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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, tripchimeras said:

Why must it be all or nothing?  No GW game has ever been great on balance, but they do offer a lot of other things that in my opinion make up for it.  Pretty much the best and most diverse model range, great and detailed lore, diverse and very customizable army lists (something that is usually directly in opposition to balance in general), and most importantly massed battles with huge armies.  That last point is something very few game systems offer, and only GW offers it in quite so epic a fashion.  I think diversity in list development and balance are a tricky... for lack of a better term balancing act, where for the most part the more list diversity and army diversity you have the worse the balance is going to become.  I think a prime example of this is KoW, which (while I am not familiar with how the current state is) has traditionally been an extremely balanced game, however it is not a game with very much flavor or list diversity. 

What this long winded post is building to is that imo GW doesn't NEED to have an extremely balanced game, What it does need to do is have enough balance that competitive play is still fairly diverse and skill intensive.  I think since 2.0 that has mostly been true at 2k, though the recent books have definitely been stretching it.  I don't think its balance is completely broken yet, but competitive play is definitely getting dangerously homogenized, which is why so many have huge hopes on this GHB to fix a lot of that.  The increasing need for 2k balance fixes is also why I am not really concerned with balance in meeting engagement.  GW has enough on its hands keeping balance strong at its "ideal" point level, to be trying to make a completely new tournament level work at the same time.

I can't answer that question really.  Its up to each person.  For me I realize the balance is bad, and for me to enjoy myself I make sure I have an A list that means I don't get beat just because I showed up with the wrong list.  

I think my patience has worn a little thin with the current batch of balance, because I am getting fatigued from facing the same lists over and over, but the GHB 19 should fix that for another year.   That means I know I will be selling off my daughters of khaine likely and picking up a new army and having to have it sent off to get painted and hopefully get it back by August, which wears a lot of other people out having to do that all the time, particularly the guys that paint their own stuff, because its a lot of effort to have to do regularly but again thats something that they have to reconcile with themselves.

I don't really see much list diversity at our competitive level locally, or even regionally.  Adepticon had a bit more diversity but was still corner stoned by the same type of lists.  At least from what I saw this year and last year.

Thats a breaking point for a lot of people.

A lot of people locally express frustration at having to constantly sell and buy new armies every year because no one wants to be beaten because their list has bad rules and what has good rules today has bad rules tomorrow while a new crop of units is now optimal.  

Now some people don't care about balance and just play to have a good time and hats off to them.  To those people, GW doesn't have to produce a balanced game because thats not a concern for them.  For competitive people I've noticed its also not really a concern so long as they can stay on top with an A level list so they aren't being beaten by army list disparities.  But that does produce burn out over a few years of churn and burn.

Edited by Dead Scribe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

I can't answer that question really.  Its up to each person.  For me I realize the balance is bad, and for me to enjoy myself I make sure I have an A list that means I don't get beat just because I showed up with the wrong list.  

I think my patience has worn a little thin with the current batch of balance, because I am getting fatigued from facing the same lists over and over, but the GHB 19 should fix that for another year.   That means I know I will be selling off my daughters of khaine likely and picking up a new army and having to have it sent off to get painted and hopefully get it back by August, which wears a lot of other people out having to do that all the time, particularly the guys that paint their own stuff, because its a lot of effort to have to do regularly but again thats something that they have to reconcile with themselves.

I don't really see much list diversity at our competitive level locally, or even regionally.  Adepticon had a bit more diversity but was still corner stoned by the same type of lists.  At least from what I saw this year and last year.

Thats a breaking point for a lot of people.

That's totally fair.  Since this is about meeting engagement, don't want to get too off topic, but I think the biggest issue has been the introduction of rules that are impossible to balance properly with points.  FEC is the primary offender of this issue.  Skaven and DoK are probably stronger tomes, but most of their issues I think can be fixed with simple point changes.  FEC on the other hand the rules on certain things are just impossible to balance properly, they are going to be undercosted right up until the combinations are impossible to take, which is pretty dumb imo.  They have pretty obvious hard counters (counters which hopefully start seeing consistent action at tourneys which should significantly reduce the number of FEC players going forward, bringing more diversity without any rule changes), but unless you have those hard counters you auto lose, its the worst kind of broken.  They more then anyone desperately need a faq that just strait up changes their rules, I don't see GHB fixing them.  Everyone else though DoK particularly given that skaven probably came out too recently, hopefully will get more or less fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I got nothing.  They are pretty broken in our opinion as well, but because of that about 1/2 of our area runs them so I have to face them often every week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Folks, back to topic of Meeting Engagements. Understand some of the conversations in last few posts but it’s off topic. If you want to discuss something different, please start another topic 😉

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, this is really cool. Like, this is a whole other format for AoS. It's pretty interesting to see GW delve into an almost MtG style of alternative way to play the game. It's hard to judge what a tournament would be like without a list of battleplans, but even just saying that you'll be playing on a 30 x 40 is enough to get me excited. I can play a game of Warhammer, in my house, with the table I own. That's super cool and I'm here for it.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, not a fan how the mwg lads were dissing the terrain set up rules.... but now that I’m watching their meeting engagement bar rep... that is a sparse table 😂

they are absolutely right, the terrain set up rules leave some need for house ruling. With min sized units it should work even better with more terrain  

Meeting engagement looks fun. But the scenarios so far look mostly like slug fests in the middle because even a 10 man squad can cover more than one objective. 

Will try it of course but not a big fan yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 11:27 AM, Drib said:
  Reveal hidden contents

 

Well, there is no indication that the Battleline requirements for 1k games have changed. I would be surprised if the limit will be droped to 1.

In their latest battle report, Guerilla miniature games seemed to have only one battleline for the Stormcasts.

Besides, it seems super quick and fun.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy replied to me on YouTube, and he, for him at least, the 2 battlelines constraint is gone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep it definitely doesn't seem like you need two battleline options anymore and all you need to do is fit the constrains of the detachments you want to bring. My guess is there will probably be an Errata or FAQ clarifying if that is the case or not along with clarifying how the new terrain rules work with faction terrain placement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

From the leaked content, I don't see GW do anything to limit summoning for meeting engagement. That will probably become a very big issue.....

Like resulting in 1500 or even 2000 vs 1000, rather than what it claims to be(1000 vs 1000).....

This might be even more unbalanced than 2000 games.....

Although GW design it as a matched play, I hope it will be not be that ironic......

Edited by HammerOfSigmar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be highly surprised if they limited summoning in any way.  And you're right, in 2000 points getting a 500 point advantage over someone that isn't summoning can be big... in a 1000 point game getting a 500 point advantage is huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As 2000 point games get more competitive a smaller and smaller subset of armies and unit combinations within those armies can compete.  I think this will be no different, it just might happen that if you are building to win, then a summoning focused list is the way to go. 

Although, it is possible given the smaller table size that good places to bring them down can be hard to come by.  Especially with many missions forcing your opponent to keep more of the table covered just because of when and where the 2nd and 3rd waves might arrive in each scenario.  It's entirely possible that summoning aggressively forward won't work as well as on a larger table and that another unit in among the three waves is going to struggle to get to grips with the enemy.

I would like to think they tried playing against summoning focused FEC and Seraphon during playtesting for GHB19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other side of the coin is that I think the player base wants this level of summoning to exist, and they are giving the player base what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summoning is factored into the points costs at 2k. Do we have reason to think it will be different at 1k?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that, from the leaked content, GW is not doing anything to limit summoning. Summoning is not balanced even in 2000, they claim to added the summoning unit points into the summoner unit but that's not the case, at less for some of the infamous unit like archregeant. I saw one video playing the meeting engagement, I don't see how the summoned unit will be blocked because of small map. Hence, I really concern this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, HammerOfSigmar said:

I don't see how the summoned unit will be blocked because of small map.

The Keyword is basicly Fieldcontrol:

If you cover enough room of the unit that can summon stuff, the unit can't be placed. After most summoned units have to be places outside 9" you can deny room completly if they have to be placed in range of a summoner or at least keypoints can be blogs, that the placed unit is less effective in its position if we have a 30x40" or 36x48"  map a single 25mm Base model denies in that case about 19" diameter. if it is places in 9" to the board edge. (so that single model is basicly blocking 16 - 23% of the board for summoning.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The Keyword is basicly Fieldcontrol:

If you cover enough room of the unit that can summon stuff, the unit can't be placed. After most summoned units have to be places outside 9" you can deny room completly if they have to be placed in range of a summoner or at least keypoints can be blogs, that the placed unit is less effective in its position if we have a 30x40" or 36x48"  map a single 25mm Base model denies in that case about 19" diameter. if it is places in 9" to the board edge. (so that single model is basicly blocking 16 - 23% of the board for summoning.

Well, since in the meeting engagement, we have very limited unit in the first turn, I am not sure wether it is possible to just cover the board as we desired, for example, I play SCE, I cannot figure out a way to cover the board to prevent FEC from summoning ghouls. Besides, you opponent can also move his unit to block your movement and prevent you from supressing his summoning space. I will try in the next few months. Still, thanks for your advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, HammerOfSigmar said:

Well, since in the meeting engagement, we have very limited unit in the first turn, I am not sure wether it is possible to just cover the board as we desired, for example, I play SCE, I cannot figure out a way to cover the board to prevent FEC from summoning ghouls. Besides, you opponent can also move his unit to block your movement and prevent you from supressing his summoning space. I will try in the next few months. Still, thanks for your advice.

After FEC units are coming from the tables edge, complety blocking will not be possible, but you can force him that the unit must be placed in his table edge, instead of coming from behind you. If you can bring two units in spearhead you can at least control your side of the board.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it would not prevent that FEC brings those units to the battle. Summoned units do exist on the battlefield.

Share this post


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

After FEC units are coming from the tables edge, complety blocking will not be possible, but you can force him that the unit must be placed in his table edge, instead of coming from behind you. If you can bring two units in spearhead you can at least control your side of the board.

 

I do recall reading the the GHB 19 for meeting engagement in my FLGS, there is a new rule saying any units coming in from reserves (probably include summoning) have to be 9" away from any enemy model AND enemy table edge. This means the FEC player cannot summon behind you.

Edited by InSaint
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some interview with Jervis and Sam Pearson that people are talking about where they said there is no limitation on summoning in meeting engagement because shorter game length means not as much opportunity to summon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

There is some interview with Jervis and Sam Pearson that people are talking about where they said there is no limitation on summoning in meeting engagement because shorter game length means not as much opportunity to summon.

 

They just ignore that FEC can summon everything in turn 1 with their terrain?

Share this post


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

 

They just ignore that FEC can summon everything in turn 1 with their terrain?

This is true but the scenario might not bring in the detachment with your Archregent or Ghoul King or any other hero that allows summoning on the first turn unless you have one in each detachment that is. Summoning could/will definitely be a problem but I think the staggered deployment can help mitigate this a little bit, it's a bit hard to tell what effect it'll really have until we get the book or start seeing battle reports pop up with summoning armies in them.

Share this post


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

 

They just ignore that FEC can summon everything in turn 1 with their terrain?

Don't think it's enough to balance it but (and same goes for the Seraphon) it's a gamble you make. Do you place it in vanguard. With the risk it's coming on turn 3? Or do you go save and place it in the main body? 

Again don't think it's enough, but if you tell me an arch regent can summon 200pts of ghouls in the 3d turn I wouldn't be that worried. If for example my allegiance abilities would allow me that 3d turn to strike first (deepkin). So I'm still more worried about the terrain deal but that's easier to houserule. So we'll see after the first set of games. 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...