA +1 to cast and a once per game artifact that is +1 cast and damage for that hero phase).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it tells something about the command ability stacking that some people didn't believe it was allowed even when the books were out. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh - one question to those who played - how did it go with realm spells?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

What surprises me is that they did not solve it with a single core rule - like a unit can only be affected by a specific command ability once per round.

I realize that they seem to be planning to handle this within the text of the command abilities themselves, but I honestly cannot think of a good reason for most command abilities in the game to stack.  It seems like stacking should be the more restricted case.  It feels like it would have been much better design to restrict stacking as a core rule and then for the few rare abilities that would be specifically designed to stack to have a clause in their rule allowing them to do so.  It just seems to me that they way they implemented this mechanic is going to be much more prone to issues and result in more work for the developers in the end.  If they had disallowed it and then implemented specific exceptions it would have curbed most issues automatically and resulted in less work from the devs. 

I dunno about everyone else but I am all about making my own job easier.

Stacking isnt awful in some cases, take Idoneth for example.  I can stack +1 attack on up to 3 units multiple times, which is quite powerful but you have to have Volturnos as your general and you can only use it during High Tide, one turn a game.  The ones that have no restrictions definitely do need some toning down though imo.

Share this post


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

I wasn't trying to derail.  Take away from 6N would be that one turn drops should be changed-disagree ?

As others have pointed out, there would need to be dramatic changes to the game as a whole and some armies would need serious cutbacks if they did that.

I don't agree that the game would need dramatic changes.  That is a bit of hyperbole.  In fact, the core rules already don't give the first turn to a one-drop, the errata/clarifications to the core rules does that.

Now, I will agree that you could make the case for some armies needing some rework if guaranteed first-turn was not possible.  To that I say:  Good, lets rework those armies then.  I personally don't think massive alpha-strikes are overly healthy for most miniature games.  If your army requires first turn then you are doing one of two things:

1.  You are built heavily around a massive early alpha-strike.  This is most likely the majority of 1-drop lists.  Is there really a good argument as to why an almost guaranteed 1st turn major alpha-strike is beneficial to have in the game?

2.  You have a strategy built around jumping rapidly on all of the objectives and blocking the enemy off of them for the whole game.  This strategy is fine as long as the rules don't make an army absurdly durable or overly punish another player for having to force the enemy off of objectives.  This strategy tends to be much more rare than #1.

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Drofnum said:

Stacking isnt awful in some cases, take Idoneth for example.  I can stack +1 attack on up to 3 units multiple times, which is quite powerful but you have to have Volturnos as your general and you can only use it during High Tide, one turn a game.  The ones that have no restrictions definitely do need some toning down though imo.

Again, I think that those abilities are the more common type.  It would have been better to put a clause in the abilities that they do want to stack and otherwise not allow stacking.  I bet they would have to do a lot less policing that way.  And most likely they would have to write less text in command abilities.  I am pretty certain that we will see the "does not stack" clause end up being much more common across command abilities.  For example, look at the Nighthaunt book - almost all of their command abilities now have that restriction.

Edited by Skabnoze

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...