Why SCE is doing even worse in tournaments compared with previous version?

[Skreech Verminking]

11 minutes ago, AwareTheLegend said:

Lol. Screen with what?

Yes it is totally a problem. My local group is really competitive so I'm looking at adding some skinks for screening purposes. It isn't something that I want to do but something I'll have to do.

10Liberators, spread them out, and they should perfectly do their jobs as meatshields 

[PJetski]

On 9/8/2018 at 3:53 AM, Bellfree said:

This I mostly disagree with. No, the older lists aren't totally dead

I dont see how this can possibly be true. Vanguard Wing is totally different and plays nothing like it used to, Aetherstrike is no longer legal, and Warrior Brotherhood hasnt been relevant since they changed Lightning Strike

 

Stormcast are a middle tier faction at best. Stormcast as a faction may place well in tournaments, but that's not because Stormcast is a strong faction. People that dont play Stormcast will see FACTION: STORMCAST ETERNALS in the top16 lists and say the army is fine, but that's a very narrow and ignorant view of both Stormcast and the tournament scene in general.

 

What's wrong with people wanting Stormcast to have good internal balancing, or even wanting them to be a top tier army? I want every army to be powerful and fun to play with and play against... A rich and diverse metagame is good for everyone.

[schwabbele]

1 hour ago, AwareTheLegend said:

Lol. Screen with what?

Yes it is totally a problem. My local group is really competitive so I'm looking at adding some skinks for screening purposes. It isn't something that I want to do but something I'll have to do.

Check order allies . there a lot of 10 models <= 80 Points options. I went for Skinks

I got roflstomped from ironjawz turn 1 once , but I don't see it as a SCE problem. It was my failure not to checkup on them and figure that out before I showed up to the game

It would be a problem if we couldn't ally something in.

[Requizen]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

I dont see how this can possibly be true. Vanguard Wing is totally different and plays nothing like it used to, Aetherstrike is no longer legal, and Warrior Brotherhood hasnt been relevant since they changed Lightning Strike

 

Stormcast are a middle tier faction at best. Stormcast as a faction may place well in tournaments, but that's not because Stormcast is a strong faction. People that dont play Stormcast will see FACTION: STORMCAST ETERNALS in the top16 lists and say the army is fine, but that's a very narrow and ignorant view of both Stormcast and the tournament scene in general.

 

What's wrong with people wanting Stormcast to have good internal balancing, or even wanting them to be a top tier army? I want every army to be powerful and fun to play with and play against... A rich and diverse metagame is good for everyone.

Again, I think this is a terminology mismatch/problem. 

If an army performs well competitively, can play against other top tier lists, and places high in large events, it is a top tier army. Full stop. Especially when there are multiple builds that are able to compete at that level (which there potentially are for SCE).

Internal balance, power creep, and overall unit design are a completely separate issue. A badly designed Battletome can still be competitive. A non-competitive Battletome can be well designed. Usually there is a correlation, but they don't mean the same thing in this context.

Essentially, you're saying "Yes, Stormcast can go to events, beat top lists, and take top spots, but they're not good." which doesn't make any sense. From a competitive standpoint, performance and results are all that are taken into account, even if it's a monobuild that isn't fun to play with or against. In AoS1, Mixed Destruction was competitive, even though the only list was Stonehorn/3 Thundertusks/Grots out the butt with Fanatics. A lot of Destruction units were (and still are) useless or pointless. Destruction players probably weren't happy, but the Faction (or rather, Grand Alliance) was doing well and was competitive.

You will 100% still see Stormcast place high at events. Will it be only 1-3 lists with a bit of variation? Maybe. And yeah, most units in the book will be collecting dust on the shelf. But that's a completely separate issue.

[PJetski]

3 hours ago, Requizen said:

Essentially, you're saying "Yes, Stormcast can go to events, beat top lists, and take top spots, but they're not good." which doesn't make any sense. From a competitive standpoint, performance and results are all that are taken into account, even if it's a monobuild that isn't fun to play with or against. In AoS1, Mixed Destruction was competitive, even though the only list was Stonehorn/3 Thundertusks/Grots out the butt with Fanatics. A lot of Destruction units were (and still are) useless or pointless. Destruction players probably weren't happy, but the Faction (or rather, Grand Alliance) was doing well and was competitive.

You will 100% still see Stormcast place high at events. Will it be only 1-3 lists with a bit of variation? Maybe. And yeah, most units in the book will be collecting dust on the shelf. But that's a completely separate issue.

 No, I'm not saying this at all. I'm saying the contrary - Stormcast cannot beat the top lists consistently, assuming both their opponent is playing at a high level of competence. That's why I said they are mid tier at best.

I agree that tournament performance and internal balance are separate issues, but they certainly overlap. Bad internal balance leads to less list diversity, less adaptability, and ultimately more focused lists tend to get beaten easier than adaptive ones. Better internal balance leads to more diversity, more options, and a better metagame.

Personally I would be fine with Stormcast being mid tier if there were just more ways to build a viable competitive list. Right now the only competitive Stormcast list is the immortal Stardrake backed by shooting/magic. Gavriel lists are not good enough and too easy to beat with a basic understanding of screening.

Seraphon have loads of powerful competitive lists and it's partly because every unit in their battletome is useful in some way and there are tons of ways to build an army. It's a big army but each unit still has a purpose. I can't think of a single Seraphon unit I would consider "bad" in the way I think of about 2/3 of the stormcast battletome, and their book came out almost 3 years ago.

[GlanceOnASix]

3 minutes ago, PJetski said:

...Right now the only competitive Stormcast list is the immortal Stardrake backed by shooting/magic. Gavriel lists are not good enough and too easy to beat with a basic understanding of screening...

PJ, what Drake+Shooting list are you referring to?   I haven't seen anything BUT the Gav lists showing top results since 2.0.

[PJetski]

Stardrake with Ignax's Scales (4+ ignore vs MW) and Staunch Defender + Castellant is the core of the list. You try to tie down most of the enemy army with your "immortal Stardrake".

Then it usually just brings loads of shooting and/or casting. LAGC is a common pick.

[Requizen]

I've not heard of SCE doing badly against top lists. On the contrary, my personal experience and discussions I've had with solid tournament players has been that they can hang with top lists other than some serious mismatches (going too elite vs DoK, going too shooty vs Deepkin, grind lists vs Nurgle, etc), but well rounded Stormcast lists seem to be performing well against most if not all competitors. Or at least a 50% win rate, which is, you know, what you'd expect from relative balance. I've smacked down some Daughters lists and have routed LoN completely in various games. Anecdotal evidence isn't much to go on, imo.

Not sure what Stardrake list you're talking about. None have popped up in top placings from what I've seen, but we've seen at least a couple iterations of Gavriel do very well at big events. I've not even seen Stardrake + Shooting/Magic circulating in the regular circles, other than theorycrafting with no lists. Most Stormcast shooting is a bit too expensive to fit in with a Stardrake other than Judis for filling Battleline, and you generally want a counterpunch to go along with it, so much of your points go into Fulmis/Evos/big Sequitor units/etc.

Again, results and given information are not aligning with what you're saying. There's potentially a future where all the Stormcast builds are "figured out" and they stop performing... but that's not what's happening and players of other factions are still not counting us out. So I'm not quite sure where you're coming from with this.

[Ryan Taylor]

Are we missing the following couple of points from the new Battletome?

Older models still competitive but not as much as they once were.

New models seem powerful but not painted up yet. 

New options take time to master. (the last book saw it's dominance last year and the beginning of this year)

New 2.0 rules and scenarios taking time to learn and master.

New 2.0 meta not found it's feet yet. 

True impact of different lists not fully formulated. 

and last but not least the ~50% [from the data we saw from @LLV (and team) and Honest Wagamer] win rate could be due to the amount of players playing the new army. As people play the army this would curb the bell curve and  produce a smoothed result. 

 

As time goes on we will see SCE in the thick of things as they are a solid option with the tools to win events. It will come down to the events and the rules within them as well as the field that shows up. Will they win everything? Nope and isn't that a good thing?

[LLV]

Best screening for SCE is skinks.

[Aeonotakist]

 

17 hours ago, Requizen said:

Again, I think this is a terminology mismatch/problem. 

If an army performs well competitively, can play against other top tier lists, and places high in large events, it is a top tier army. Full stop. Especially when there are multiple builds that are able to compete at that level (which there potentially are for SCE).

Internal balance, power creep, and overall unit design are a completely separate issue. A badly designed Battletome can still be competitive. A non-competitive Battletome can be well designed. Usually there is a correlation, but they don't mean the same thing in this context.

Essentially, you're saying "Yes, Stormcast can go to events, beat top lists, and take top spots, but they're not good." which doesn't make any sense. From a competitive standpoint, performance and results are all that are taken into account, even if it's a monobuild that isn't fun to play with or against. In AoS1, Mixed Destruction was competitive, even though the only list was Stonehorn/3 Thundertusks/Grots out the butt with Fanatics. A lot of Destruction units were (and still are) useless or pointless. Destruction players probably weren't happy, but the Faction (or rather, Grand Alliance) was doing well and was competitive.

You will 100% still see Stormcast place high at events. Will it be only 1-3 lists with a bit of variation? Maybe. And yeah, most units in the book will be collecting dust on the shelf. But that's a completely separate issue.

TBH I think the biggest problem is SCE cannot compete with real top tier list like LoN and DoK.  I also feels it hard to counter Sarophon and Sylvaneth, maybe 3 - 7.

The competitive way of handling SCE Gavriel actually is quire clear.  Get first turn with lower drop - screen with all the cheap fast/teleport stuff  - wait until your Gaviel to kill something - Kill Gariel and KV at any cost.

After that, simply using revive or summon, the SCE troop will not be able to move too much. The only game changer will be SCE got double turn, which is not very likely at this moment.

DoK is different. I can beat majority of their army and at the start of turn 3 usually the points on field is about 1400:800 at my advantage. However, with a single successful mind razor, even 10 witches can easily kill 10 evocators with ease. I don't know how could it be possible that an army has a battleline that can do 8 raw wound with double rerolls at the cost of 10 points.

 

I think the biggest problem is not SCE cannot have certain feature, but cannot acquire certain feature at a reasonable cost. For example, if I want +1 to caste, I can choose a stardrake at 460P or a battalion with about 260P wasted or pick certain host with very poor trait and artifact. The result will be that, all the SCE list become very single minded.

My intention might only be to caste spell at reasonable success rate against those +2 to unbound evil necromancers, then it will always turn to and can only be a heavy wizard list.    

 

 

[Skreech Verminking]

A question to all SC player in this topic.

have you guys ever tried using different kind of list, that maybe nobody ever has tried to play in the new edition, or have you used units that are almost never seen played?

also how many different kinds of lists have you tried out, how many times have you used them, and what units did you use for those list?

[ledha]

9 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

A question to all SC player in this topic.

have you guys ever tried using different kind of list, that maybe nobody ever has tried to play in the new edition, or have you used units that are almost never seen played?

also how many different kinds of lists have you tried out, how many times have you used them, and what units did you use for those list?

If a unit isn't played, it is most of the time for good reasons.

You don't need to try ton of lists with desolators or units of gryph-hound to know they are terrible, and you just need to read the lord exorcist warscroll alongside the kinght-incantor to understand there is zero situation when you'll take the first one.

[Mark Williams]

31 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

A question to all SC player in this topic.

have you guys ever tried using different kind of list, that maybe nobody ever has tried to play in the new edition, or have you used units that are almost never seen played?

also how many different kinds of lists have you tried out, how many times have you used them, and what units did you use for those list?

I will give you a long answer tomorrow but the short answer is, “Yes, I’ve tried a lot of different lists.” The TLDR version is that your army just slowly evolves over time until it starts to mirror most net lists, whether you mean for it to or not.

There’s about 3 really good lists I’ve had success with - assault bomb scions, shooting bomb scions, and star drake with staunch def... almost every successful list I use borrows elements from one of those three lists. Everything else I’ve tried seems to be worse in varying degrees.

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, ledha said:

If a unit isn't played, it is most of the time for good reasons.

You don't need to try ton of lists with desolators or units of gryph-hound to know they are terrible, and you just need to read the lord exorcist warscroll alongside the kinght-incantor to understand there is zero situation when you'll take the first one.

No sorry I probably wrote it wrong.

 I was just curious to see if some people tried some different lists out, like maybe only using a hero and the rest liberators, or something similar.

I never meant to insult you guys at all (I’m very sorry if you found my last post very insulting).

you know I’ve been playing mixed  skaven for over half a century. Tried different kind of lists with many different units and combination. Heck I even got to the top 3 in some of the tournaments I played at.

I tried so many different kind of lists, and used every unit (that has the skaven keyword) at least ones. even if I have to say that some of them are definitely not worth taking, they still can have a purpose.

I'm not trying to force you guys on using bad units, nor am I forcing you all to chance your list(that was never my intention). I was just asking for some players who have used some different lists, and what their thoughts were on using them (good or bad ones).

it maybe will or would have given other player some inspiration and hope.

I’m very sorry to everyone  who understood my intentions as an insult?

.

 

[Requizen]

5 hours ago, Aeonotakist said:

 

TBH I think the biggest problem is SCE cannot compete with real top tier list like LoN and DoK.  I also feels it hard to counter Sarophon and Sylvaneth, maybe 3 - 7.

The competitive way of handling SCE Gavriel actually is quire clear.  Get first turn with lower drop - screen with all the cheap fast/teleport stuff  - wait until your Gaviel to kill something - Kill Gariel and KV at any cost.

After that, simply using revive or summon, the SCE troop will not be able to move too much. The only game changer will be SCE got double turn, which is not very likely at this moment.

I think you're really not seeing the full potential of a well played Gav list. It's not an Alpha strike list that falls apart if it can't first turn charge, and it doesn't rely on Gavriel surviving the whole game. If the opponent can screen a first turn charge, it still competes.

Also I think you're really overestimating how much armies can cover and screen on turn 1. Screening usually can cover a couple important units, I can't think of any armies that can shut down the entire board with their first turn, without spreading out to the point of uselessness.

It's really just up-playing the abilities of other armies and down-playing the strength of Stormcast until it seems one-sided. Practical experience and results aren't showing the same insinuations that this thread is bringing up. I know we like to play Theoryhammer, but the situation where the Death player covers 70% of the board with unkillable units on turn 1, and leaves no avenues to be charged/shot, while also somehow killing the important Stormcast units... isn't a reality.

[Skreech Verminking]

11 minutes ago, Requizen said:

I think you're really not seeing the full potential of a well played Gav list. It's not an Alpha strike list that falls apart if it can't first turn charge, and it doesn't rely on Gavriel surviving the whole game. If the opponent can screen a first turn charge, it still competes.

Also I think you're really overestimating how much armies can cover and screen on turn 1. Screening usually can cover a couple important units, I can't think of any armies that can shut down the entire board with their first turn, without spreading out to the point of uselessness.

It's really just up-playing the abilities of other armies and down-playing the strength of Stormcast until it seems one-sided. Practical experience and results aren't showing the same insinuations that this thread is bringing up. I know we like to play Theoryhammer, but the situation where the Death player covers 70% of the board with unkillable units on turn 1, and leaves no avenues to be charged/shot, while also somehow killing the important Stormcast units... isn't a reality.

Skaven, the most powerful and one of the best (lorewise) army’s.

YES-yes we have enough meatshields to die-die for us.

It’s better clanrats take-die the trap then me-me.

[Nos]

3 hours ago, Mark Williams said:

I will give you a long answer tomorrow but the short answer is, “Yes, I’ve tried a lot of different lists.” The TLDR version is that your army just slowly evolves over time until it starts to mirror most net lists, whether you mean for it to or not.

There’s about 3 really good lists I’ve had success with - assault bomb scions, shooting bomb scions, and star drake with staunch def... almost every successful list I use borrows elements from one of those three lists. Everything else I’ve tried seems to be worse in varying degrees.

But isn't that just the norm though? The overwhelming majority of GW armies across all systems have one or two effective  variations each at most if they have any at all.  Of the dozen plus of AOS armies available there's maybe 7 which are actually competitve. 

The problem is people looking for the hallmarks of a rigorous competitive system-balance, fairness, multiple options and strategies-in a system which is outrageously not fit for that purpose. Armies within GW games are designed to play thematically and that's really all there is to it. GW's USP is playing games with beautiful toy soldiers. It is not playing a fair, balanced or (even particularly good game on occasion) with toy soldiers.  Releases are done on the basis of fuelling the AOS narrative and selling toys, because that's what most people buy GW things for. And that suits me down to the ground because there is an abundance of excellent fight balanced war gaming systems out there if that's what people want. GW is it's own, very enthusiast hobby driven thing. It's a happy bonus you can play a sort of competent competitive game with it too if that's your thing, but it really is an afterthought. I mean Matched Play rules are last in the play section for a reason. 

[PJetski]

20 hours ago, Nos said:

But isn't that just the norm though? The overwhelming majority of GW armies across all systems have one or two effective  variations each at most if they have any at all.  Of the dozen plus of AOS armies available there's maybe 7 which are actually competitve. 

The problem is people looking for the hallmarks of a rigorous competitive system-balance, fairness, multiple options and strategies-in a system which is outrageously not fit for that purpose. Armies within GW games are designed to play thematically and that's really all there is to it. GW's USP is playing games with beautiful toy soldiers. It is not playing a fair, balanced or (even particularly good game on occasion) with toy soldiers.  Releases are done on the basis of fuelling the AOS narrative and selling toys, because that's what most people buy GW things for. And that suits me down to the ground because there is an abundance of excellent fight balanced war gaming systems out there if that's what people want. GW is it's own, very enthusiast hobby driven thing. It's a happy bonus you can play a sort of competent competitive game with it too if that's your thing, but it really is an afterthought. I mean Matched Play rules are last in the play section for a reason. 

What's wrong with people wanting a better product?

Beasts of Chaos battletome looks like a ton of fun thematic rules that are also strong on the table (so far).

[Nos]

2 hours ago, PJetski said:

What's wrong with people wanting a better product?

Beasts of Chaos battletome looks like a ton of fun thematic rules that are also strong on the table (so far).

You're asking for a different product, not a better one. If GW focussed the necessary energy on creating a game of balance and competitive excellence it would be fundamentally different, and that energy would be taken from the things that make it popular and marketable in the way that it is.

I was reading the article in this months WD with the creator of the new LOTR and his emphasis was fundamentally on the rules being the best yet for their narrative character. That's the way it's going. The whole point of AOS was to let people play with their toys quicker and without complexity. See also Rogue Trader, new 40K Warhammer Quest etc. They're emejoying their most profitable era in history through focussing on thematic gameplay with great looking, easy to build, easy to paint models and hobby supplies. They're not going to change that up for a minority who want its focus to be something it isn't.

[PJetski]

Matched Play is a different ruleset layered on top of the basic "narrative" gameplay. The reason it uses these additional rules is so that matched play can be balanced without compromising the narrative gameplay. There is no reason that it can't be a more balanced game, and people obviously want that because AOS was struggling to stay alive before they introduced matched play. It's a huge draw for a lot of people.

Matched Play cannot be dismissed as something made just for "a minority" of players, that is a patently disingenuous argument.

[Freejack02]

1 hour ago, Nos said:

The whole point of AOS was to let people play with their toys quicker and without complexity.

You only need look at the early sales numbers of AoS to realize how few people wanted that ruleset. "No Complexity" is no longer the driving focus of AoS,

 

1 hour ago, Nos said:

They're emejoying their most profitable era in history through focussing on thematic gameplay with great looking, easy to build, easy to paint models and hobby supplies. They're not going to change that up for a minority who want its focus to be something it isn't.

They did change up everything - that's already happened. People decried the "open" system so heavily that they were practically forced to complicate the ruleset with the first GHB, and haven't looked back since. THAT is the only reason they are enjoying their most profitable era in history... they gave people what they wanted. 

[Requizen]

Even with the implementation of Matched Play, GW has never really attempted to make it "truly balanced". Because, in my opinion, that's basically impossible for a game with this many unit/faction options and disparate rules. Point tweaks can only go so far, with so many different abilities and varied unit types, something will always stick out above other things. Or rather, not always, but the effort to balance as many units and armies as are in the game right now would be a huge undertaking that would really have to shift the focus of a lot of people working on AoS. 

Now they've done a better job and writing rules to prevent more abuse cases ("wholly within" wording, less thing that let you set up anywhere such as directly in combat, etc), but unless they further prune the unit selection it'll be a massive undertaking, and we saw what happened when they just removed two armies at the start of it all. 

Matched Play in on the radar, but the main focus is that it's a structure to have fairly reasonable lists against one another. It's never been designed to be a truly competitive game, and honestly it probably never will be. The "hardcore" tournament scene is something that was made by independent circuits, even the old official GW-run events had much more focus on theme, painting, and hobby, with generalship being only part of the process. You see this in the current articles as well, people who win big events get a short blurb and a picture, nothing about their list or tactics.

[Nos]

1 hour ago, Freejack02 said:

You only need look at the early sales numbers of AoS to realize how few people wanted that ruleset. "No Complexity" is no longer the driving focus of AoS,

 

They did change up everything - that's already happened. People decried the "open" system so heavily that they were practically forced to complicate the ruleset with the first GHB, and haven't looked back since. THAT is the only reason they are enjoying their most profitable era in history... they gave people what they wanted. 

Indeed they did. Which is why AOS is very poorly implemented for competitive play. It's not what people want. They want a game of battles driven by thematic mechanics, not razor balanced rules, which has been carried out across their entire product line, not just AOS. AOS is not the reason for their profits. AOS is a reflection of the approach that is the reason for their profits.

I mean absolutely it's more complex, but it's not a complex in a way which reflects a finely balanced game of strategy and wits. It's complex in a way that requires constant reference to rules and components and memorisation of numbers and profiles and absurd amounts of dice rolling. The complexity comes from the still bloated mechanics, which are bloated because they cater for the creation of battles between wildly assymetrical armies and units which would be impossible to balance.

[schwabbele]

3 hours ago, PJetski said:

Matched Play is a different ruleset layered on top of the basic "narrative" gameplay. The reason it uses these additional rules is so that matched play can be balanced without compromising the narrative gameplay. There is no reason that it can't be a more balanced game, and people obviously want that because AOS was struggling to stay alive before they introduced matched play. It's a huge draw for a lot of people.

Matched Play cannot be dismissed as something made just for "a minority" of players, that is a patently disingenuous argument.

Totally agree with everything here. Hell we are in the 21st century , they could push updates to rules so easily via the app versions without compromising the fluff.