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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

I wasn't suggesting we bring it back.  The point I was sort of making was that the percentage system did help to prevent the issues you can on occasion get with games at small points where people bring the most powerful unit possible and dominate a game.  AoS is a different beast to WHFB so the old system certainly wouldn't work verbatim - but I do think that small games would benefit from something a little better than what we currently have.

I think the problem is rose coloured glasses.  Right now units are fairly descent across the board where heroes and monsters become the issues.  

A big issue moving from 5th to 6th was people's armies were invalidated and to a degree that happened in the first GHB with Battle line.  Both cases I recall lizardmen players struggling.  In the 5th to 6th change people could have 5000 points but not play cause they lacked what was chosen as Troops.  IN GHB 1 Saurus Warriors weren't as good as Temple Guard.  

A loose percentage at low tiers is a form of comp that can really mess with things.  And across most armies it can scale bad and weird.  Take for example Path to Glory.  It was a casual game without balance.  That's invariably how smaller games get sorted out.  

I would prefer to see a better set of rules for smaller games.  I think Meeting Engagement was meant for that but maybe poorly executed or seemingly not picked up well?  

It sounds like Crusade for 40k could be a mix of army building, RPG elements and small game playing that would work for smaller games instead.

Edited by Popisdead
typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think the problem is rose coloured glasses.  Right now units are fairly descent across the board where heroes and monsters become the issues.  

A big issue moving from 5th to 6th was people's armies were invalidated and to a degree that happened in the first GHB with Battle line.  Both cases I recall lizardmen players struggling.  In the 5th to 6th change people could have 5000 points but not play cause they lacked what was chosen as Troops.  IN GHB 1 Saurus Warriors weren't as good as Temple Guard.  

A loose percentage at low tiers is a form of comp that can really mess with things.  And across most armies it can scale bad and weird.  Take for example Path to Glory.  It was a casual game without balance.  That's invariably how smaller games get sorted out.  

I would prefer to see a better set of rules for smaller games.  I think Meeting Engagement was meant for that but maybe poorly executed or seemingly not picked up well?  

It sounds like Crusade for 40k could be a mix of army building, RPG elements and small game playing that would work for smaller games instead.

My issue with meeting engagements is that it creates extra steps and complications, when generally in a smaller match I’m looking for less complexity. 
 

I am hoping the small 40k missions are actually good and that can maybe be a template for small format AoS missions in the future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

1) 25 mm ungors should be hording on and better at holding the objective than larger base units.  that's part of the mechanic of the game.

3) so make that unique.  Otherwise it's slowly brought back in fully.  A ghorgon shouldn't hold an objective.  Troops should hold ground.  

4) The game doesn't really benefit of Hordes, horde units get a benefit to be beneficial.  

 

I just disagree with the points.  I'm not meaning to attack you, sorry if it feels that way.  Just FYI.  :)

I think the problem with most monsters, like a Ghorgon, is not that they can't hold an objective, but that they can't clear horde units (or chaff) either to make way for your troops to go for the objective.

So most (non-hero) monsters are not good for either role other than be cool looking pieces on the table.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back thunder stomps. A monster will do X amount of moral wounds to an enemy unit within 1'' at the end of the combat round. 

X depends on wounds suffered by monster. 

That would help big beasties against hordes. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this the other day and how I would like to see behemoths and heroes count as their current wound total rather than just 1. This gives both more utility (granted heroes didn't need it) and I think on a fluff level works better, in the same way monsters get weaker as they take more wounds their ability to control a point is diminished by being wounded and logically (or as logical as you can get about a game of lizards on dinosaurs fighting underwater elves etc.) it seems to me my 12 wound thunder lizard bastiladon has more control over an objective than 10 chainrasp however a bastiladon with 1 wound left is clearly out matched by 10 chainrasp, model numbers don't make total sense for controlling points.  If my wife and I are in our loungeroom and an adult tiger gets in you wouldn't say we control the room because we outnumber it right? Facetious I know but it's what makes sense to me

  • Like 10
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anything come up about the Snotling Blood Bowl team release date that I missed? I know it isn't AoS specifically, but I want to use them for some Gloomspite conversions. I need that Pump Wagon in my life.

Share this post


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

If my wife and I are in our loungeroom and an adult tiger gets in you wouldn't say we control the room because we outnumber it right?

This depends on what is meant by "controlling the room", which is where the objective abstraction becomes a bit tricky to translate into real life. But, for example, if your purpose for being in the lounge room was to turn on the TV, one of you could distract the tiger while the other one grabbed the remote - mission accomplished. That's one way of thinking about what control means in real terms, and it's where numbers are more helpful than individual power.

The tiger doesn't take control of the room off you just by walking in. It takes control by killing both of you. That's how monsters should be taking objectives off hordes. The problem is that most monsters in the game have pretty anaemic stats and can't actually rip through a horde like they should. Making them better at holding objectives doesn't address that problem.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2020 at 9:23 PM, Mutton said:

Otherwise, we continue to run into the situation where an enormous Ghorgon is sitting on an objective, but oh no, two goblins are there too, so I guess the goblins get it.

Haha for some reason this feels like the wrong example. In my mind claiming an objective needs some intelligence and understanding of the bigger picture. 
of course two grots will be more inclined to try to steal the artefact. One distracting the ghorgon, the other opening a tomb or something. 

i do get the point though, even if I don’t agree fully, maybe a better example would be the celestant prime vs 2 grots. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

. . . the objective abstraction becomes a bit tricky to translate into real life.

This is my problem with objectives in a nutshell. To clarify, I love them from a purely mechanical sense, and how they make the game more than a simple punch-fest, with the most punchiest puncher winning in the end.

The disjoint though is that it often isn't clear what your fighting for and how your models "should" be interacting with it.  If your objective is to control a bridge, then a ghorgon would control that better than any pair of goblins, no matter how clever (unless they can lure the ghorgon "more than 6-inches away," which works thematically and mechanically.)

If, alternatively, the objective you're trying to control is the Tome of Super Deadly Magical Doom, one little goblin clutching that to his chest would be able to hold that over a dozen ghorgons, who wouldn't have the combined brain-power to turn a page.

All of this is definitely overthinking the game mechanics, which are kept vague and simple to avoid three pages of rules for each objective, but it highlights the disparity in perception amongst the players. We can literally interpret an objective to be anything, and there's going to be frustration when it doesn't make sense to us.

Ultimately, my issue with monsters and objectives is that monsters are specifically designed to simulate a unit of models slowly being whittled down (as they take damage,their attacks, damage, and overall effectiveness decreases, just like any unit with multiple models.) They don't take battleshock, but the decrease in damage/movement compensates for that. In every way but one they are a unit represented by a single model. And that one way - obviously- is when it comes to holding objectives. Several people have already suggested that their wounds should count towards their ability to hold an objective, and I largely agree.

Alternatively, if they're not going to become better at holding objectives, lets take away brackets. Let them be one model that is an absolute wrecking ball until they are finally put down. The ability to manipulate your opponent by charging a monster at their lines that they absolutely must deal with quickly and decisively would become a powerful strategy, and while you'd likely still loose them to a powerful shooting army, that turn spent focusing on your monster would be a turn your other troops can get into position. At least in theory.

I'm hoping monsters get a revamp in AoS 3.0 that makes them more viable in general.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Mattrulesok said:

If my wife and I are in our loungeroom and an adult tiger gets in you wouldn't say we control the room because we outnumber it right?

XD Best exemple of the day! Sometime we are in the living room with my wife and our cat and I dont really think we could say that we have control on the sofa ;)

I agree that it could make the job to have a "objective controll wieght" on behemoths damage table.

Edited by RedMax
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, OkayestDM said:

The disjoint though is that it often isn't clear what your fighting for and how your models "should" be interacting with it.  If your objective is to control a bridge, then a ghorgon would control that better than any pair of goblins, no matter how clever (unless they can lure the ghorgon "more than 6-inches away," which works thematically and mechanically.)

If, alternatively, the objective you're trying to control is the Tome of Super Deadly Magical Doom, one little goblin clutching that to his chest would be able to hold that over a dozen ghorgons, who wouldn't have the combined brain-power to turn a page.

All of this is definitely overthinking the game mechanics, which are kept vague and simple to avoid three pages of rules for each objective, but it highlights the disparity in perception amongst the players. We can literally interpret an objective to be anything, and there's going to be frustration when it doesn't make sense to us.

Yeah, totally. The objectives in the game are really neither of these things.

"Holding" a bridge is something that only matters in potential until somebody else tries to cross it. Our objectives aren't about access, because they contribute to a strategic victory whether or not anyone is actually using that access (and the areas where your forces can and can't move freely are clearly delineated in other ways, such as engagement range). That doesn't make sense in the real world. They're also not like a Book of Doom, because you could just pick that up and run off with it. Really, they're a big circle on the ground with a sign that says "Stand here to win", which aren't a common thing in real battles. AoS objectives are very much about game, and not so much narrative.

28 minutes ago, OkayestDM said:

Ultimately, my issue with monsters and objectives is that monsters are specifically designed to simulate a unit of models slowly being whittled down (as they take damage,their attacks, damage, and overall effectiveness decreases, just like any unit with multiple models.) They don't take battleshock, but the decrease in damage/movement compensates for that. In every way but one they are a unit represented by a single model. And that one way - obviously- is when it comes to holding objectives. Several people have already suggested that their wounds should count towards their ability to hold an objective, and I largely agree.

Alternatively, if they're not going to become better at holding objectives, lets take away brackets. Let them be one model that is an absolute wrecking ball until they are finally put down. The ability to manipulate your opponent by charging a monster at their lines that they absolutely must deal with quickly and decisively would become a powerful strategy, and while you'd likely still loose them to a powerful shooting army, that turn spent focusing on your monster would be a turn your other troops can get into position. At least in theory.

I think there's enough of a distinction that it still matters. Monsters degrade, but they don't degrade nearly as much as units. Some monsters barely reduce in effectiveness when they take damage, and many have access to command abilities that let them fight at full effectiveness regardless of their current wounds. Degrading profiles is much more about making the opponent feel like their attacks are having some impact, which can otherwise be demoralising and not fun.

Monsters can (and in my opinion should) still be wrecking balls, even if their profiles degrade. But most of them are too cheap, and therefore too weak. A Ghorgon only costs what, 160 points? Of course it sucks! Make it 300+ points and give it a profile to match, and it will rip infantry apart like it's supposed to. A Frostlord on Stonehorn (at 400 points) will annihilate pretty much any unit you put them into, as well they should - it doesn't matter that they get weaker when they take damage, they feel like a proper monster on the table because they have so much impact. That's what I'd like to see for other monsters too.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to topic please? ,😅🙈✌️

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dirkdragonslayer said:

Has anything come up about the Snotling Blood Bowl team release date that I missed? I know it isn't AoS specifically, but I want to use them for some Gloomspite conversions. I need that Pump Wagon in my life.

No release date or further info has come along unfortunately. In August we have the 2 Underworlds Warbands releasing, along with what I'm sure will be a tonne of 40K releases, though I wouldnt be suprised to see the Snotling Team and Treeman released in August as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Infernalslayer said:

I think the problem with most monsters, like a Ghorgon, is not that they can't hold an objective, but that they can't clear horde units (or chaff) either to make way for your troops to go for the objective.

So most (non-hero) monsters are not good for either role other than be cool looking pieces on the table.

That´s the main problem of most of the monsters. Being a "single model unit" it´s great to control the movement of enemy units, but they´re just support units unable to control objetives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone low key happy AOS releases are taking a little longer at this time? I wish I could give @KingBrodd his Giants and all you Lumineth Players all your minis (I play Deepkin so I still hatez you all because Teclis SuCkZ). Between finishing off I think over 3000pts of Deepkin and now I am finishing up my KO it gives me another 3 months to save money for real life and also focus on becoming a better player. I am still stoked for new releases but just trying to think on the bright side with all the 40k stuff going on and the snails pace AOS is having with releases right now.

 

Still I am hoping for Vampirates or something Vampire themed! Maybe a new Deepkin Tome to make turtles great again. *Wait to make turtles great for once*

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Still I am hoping for Vampirates or something Vampire themed!

Me too! I need my Vampires! Until then I'll keep playing my Vampire themed Khorne Army. Just finished kit bashing my Vampire Lord on Karkadrak.

Edited by BaylorCorvette
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BaylorCorvette said:

Me too! I need my Vampires! Until then I'll keep playing my Vampire themed Khorne Army. Just finished kit bashing my Vampire Lord on Karkadrak.

Do you mind sharing? But seriously, where the hell are the vampires? They’re mentioned in lore as much as Chaos dwarfs but still no new models!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, TheR00zle said:

Do you mind sharing? But seriously, where the hell are the vampires? They’re mentioned in lore as much as Chaos dwarfs but still no new models!

Sure. Here's where I'm at so far. Probably 85% complete painting it. Need to do some clean up, etc. Also here's a picture of Vampire Lord (that I use as a proxy for my Chaos Lord on foot). Lighting isn't perfect, lots of reflection here but you get the idea.

20200722_093836.jpg

20200722_094105.jpg

20200524_164346.jpg

Edited by BaylorCorvette
  • Like 10
  • LOVE IT! 2

Share this post


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

Here's where I'm at so far.

really cool 👍

Time to look at the Apotheosys Anvil to have exclusive warscroll for this exclusive minis!

Share this post


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

really cool 👍

Time to look at the Apotheosys Anvil to have exclusive warscroll for this exclusive minis!

One step ahead of you my friend, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BaylorCorvette said:

One step ahead of you my friend, lol.

we are waiting for you ! =>

 

Share this post


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

Is anyone low key happy AOS releases are taking a little longer at this time? I wish I could give @KingBrodd his Giants and all you Lumineth Players all your minis (I play Deepkin so I still hatez you all because Teclis SuCkZ). Between finishing off I think over 3000pts of Deepkin and now I am finishing up my KO it gives me another 3 months to save money for real life and also focus on becoming a better player. I am still stoked for new releases but just trying to think on the bright side with all the 40k stuff going on and the snails pace AOS is having with releases right now.

 

Still I am hoping for Vampirates or something Vampire themed! Maybe a new Deepkin Tome to make turtles great again. *Wait to make turtles great for once*

Thanks mate!! I just wish we had what we've been shown. I think if we had the rest of the Lumineth drop and the Sons everyone would be taking the slow pace right now very well, it's just that AOS' release schedule has taken a hit from the pandemic. Again if we had these things I think people would be ok.

Share this post


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

Thanks mate!! I just wish we had what we've been shown. I think if we had the rest of the Lumineth drop and the Sons everyone would be taking the slow pace right now very well, it's just that AOS' release schedule has taken a hit from the pandemic. Again if we had these things I think people would be ok.

If we had a bit more communication about people would be fine already I think. Like the road map things. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread should be renamed to "Rumors, General Chatter, and @KingBrodd still wants his gargants" with some kind of marker for an actual rumor post. 

😄

  • Like 4
  • Haha 7
  • LOVE IT! 1

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...