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

[Nos]

A lot of the theory  crafting I've seen around Stormcast for 2.0 are very "Blob of Death either it works or it dosent at all" gambits. I'm no expert but especially against a Horde/Summoning meta a slow juggernaut approach seems very eggs in one basket. You're not going to outhorde many armies so if you're deathball has even one bad round that's a huge concentration of points thats just stuck doing nothing.

I personally have been very drawn to a Sequitor mob due to building my army around Soul Wars and while they kill pretty much anything and dont die, especially with SD, they don't do it quickly enough to either chew through units or to attract attention from elsewhere to pull the enemy into the fight I want. If you don't run over someone then you're this slow lumbering elephant trying to squash mice.

I'm increasingly tempted by an Anvils of Death list with a heavy concentration of Judicators with effectively two shooting phases to concentrate damage and take the imitative that way and then multiple smaller units working in tandem for objectives and fights. Especially with their massive bases it's rare that a unit of more than 10 SC can even get anywhere without actively holding the rest of your army behind them in a Death Conga unless they Scion in which is a problem all of its own. It's not insurmountable but I do think it's unnecessary. 

One of the reasons I came round to Stormcast though is that they're pretty much the only genuine combined arms army in AOS. I think they've been designed around that idea, massive bases included, and I think that with a bit of time the best SCE armies will probably represent that aspect better. Likewise the more the meta stagnates around Gavriel and Hail Mary turns the easier it will be to stop as well.

TLDR I think the real problem they're having is that people who used to basically exploit one tactic don't know how to play an army which is designed to be the antithesis of that in the new edition. People looking to make them be the same Hammer blow faction that they were employed to be last edition on the back one blatantly imbalanced Battalion are not sure how to play them as intended. They're the original easy to learn hard to master faction. 

 

 

[Aeonotakist]

10 hours ago, Requizen said:

Yeah man we all saw the THW data. Using data without context will always be bad, though. LoN was really skewed by Nagash before the nerf. Stormcast have more new/inexperienced/narrative players than most other armies. Etc. And even given that data, SCE are still in the top 5 armies for Top 10 placements. 

 

I think your description of what "top tier" means is really screwy. Stormcast can fight any of those other top armies without it being an uphill struggle outside of specific mission/build mismatches.

If you don't autolose to any top-tier army, and have a positive winrate, and have multiple top place finishes... you're a top tier army. Anything else is completely subjective. 

I dont really agree. LoN got same meta% as SCE and I believe there was more SCE player than death player before 2.0 so SCE owner cannot be more inexperienced. But I can clearly see that LoN is performing batter against almost all other lists compare with SCE.

 

Somehow what I feel is, SCE can stand very little win rate against LoN and DoK even we have tailored list and play properly. 

 

[ianob]

SCE is a tier 1 faction in 2.0 and has one of, if not the best, lists in 2.0.

Not a lot of people are playing SCE yet - still painting maybe, or still waiting to see someone win a well-publicised major (BoBo wasn't enough apparently), I don't know. I couldn't tell you why we aren't seeing more SCE right now, but I can tell you that they are absolutely incredible.

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, Aeonotakist said:

I dont really agree. LoN got same meta% as SCE and I believe there was more SCE player than death player before 2.0 so SCE owner cannot be more inexperienced. But I can clearly see that LoN is performing batter against almost all other lists compare with SCE.

 

Somehow what I feel is, SCE can stand very little win rate against LoN and DoK even we have tailored list and play properly. 

 

Well it’s not a bad thing, that not all people play SC, right?

wouldn’t it get boring to play with SC against Sc army’s, the whole time?

? 

[PJetski]

14 minutes ago, ianob said:

SCE is a tier 1 faction in 2.0 and has one of, if not the best, lists in 2.0.

Do tell

[ianob]

2 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Do tell

Its not a secret!

https://i0.wp.com/aosshorts.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DjQr4pEWsAAg-74.jpg?resize=768%2C1024&ssl=1

Also the guy who was playing 20 Evocators at NOVA who top 10'd

Also the Cleansing Phalanx version

[Aeonotakist]

19 minutes ago, ianob said:

Its not a secret!

https://i0.wp.com/aosshorts.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DjQr4pEWsAAg-74.jpg?resize=768%2C1024&ssl=1

Also the guy who was playing 20 Evocators at NOVA who top 10'd

Also the Cleansing Phalanx version

That is the list in BOBO where revive and summoning is well banned.

However, I agree this list is the most solid one so far. The one went top10 in NOVA is also quite the same.

[ianob]

3 minutes ago, Aeonotakist said:

That is the list in BOBO where revive and summoning is well banned.

However, I agree this list is the most solid one so far. The one went top10 in NOVA is also quite the same.

That style of list is not just "solid". It has every component it needs to compete in the current environment - alpha strike, beta strike, survivability, mobility via deepstrike, mortal wounds, mass attacks, and the tools to modify the list to suit realms/no realms/other meta armies.

Have you played a lot of AoS 2.0? Have you played a lot of competitive practice against or with this list, vs the other lists you say SC can't beat? Genuine question, but you seem to be under some impression that this list isn't absolutely top tier

[Aeonotakist]

29 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Well it’s not a bad thing, that not all people play SC, right?

wouldn’t it get boring to play with SC against Sc army’s, the whole time?

?

Actually I think that is not likely. Currently Nighthaunt, Sylvaneth, Serapgon, Nurgle, Tz and even Khorne all have the same power and win rate like SCE.  Idoneth is better performing than SCE against others frictions but not against SCE. Adding together there are at least 7 frictions in the same level like SCE or better.

LoN and DoK they are one of those clearly better lists. But even if we make them more balanced, peoplw will not all run to SCE.

[Aeonotakist]

2 minutes ago, ianob said:

That style of list is not just "solid". It has every component it needs to compete in the current environment - alpha strike, beta strike, survivability, mobility via deepstrike, mortal wounds, mass attacks, and the tools to modify the list to suit realms/no realms/other meta armies.

Have you played a lot of AoS 2.0? Have you played a lot of competitive practice against or with this list, vs the other lists you say SC can't beat? Genuine question, but you seem to be under some impression that this list isn't absolutely top tier

Actually I have been playing similar list since early July for 6 games.

Start with a list of 4 Ballista and LO to replace the Judicators and some Evocators. I lost 2 games against LoN which was quite desperate since the enemy army has well protected general with ignore rend artificial.

Then I completely remove all the Ballista and became quite like the list reached top 10 in NOVA. Result was I lost against Seraphon half SS half TS with 2 Engine of gods, that was quite desperate. There was another lose to Nighthaunt but was a close one.

I think it all depends on how you define 'Top Tier'. In my opinion and experience,  LoN, DoK, Sylveneth, Indoneth, Seraphon, Nighthaunt, Tz, Nurgle and Khorne all have this kind of 'I can handle anything' impression if you ask their professional players and I feel LoN and DoK are doing better. In this situation, you can still call SCE top since they are better than so many frictions mainly from the old world. However if you compare those with new battle tome, I can only call SCE 'very average'.  

 

[PJetski]

49 minutes ago, ianob said:

Its not a secret!

https://i0.wp.com/aosshorts.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DjQr4pEWsAAg-74.jpg?resize=768%2C1024&ssl=1

Also the guy who was playing 20 Evocators at NOVA who top 10'd

Also the Cleansing Phalanx version

We have discussed the Gavriel bomb in this thread already, and found it lacking.

While this list is strong, this is far from "the strongest list in the game". The only chance it has at winning is to catch opponents unprepared; against a competent opponent you will just kill the enemy screen and then you die from the counterattack. 

The deep strike charge concept is not new, and it was a lot stronger when it was the Warrior Brotherhood battalion. Once people learn to play around guaranteed turn 1 melee these lists always fall apart quickly. They dont have any staying power and while they have a powerful turn 1, they dont play objectives well in a 5 turn game.

[ianob]

10 minutes ago, Aeonotakist said:

Actually I have been playing similar list since early July for 6 games.

Start with a list of 4 Ballista and LO to replace the Judicators and some Evocators. I lost 2 games against LoN which was quite desperate since the enemy army has well protected general with ignore rend artificial.

Then I completely remove all the Ballista and became quite like the list reached top 10 in NOVA. Result was I lost against Seraphon half SS half TS with 2 Engine of gods, that was quite desperate. There was another lose to Nighthaunt but was a close one.

I think it all depends on how you define 'Top Tier'. In my opinion and experience,  LoN, DoK, Sylveneth, Indoneth, Seraphon, Nighthaunt, Tz, Nurgle and Khorne all have this kind of 'I can handle anything' impression if you ask their professional players and I feel LoN and DoK are doing better. In this situation, you can still call SCE top since they are better than so many frictions mainly from the old world. However if you compare those with new battle tome, I can only call SCE 'very average'.  

 

Well, if you think that, fair enough. However, maybe you should consider that 6 games is not enough to understand and play your army well? Have you considered that even when played perfectly you can have bad matchups or lose some games? You didn't play the Seraphon and Nighthaunt again, multiple times, and see how you got on in other games.

I guess what I'm getting that is that you're writing your faction off with barely any games under your belt, you're seemingly basing an assessment of the entire meta off of something you've read somewhere, and all of it looks like inexperience. Play your army more, try different builds, play the same opponents multiple times, and you'll see that SCE are not only in a great place but can happily beat all of the lists that you mentioned, especially as you gain more experience and confidence. Being sad on a forum and looking for people who agree with you wont fix it, gaming more can!

[XReN]

4 minutes ago, ianob said:

Well, if you think that, fair enough. However, maybe you should consider that 6 games is not enough to understand and play your army well? Have you considered that even when played perfectly you can have bad matchups or lose some games? You didn't play the Seraphon and Nighthaunt again, multiple times, and see how you got on in other games.

I guess what I'm getting that is that you're writing your faction off with barely any games under your belt, you're seemingly basing an assessment of the entire meta off of something you've read somewhere, and all of it looks like inexperience. Play your army more, try different builds, play the same opponents multiple times, and you'll see that SCE are not only in a great place but can happily beat all of the lists that you mentioned, especially as you gain more experience and confidence. Being sad on a forum and looking for people who agree with you wont fix it, gaming more can!

I can tell you same thing, where did you get the idea that SCE are that strong? From them winning one tournament? Thats not strong point, thats gut feeling. Something like Gav Bomb is one of our best bets and it can and will be easily countered very soon, sit back and watch. 
Also we might try shooting blob with Anvils, but i haven't heard of aetherstrike force in ages during 1st ed and it was very similar.
I would try 40 sequitors Cleansing Phalanx HoS list with Gav and I can only hope that it will match Vanguard Wing in control and staying factor.

[Mikester1487]

I'm not sold on phalanx. Not sure why in competition you'd actively keep your evocators out of battle to buff sequitors. Sequitors are really good don't get me wrong, but I've seen my evocators chew through just about any and everything. 

[XReN]

12 minutes ago, Mikester1487 said:

I'm not sold on phalanx. Not sure why in competition you'd actively keep your evocators out of battle to buff sequitors. Sequitors are really good don't get me wrong, but I've seen my evocators chew through just about any and everything. 

It's very cheap battalion where you get 2 battlelines, cp, artefact, drop reduce for something like 120 points. You don't have to take ot specifically to buff seqitors
Also from math perspective 20 sequitors with reroll to hit perform with just their specials on the same level as 10 evocators no buffs, whille getting damage fall off after 24 wounds, not 3

[Mikester1487]

4 minutes ago, XReN said:

It's very cheap battalion where you get 2 battlelines, cp, artefact, drop reduce for something like 120 points. You don't have to take ot specifically to buff seqitors
Also from math perspective 20 sequitors with reroll to hit perform on the same level as 10 evocators no buffs, whille getting damage fall off after 24 wounds, not 3

I can see the artefact and drop reduce points. I'm just not big on taking units of evocators on foot unless they are in groups of 10 so it's probably just preference. 

[XReN]

3 minutes ago, Mikester1487 said:

I can see the artefact and drop reduce points. I'm just not big on taking units of evocators on foot unless they are in groups of 10 so it's probably just preference. 

Well you can try 10 on foot + 3 mounted if you enjoy the models of course and with min units of sequitors it will leave you with a lot of points

[Mikester1487]

13 minutes ago, XReN said:

Well you can try 10 on foot + 3 mounted if you enjoy the models of course and with min units of sequitors it will leave you with a lot of points

That's actually what I do without the battalion at the moment! Running anvils and trying to make out what's good currently. It sucks to see hammers discussed heavily from my position, but I understand that's going to be the hotness for now.

Threads like this one are helping me form a better idea of what SCE do well right now and its pretty encouraging to see were in a decent spot. 

[Requizen]

50 minutes ago, XReN said:

I can tell you same thing, where did you get the idea that SCE are that strong? From them winning one tournament? Thats not strong point, thats gut feeling. Something like Gav Bomb is one of our best bets and it can and will be easily countered very soon, sit back and watch. 
Also we might try shooting blob with Anvils, but i haven't heard of aetherstrike force in ages during 1st ed and it was very similar.
I would try 40 sequitors Cleansing Phalanx HoS list with Gav and I can only hope that it will match Vanguard Wing in control and staying factor.

It's not "one tournament". A very good player (Jack has won multiple events over the years) has play tested this list thoroughly, decided it was the best possible one, and brought it to one of the first major events. I've spoken to him in the WhatsApp SCE group and he's convinced by it and will continue bringing it (or a variant) to events. 

Gav Bomb is not an all-or-nothing list that dies if the Alpha doesn't work. That one from Jack Armstrong has at least 3 reasonable units to charge in with, so it has a strong Alpha and Beta strike. If you hit a large chaff list, you can even double charge with Sequitors and Evos at the same time and clear a huge amount of army with little to no problem. Alternatively, you can keep the Evos in the sky for a while, move up with 20 2+rr Sequitors to claim objectives, and then strike at the back or flank when the opponent goes to move out. Or start with both big units up in the air and bait the enemy into focusing on your smaller units and heroes. And if you play Total Commitment, you can stil Vex banner up a unit, run Gavriel, and still get an extra long charge off. Like yeah, there'll be missions where you're in fairly bad shape (it's not particularly good at Duality of Death or Three Places of Power if you can't get to the Heroes), but it's not an autoloss by any means. It is, for all intents and purposes, a top tier list.

Personally I might drop the smaller Evo unit and try to get in more shooting or extra CPs, but that's neither here nor there.

[ledha]

9 hours ago, PJetski said:

We have discussed the Gavriel bomb in this thread already, and found it lacking.

While this list is strong, this is far from "the strongest list in the game". The only chance it has at winning is to catch opponents unprepared; against a competent opponent you will just kill the enemy screen and then you die from the counterattack. 

 

So, if we don't have the strongest list in the game and bitchslap everyone in tournament, then we are doing bad ? It's like saying someone suxx at soccer because he isn't as good as Zinedine Zidane

[Mark Williams]

19 minutes ago, ledha said:

So, if we don't have the strongest list in the game and bitchslap everyone in tournament, then we are doing bad ? It's like saying someone suxx at soccer because he isn't as good as Zinedine Zidane

My preference is that if I roughly know my enemy's strategy and list, I can generate a strategy with the list that I've chosen, that will make it an even game, and give us both a chance to win, with most of the deciding factor revolving around my knowledge of what my units do and his units. I would like for luck to play a factor in the sense that getting a few random outliers might be enough to sway the outcome of the game.

What I don't want to see is coming up against unbeatable lists, and auto-win or auto-lose scenarios. Where no matter what I do, I can't put up a good game, or vica versa. In a "perfect world", the game isn't won at the list building and army-picking stage - it's won on the table, with two generals facing off against each other.

I think that stuff like Gavriel is bad for the game, and shouldn't exist. But I feel the same about Volturnos and Nagash and a number of other named characters who in my opinion have these sorts of list-defining abilities that basically create a sort of imbalance in the game that forces you to resort to the same measures in order to compete. I want the entire game to be balanced around this.

But.

The game I want is not the game we have. And it's obviously never going to happen. You introduce a character like that, with that ability, and it affects the meta whether you want it to or not. You have an option to use your enemy's tools and tactics against them, or basically just give up and automatically lose when facing them.

If the game was "balanced" in such a way that armies that I - as an SCE player - have trouble with, other armies do not... then I think I would be fine with that. Some kind of hard-counter paper rock scissors game where certain lists just have oppoents they can't win against. Oddly enough I don't think I would be upset at that. I'd just say... well, that's how it's meant to be. But instead what I see is that opponents that I have the hardest time dealing with - EVERYONE has the same difficulty. Certain lists are obviously just flat out better than others, and whether you want to admit it or not, there's absolutely a sort of tiered list of armies.

I think it's potentially possible for SCE to be in the tier 1 bracket, with a very specific list. But the combinations and units available to use in that list are extremely limited, and I think, to me, that's the issue. The number of combinations of "good, competitive lists" available to SCE are extremely limited right now, and may literally just be down to 1 or 2 lists with minor variations allowed for some individuality. That's not a good situation for the game or the tome to be in, imo. I think that's my big issue with the book and the army right now. You will probably see a "few" SCE armies doing well and winning some tournaments, but on average, no. On AVERAGE, they aren't a tier 1 army. They have have a handful of lists - or maybe just a couple -  that do well.

I'm not trying to argue that SCE SHOULD be a tier 1 army. I'm simply trying to clarify that, in most cases, they aren't. And WHY.

I hope this helps.

[XReN]

14 hours ago, Requizen said:

It's not "one tournament". A very good player (Jack has won multiple events over the years) has play tested this list thoroughly, decided it was the best possible one, and brought it to one of the first major events.

Here it is, we are talking about Jack Armstrong, a very skilled player, not someone unknown. And it was one of first events. Both are major factors that may or may not be reasons why this list succeded, untill it's at least half a year into new edition and not Jack I'm not convinced.

[XReN]

Buuuuut I think I'm done being pessimistic, it's became unhealthy. Gotta play more

[Nos]

8 hours ago, Mark Williams said:

My preference is that if I roughly know my enemy's strategy and list, I can generate a strategy with the list that I've chosen, that will make it an even game, and give us both a chance to win, with most of the deciding factor revolving around my knowledge of what my units do and his units. I would like for luck to play a factor in the sense that getting a few random outliers might be enough to sway the outcome of the game.

What I don't want to see is coming up against unbeatable lists, and auto-win or auto-lose scenarios. Where no matter what I do, I can't put up a good game, or vica versa. In a "perfect world", the game isn't won at the list building and army-picking stage - it's won on the table, with two generals facing off against each other.

I think that stuff like Gavriel is bad for the game, and shouldn't exist. But I feel the same about Volturnos and Nagash and a number of other named characters who in my opinion have these sorts of list-defining abilities that basically create a sort of imbalance in the game that forces you to resort to the same measures in order to compete. I want the entire game to be balanced around this.

But.

The game I want is not the game we have. And it's obviously never going to happen. You introduce a character like that, with that ability, and it affects the meta whether you want it to or not. You have an option to use your enemy's tools and tactics against them, or basically just give up and automatically lose when facing them.

If the game was "balanced" in such a way that armies that I - as an SCE player - have trouble with, other armies do not... then I think I would be fine with that. Some kind of hard-counter paper rock scissors game where certain lists just have oppoents they can't win against. Oddly enough I don't think I would be upset at that. I'd just say... well, that's how it's meant to be. But instead what I see is that opponents that I have the hardest time dealing with - EVERYONE has the same difficulty. Certain lists are obviously just flat out better than others, and whether you want to admit it or not, there's absolutely a sort of tiered list of armies.

I think it's potentially possible for SCE to be in the tier 1 bracket, with a very specific list. But the combinations and units available to use in that list are extremely limited, and I think, to me, that's the issue. The number of combinations of "good, competitive lists" available to SCE are extremely limited right now, and may literally just be down to 1 or 2 lists with minor variations allowed for some individuality. That's not a good situation for the game or the tome to be in, imo. I think that's my big issue with the book and the army right now. You will probably see a "few" SCE armies doing well and winning some tournaments, but on average, no. On AVERAGE, they aren't a tier 1 army. They have have a handful of lists - or maybe just a couple -  that do well.

I'm not trying to argue that SCE SHOULD be a tier 1 army. I'm simply trying to clarify that, in most cases, they aren't. And WHY.

I hope this helps.

GW Games have never been balanced and never will be. Anyone playing them looking for an elegant system with balanced assymetrical factions is in totally the wrong place.

[ianob]

19 hours ago, XReN said:

I can tell you same thing, where did you get the idea that SCE are that strong? From them winning one tournament? Thats not strong point, thats gut feeling. Something like Gav Bomb is one of our best bets and it can and will be easily countered very soon, sit back and watch. 
Also we might try shooting blob with Anvils, but i haven't heard of aetherstrike force in ages during 1st ed and it was very similar.
I would try 40 sequitors Cleansing Phalanx HoS list with Gav and I can only hope that it will match Vanguard Wing in control and staying factor.

Because I've played 10~ games with them myself, and another 10~  or so against them, all in testing against top tier competitive armies (Sylvaneth, Deepkin, Nagash, Nurgle, etc) as well as the other Stormcast players in my local competitive playgroup playing 20+ more in the same circle of competitive armies whilst I've been present and observing games?