Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Mephisto

Always Posts First

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, prochuvi said:

The problem is this wont change and gonna be worse,pretty sure that when new  real elfs come they gonna have it,as old high elfs had it

Mhm, Perhaps.

GW‘s issue with AoS is that they have a nice idea, then they force it upon every new faction while some get it turned up to 11. most of these ideas turn out to be strong, even so much that they‘re no longer fun (which is the sense of this game: fun for all participants).

in that sense you might be right, if AfF stays the new „let‘s overdo and ruin it“ rule of GW‘s AoS design.

 

——

in isolation most of These ideas are super cool and fun (MWs, Endless spells, summoning, terrain). But they only stay fun in moderation and if not every army gets them so these rule stay special and make a faction special.

Edited by JackStreicher
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m so over the “not every army should have endless spells and terrain” complaint. They’re cool models, they add more flavor to the army. More— they’re part of the game now. Holy moly would I be sad if my army was chosen to not get endless spells and terrain. 

 

I mean, armies are still unique. Khorne has giant, floating skulls that cry blood and kill wizards. Gitz have a giant mushroom that is deadly to those around them. Stormcast Eternals can summon the heavens down on their enemies. How are these things not unique and fun?

 

The argument against factions having terrain and endless spells makes as much sense to me as if people were complaining that all armies got allegiance abilities or that all armies got their own spell lores. Might as well argue that it makes armies not unique because they can all generate command points. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's too much.  They just keep piling on rules upon rules.  And seems to me they are struggling to keep things from being out of control.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, azdimy said:

Then why bother creating it in the first place?

Why indeed. 

We have three factors here that make this so contentious. Obviously FEC is an issue but we can chalk that up to being the outlier if folks concede that other instances of ASF are "fine." A big issue is outdated armies; some armies simply do not have the tools to compete with the new technology. The third and most speculative though potentially significant is an issue is rules bloat. AOS has a delicate back and forth and this mechanic as implemented along with the trend toward it removes meaningful choice in play and elements of interaction. From a game design stance I don't understand why it gets put on offensive units as spartan-esque phalanxes and pikemen seem the far more logical targets for such a rule. 

Despite my obvious cynical tone, I've really not made up my mind 100% on this one (hence starting the topic). FEC, again, obvious problem, outlier, etc, etc. But the meta will shift and progress so eventually we'll remember hating them the way we remember hating KO Clown Car.  What I am certain about is this is a mechanic that's tripping my spidey-sense. The red flag is raised and I'd caution GW moving forward with it. We've seen the worst case scenario already in 40K. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I collect Death in all it's various guises, with bedsheets being my main squeeze. I got dispirited (lol) towards the end of last year at just how poorly thought out the book is, getting blinded by the "why does that army have (x) yet we don't?" syndrome. 

I moved over to FEC at the start of the year and then they announced the new book. I played in a 1k tournament (using feast day delusion) and won. I now only use a fluffy FEC list and only occasionally, as it was such a negative playing experience for nearly all of my opponents and that made me feel bad and took the enjoyment out of the victory. Also seeing the vast differences of options available to the FEC army compared to spooky bedsheets made me feel even more dispirited (lol again), because while the out of date books are going to get updated to include some sort of hot saucey goodness, the books released with AoS 2.0 in mind (Maggotkin onwards) aren't going to be updated to keep up with the crazy concoctions GW is brewing up. 

I've gone back to ghosts because they were my favourite of the Death groups in AoS 1.0. But currently as the meta is shifting towards shooting, high magic output, high mortal wound output, always fight first, fighting twice, etc... I can't see how my spooky bedsheets can keep up. We have no shooting that's worth taking, we have basic/weak magic, we have some mortal wound potential but nothing consistent or is counted as well as normal damage, we have 1 super short range spell that allows a single enemy unit to fight last and the super janky and OP 10+ wave of terror, both of which are not elements that we can use to factor in with tactics, if they happen great, but 9/10 it doesn't happen. We also have the worst faction specific endless spells currently in the game, they are all predatory and all useless and also no terrain pieces. 

Now ghosts are possible the best example of a faction that is going to suffer the power creep of newer battletomes, even when they first came out the general consensus is that the units work better in LoN, which sadly is the case. Now I can't speak for the other armies that had books released at the end of AoS 1.0 and in early AoS 2.0 but seeing stuff like armies getting immunity to battleshock with terrain pieces or a silly amount of summoning, is going to not help with creating different and interesting armies, but merely a wider divide between the haves and have nots. 

Another concern I have at the moment isn't just these always first first type abilities, it's where GW are making exceptions to certain rules in isolated cases (which is fine) but then start to introduce it to other factions, such as Gristlegore ignoring behemoth limit, now fyreslayers have a lodge that lets you exceed the behemoth limit. Is this the precursor of a wave of armies that get to ignore the set structure that the other factions have to follow? 

It's taken almost a year for me to come to terms with the fact that my spooky bedsheets aren't going to be competitive until the next edition but I'm still playing with them because any army can win games and win events, you just have to practise and get good, but it is dispiriting (lol, did it again) when it's clear as ice to see there is a big divide occurring between the haves and have nots at moment in the game and we still have a lot of books that need to get the updated treatment as well as a few brand new releases. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Another concern I have at the moment isn't just these always first first type abilities, it's where GW are making exceptions to certain rules in isolated cases (which is fine) but then start to introduce it to other factions, such as Gristlegore ignoring behemoth limit, now fyreslayers have a lodge that lets you exceed the behemoth limit. Is this the precursor of a wave of armies that get to ignore the set structure that the other factions have to follow?

Lofnir Lodge, even in the first fyreslayers battletome, were stated as having/breeding more magmadroths than any other Lodge. its a good thing that the rules can can accomadate this fact. also Magmadroths are nowhere near Terrorgheist/Zombie Dragon level of offensive/defensible capabitiles

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joseph Mackay agreed that magmadroths aren't in the same level as dragons. Also pure dragon/TG isn't a good army. But it does make me wonder whether it's the start of a more flexible option to list building by GW. When maggotkin got the terrain piece it was a bit of an unusual thing, now (almost) everyone has one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Slaanesh now interacts with this rule. 

Screenshot_20190422-132424_Facebook.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to dust off those Forest Dragons and sisters of twilight guys

  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Looks like Slaanesh now interacts with this rule. 

 

That's a good sign, it also does so in a way not making AFF units completely lose it's advantage, anything making rule interactions more smooth i.e. no looking into FAQ to see what the hell happens when rules contradict each-other is welcome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/21/2019 at 6:52 AM, JackStreicher said:

I dislike it. For example: you can‘t fight a gristlegore Abhorrant on Terrorgheist, he will kill anything he touches and fight twice before you can harm him.

the only way to get rid of them is shooting. Tbh most armies lack shooting except Kharadron and Stormcasts... which leaves most armies helpless.

also the rising amount of MW output is getting absurd and unfun (hearthguard, Khorne prayers etc.)

 

Adapt? As a competitive player who exclusively uses Nurgle, I’ve diced and mathed it out. 2x AGKoTG attack’s dont do MUCH to my 10x blightkings with 4+/5++/6++. Then when they get to swing it’s good night sweet....king. 

I have changed my strategy from alpha strike to a tanky build in anticipation of seeing this mechanic at top tables at events. Look at your army, and adapt! (Builds and tactics)

edit: I realize this example is VERY unique to me. I hope t didn’t come off as a ****** post. Just wanted to illustrate  the importance of plasticity in both list building and playstyle. ASF is fine. When combined with “fights twice” with no break in between it’s broken. I suspect people haven’t caught onto the potential lol-inducing multiple combat activations of tyrants of blood build..with a sprinkle of fighting first. 

Edited by sal4m4nd3r
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

Adapt? As a competitive player who exclusively uses Nurgle, I’ve diced and mathed it out. 2x AGKoTG attack’s dont do MUCH to my 10x blightkings with 4+/5++/6++. Then when they get to swing it’s good night sweet....king. 

I have changed my strategy from alpha strike to a tanky build in anticipation of seeing this mechanic at top tables at events. Look at your army, and adapt! (Builds and tactics)

edit: I realize this example is VERY unique to me. I hope t didn’t come off as a ****** post. Just wanted to illustrate  the importance of plasticity in both list building and playstyle. ASF is fine. When combined with “fights twice” with no break in between it’s broken. I suspect people haven’t caught onto the potential lol-inducing multiple combat activations of tyrants of blood build..with a sprinkle of fighting first. 

Did you include the 6-12 (2 TG) bite attacks in your calculation? rerollable, that deal 6 mortal wounds, before you get to hit back?

I play FeC myself but I can‘t play a TG Ghoulking General of Gristlegore anymore since it‘s unfair towards my opponents and the game is about both parties having fun.

 

As a tournament player this might be interesting for you since the hunt to beat the meta is all there is to tournament games.

since I like balanced lists, soft competitiveness and friendly games the hunt for the meta is FOR ME: Stupid, ridiculous and boring.

I refuse to have my army and my hobby to be dictated by the currently most broken combo, just because GW is the worst at balancing armies externally and internally properly. I also won‘t buy or quit an army due to powerlevel since I am in for tactics, the visual aspect and mutual fun.

also such Solo-Combos destroy friendly games most of the time. And I had more than one player quit the game due to such unnecessary overpowering.

Edited by JackStreicher
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wait, not thinking here
okay, kinda messed up threads here, apologies to anyone who saw this initial message before I started editing it like crazy, to make anything usefull of it here is an answer to @sal4m4nd3r

It's not that unique to you as you think, there are more factions that can tank TG, it's stormcasts, it's phoenix temple (basicly an ally to 1/4 of order), now Fyreslayers are up for the task ect. 

Edited by XReN
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I don't hate the 'ASF' stuff GW is currently doing but I do think its becoming rapidly boring and leading to an arms race to stack your 'start of combat phase' phase actions. That said I do think the ASF stuff regularly leads to NPEs especially at 'FLGS Saturday Games' (maybe not quite full casual but certainly not hard as nails competitive either). Hopefully GW will read the community's general reaction to the idea and maybe tone it back or in some other ways limit it so that it doesn't create as many 'feel bad' moments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Did you include the 6-12 (2 TG) bite attacks in your calculation? rerollable, that deal 6 mortal wounds, before you get to hit back?

I play FeC myself but I can‘t play a TG Ghoulking General of Gristlegore anymore since it‘s unfair towards my opponents and the game is about both parties having fun.

 

As a tournament player this might be interesting for you since the hunt to beat the meta is all there is to tournament games.

since I like balanced lists, soft competitiveness and friendly games the hunt for the meta is FOR ME: Stupid, ridiculous and boring.

I refuse to have my army and my hobby to be dictated by the currently most broken combo, just because GW is the worst at balancing armies externally and internally properly. I also won‘t buy or quit an army due to powerlevel since I am in for tactics, the visual aspect and mutual fun.

also such Solo-Combos destroy friendly games most of the time. And I had more than one player quit the game due to such unnecessary overpowering.

Yes. The witherstave Artefact forces enemy units within 12” to re-roll 6s to hit 🙂

Local FEC player is the same way..except somewhat competitive. But he won’t use Gristlegore. He went with Blisterskin and a butt load of Flayers, and Deadwatch. Played a week or so ago. Was a great (BLOODY) game. Thank god his Flayers weren’t getting mortal wounds in combat either 😊

Edited by sal4m4nd3r
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Wait, not thinking here
okay, kinda messed up threads here, apologies to anyone who saw this initial message before I started editing it like crazy, to make anything usefull of it here is an answer to @sal4m4nd3r

It's not that unique to you as you think, there are more factions that can tank TG, it's stormcasts, it's phoenix temple (basicly an ally to 1/4 of order), now Fyreslayers are up for the task ect. 

Yeah if you read my post, I was using my situation as an example. The overall arching message was to adapt to new threats. Looks like you need another edit 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

So I don't hate the 'ASF' stuff GW is currently doing but I do think its becoming rapidly boring and leading to an arms race to stack your 'start of combat phase' phase actions. That said I do think the ASF stuff regularly leads to NPEs especially at 'FLGS Saturday Games' (maybe not quite full casual but certainly not hard as nails competitive either). Hopefully GW will read the community's general reaction to the idea and maybe tone it back or in some other ways limit it so that it doesn't create as many 'feel bad' moments. 

They only need to add: A Unit that fights at the start of the combat phase can never and by no effect be enabled to fight again this turn.

With that gone, the GK on TG is still strong but not brokenly so.

Edited by JackStreicher
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

They only need to add: A Unit that fights at the start of the combat phase can never and by no effect be enabled to fight again this turn.

With that gone, the GK on TG is still strong but not brokenly so.

Not to get too off topic but I think they could also fix the GKoTG by making his 'ASF' once per game instead of an always on ability. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in agreement with @sal4m4nd3r, I've moaned for ages about how my ghosts got shafted with their book and a staff member at my local store has kept saying the same thing 'Get Good'. It's taken a long time of graft but it's do-able. So am I now in a position to challenge a FEC GKoTG? Yes, by taking a combo of lord executioner and spirit hosts, it's a combo that I would have never bothered with previously, will it work 100% of the time? No, but it's certainly about adapting to what new grossness is currently about. When lizards get their new book and they teleport onto objectives and win every game through teleporting onto objectives, people will moan that teleporting is broken, there is always going to be a grossness that is going to need to be countered.

And yes the FEC GKoTG is really strong but have you seen the rest of the units in the book? Having big 4 wound models with a 5+ save and 0 rend is naff, those big units rarely get the death saves because of needing to be wholly within and having really large bases. Yes the archregent is a bit stupid for his points but then again so is the entire Skaven book, so where is the moaning about that? I think if you asked most FEC players would you rather have a book with the gross GKoTG or a book with viable units they'd go for the latter every time. They have 13 units in total, and half of them are naff choices (regular GK, all the courtiers except the varghulf, ghouls, horrors and regular zombie dragon), so what other options can FEC players really do except enjoy this brief moment in the sun before everyone figures out how to counter the GKoTG and moves on with to deal with the next big nasty.

As I said in my last post on this topic, I think the main concern is going to be the power creep that the older set of new books (so maggotkin onwards) may have and may struggle with when GW decide that a new rule (such as AFF) is the new hotness and rolls it out to every new faction. With the Khorne and Fyreslayers books they've put in some really heavy anti-magic elements, ones that hurt magic heavy armies a lot, and those magic armies have been dominant at the moment (and it hurts less magic armies even more 😂) but those magic heavy armies will find new ways to adapt to these hard counters GW have put into the game. 

And just when everyone has figured out how to adapt to everything, GW will release Forbidden Power and they'll be some stupid set of combos in it that break the game and we'll have a new thing to focus on 😂

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main concern is that it disrupts the I go, you go flow of the combat system. With most of AoS's damage being done in the combat phase it helps prevent issues of "I had 2k points on the board then my opponent went and now I have 0" that can be especially bad when you factor in the double turn. It doesn't seem that bad by itself but as others have pointed out it gets out of hand when you start stacking it with 2nd pile in and attack abilities or chain activations. It's still early but I'm surprised Blades of Khorne's Tyrant of Blood battalion with the Halo of Blood hasn't made more of a splash in the meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Forrix said:

My main concern is that it disrupts the I go, you go flow of the combat system. With most of AoS's damage being done in the combat phase it helps prevent issues of "I had 2k points on the board then my opponent went and now I have 0" that can be especially bad when you factor in the double turn. It doesn't seem that bad by itself but as others have pointed out it gets out of hand when you start stacking it with 2nd pile in and attack abilities or chain activations. It's still early but I'm surprised Blades of Khorne's Tyrant of Blood battalion with the Halo of Blood hasn't made more of a splash in the meta.

Mostly because Bloodthirsters aren’t particularly tanky or resilient and their damage can be very swingy either doing massive amounts or laughably little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

Mostly because Bloodthirsters aren’t particularly tanky or resilient and their damage can be very swingy either doing massive amounts or laughably little.

agree. Ghoul kings and so on have lot of regeneration abilities as well as invulnerable saves.

Bloodthirster don't hit as hard, aren't as fast, and die as soon as something serious watch them, because they have 0 defensive abilities

Edited by ledha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Enoby said:

Looks like Slaanesh now interacts with this rule. 

Screenshot_20190422-132424_Facebook.jpg

To be fair making someone else go last is the same thing as going first. They just made it sound more leisurely and hedonistic (which I give them props for). As though their heroes are luring other enemies into a daze so they can enjoy killing you slowly. It also gives the air of interactivity by having a dice roll your opponent is waiting to watch you fail along with positioning requirements.

I just wish that last sentence wasn't there as it is basically foreshadowing that GW intends to nerf Itchy Nuisance and Wildfire Taurus. They just couldn't let their be a straight up combat counter to ASF. It reminds me of when the Blades of Khorne FAQ buffed Gristlegore to stop intelligent players using clever pile-ins to deny the mindlessness of a GKoTG. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It’s an interesting thread Mephisto, thanks for raising it.

I do think it’s starting to go too far now that almost every release is getting a version of always fights first (or in some cases, makes your opponent fight last).  I also believe that while it’s not the end of the world, it does in its own way make the game less engaging.  When your options boil down to charge a unit (then it strikes first and kills you), or let it charge you (then it strikes first and kills you), that is a bad experience and uninteractive. 

Yes, there are some things that can counterplay it.  You can either have the extreme durability to shrug its output (mainly available to Order, with some exception), or high quality and well-pointed shooting (mainly available to Order, with some exceptions).  You might also have AFF of your own (mainly available to those blessed with a recent book containing good rules) or a way to make your opponent fight last (likewise). 

A huge percentage of the units and armies in the game sit in the nexus where none of those apply, and are not likely to apply for years to come.  So beyond the tiny edge case of cutting-edge tournament players who are proactively chasing the meta, it has a significant negative impact on the game as it is played.

Or to put it another way: I really like AOS.  Alternating activations in combat are a huge part of AOS, and it works very well.  I think it’s a bad thing that AOS is losing one of the things I liked about it most.

But having said all that, my own personal issue with it is less the sudden proliferation of AFF, and moreso the Khorne FAQ.  When the Activation Wars first started, I went on record as arguing that it was a good thing.  I thought it was a really smart move to create this little interactive mini game, where there were several workarounds.  In particular piling into AFF units after the “Start of” phase had ended, either through 6” pile ins, or charging a different unit then piling in to bring them into combat.

In that scenario, their window to activate (as defined by the Community article https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/21/who-fights-first/) had passed and they were out of luck.  It meant that AFF was a massive boon 90% of the time, but 10% of the time it was a crippling burden.  So smart counter play brought in a really engaging mini game of tactical cat and mouse.

The Khorne DC, which between the question and the answer changed one premise (“fights at the start of the combat phase”) into another premise (“can fight at the start of the combat phase”) threw that out of the window.  The whole exercise was dumbed down to “have good rules, or don’t”.  And I think that’s a great shame.

Personally, I’d love to see that FAQ reversed in the next Big FAQ window.

Edited by PlasticCraic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i started Flesh-Eater Courts with Carrion Empire. over the past year id had the chance to borrow a friends army every now and then and always enjoyed playing with them, even if underpowered at the time. so when the dual box was announced i decided to start my own army.

i played two games, TWO! before i stopped playing them because the constand complaining about them being op sucked all the fun out of playing them. i put more effort into painting them than any of my other armies and now i cant use them.

i want to address the Feeding Frenzy issue. everyone complains about it, but you have to remember what that rule used to do. previously, if you completely wiped out a UNIT in combat, on a roll of 6 you could pile in and attack again. not only is that roll unlikely, but you were also unlikely to be able to kill a unit and still have a unit within 3" to pile-in towards anyway. the old rule NEVER worked (at least in mine and my friends experince). the rule is now useful and costs Command Points to use (a resource we also need to use for our Summoning-Throne notwithstanding). flesh eaters were an incredibly weak army but could summon hordes of extra units (which you had to pay points for pre-aos2). theyre now on an even footing with the other 2.0 books, but as a previously unseen faction (as almost nobody played them) theyre now considered op. always fight first is ONLY on the general, so its only 1 unit doing it

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...