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

The great big Generals Handbook 2019 Discussion Topic

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Karragon said:

They'll be updated in the GHB FAQ in early July

Personally I've had no trouble with HGB death star, I just don't go near it, it's so slow that you can just run circles round it and not engage

Or just take a couple chaff units and block them off with it. Stretch 10 chainrasps in front of it, they can MOV4 around it or charge an 80 point unit, mulch it, then bam, another 10 man chainrasp unit. Two turns and 160 point killed, similar to how to deal with Old witch aelves spam except it is literally one unit that can only move 4" and cost a good third of their army points.

They do need a nerf, I'm just surprised to see people advocating a bigger nerf to them than to the actual top tier armies. The average DoK list went up what, 120-130ish points? And people want to see a 300+ increase in the average FS lists.

Edited by Qrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I don't really understand the spirit of the game argument... The rules make characters targetable therefore it is within the spirit of the rules to target the characters. You don't have to build your army to do that, just take some shooting and an endless spell or two, it's 5 wound heroes with meh armour.

I think we're coming at this from two different directions.  I'm guessing from your reply you're focusing on the competitive matched play aspect of AoS?  If so then yes, you're completely correct that you should have some form of character sniping ability in your army list.  I'm looking at things at a much more generalised level where spirit of the game for me is very much applying the saying of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".  If I went for a casual game against a friend, I'd not expect them to bring along a list and snipe out all of my characters on turn one, that's just not cricket!

53 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

But the question remains do you play the game to defeat the army or win the battleplan. Matched play isn't about killing the army, it's about getting more points on the board.

For me I play a game for an enjoyable experience for both me and the person I'm playing.  I don't go into it with the thought I want to smash my opponent off the board, but neither do I go into it with the objective of losing for my opponents satisfaction.

  • Like 3
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I dislike the concept of "spirit of the game" because it is a bit like "casual play" in that it can mean very different things to different players. A Skaven Clan Skyre list might well have a lot of warplock jezzails because that's in the spirit of the army, even though they'd likely snipe off a character in a turn easily.

I'd rather see a game where you can't perform vast actions within a single turn, esp the early turns. You should not be able to wipe out half an enemy army or their characters in the first couple of turns. The games should have a system whereby the first two are getting into combat; the middle are a grind then the last is where you might get to ping off combos and wipe out larger numbers as a resolution. With a few tricky abilities that might spark earlier in the game. 

 

In general wargames where one player can perform significant actions in the first turn or two are often boring for one player because not only do they sit there removing most of their army; but they are also left with far less potential to recover from such an attack. It makes the remainder of the game less fun for them and less fun for their opponent too 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RuneBrush in that case you and your opponent are at cross purposes. If you both had were aiming for that goal a simple conversation would suffice in a way points would not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spirit of the game is always going to be subjective.  For me the spirit of the game is to win the game by any legal means necessary and obtain maximum match points given to me by the game developers through their rules.  For others, it is to create armies based on their idea of the narrative.  

The actual rules themselves dictate what you can and cannot do.  I don't think its right for people to chastise others for playing within the confines of the rules because they are playing a way that is not favorable to them.  

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think it's worth keeping this in context here and not going off at a tangent (which we're already doing bearing in mind this is a topic about the new handbook).  Here's my comment:

Quote

I will say that for some people (myself included), building an army just to snipe out characters isn't really something that's particularly enjoyable and kind of goes against the spirit of the game.

I've emphasised the bit where I say clarify that my point wasn't going to be the same for everybody, however this seems to have been missed as it was on another page.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately whenever spirit of the rules is a topic of debate, it becomes a touchy subject.  I and others like me get criticized daily across social media or other forums for playing the game competitively as if its an abomination to play to win and is akin to "clubbing baby seals and enjoying it".

Weirdly enough I did not really encounter this type of stance until I started tabletop gaming.  Card gaming it was accepted by pretty much everyone.

Interesting thought to ponder I suppose.

On to topic I'm looking forward to seeing what changes the GHB brings the tournament scene and figuring out what army I will be playing in 2019/2020.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Think it's worth keeping this in context here and not going off at a tangent (which we're already doing bearing in mind this is a topic about the new handbook).  Here's my comment:

I've emphasised the bit where I say clarify that my point wasn't going to be the same for everybody, however this seems to have been missed as it was on another page.

Fair.

But I think as a community we are bad about communicating and identifying reasonable consequences of behaviour.

If you prefer to play the game as specific way that has consequences. The more specific the larger the consequences.

Edited by whispersofblood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Fyreslayers, I think HGB are just slightly too cost effective and Vulkites are a little underwhelming. I would like to see the former go up to 130/660 and the latter at 140.

Doomseekers and Runefather on Magmadroth should probably come down 20 points, too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Regarding Fyreslayers, I think HGB are just slightly too cost effective and Vulkites are a little underwhelming. I would like to see the former go up to 130/660 and the latter at 140.

Doomseekers and Runefather on Magmadroth should probably come down 20 points, too.

If the cost of the lords of the lodge battalion also increased to 160, then I would be 100% ok with this; that would be a ~80 point hit to the more popular lists. I just take umbrage to the idea of HGB going up to 150/900 when there are clearly far stronger armies out there that are getting signficantly less sever nerfs.

 

Edit: me not math good. So yeah, gonna leave that shame out for people to see.

That would actually change nothing sadly. The drop in vulkites and RFoMD would lead to an overall net change of 0 in most of the competative lists. Increase lords of the lodge to 160, remove horde bonus, lower the others just as you said. Boom, 80 point increase in list cost.

Problem is though, most people complaining are mainly complaining about the lords of the lodge battalion. Unless the battalion ability itself is changed then no amount of point changes will stop it from happening. People will simply trim their lists of the 240ish spare points that you have left over after the cornerstone units and keep on playing the same way. If you jump the points up to 900 it will still be the same, they may lose at most 5 HGB models in their big unit at the expense of punishing everyone that doesn't abuse the LotL battalion and the rest of the army, with a total of 3 units to choose from FS is extremely hard to balance if you want all units to see the table.

Same as FeC and to an extent HoS, no amount of point changing can fix a broken ability.

Edited by Qrow

Share this post


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

Unfortunately whenever spirit of the rules is a topic of debate, it becomes a touchy subject.  I and others like me get criticized daily across social media or other forums for playing the game competitively as if its an abomination to play to win and is akin to "clubbing baby seals and enjoying it".

Weirdly enough I did not really encounter this type of stance until I started tabletop gaming.  Card gaming it was accepted by pretty much everyone.

Interesting thought to ponder I suppose.

On to topic I'm looking forward to seeing what changes the GHB brings the tournament scene and figuring out what army I will be playing in 2019/2020.

I'm not a fan of "spirit of the game" either, but for slightly different reasons.  I think the spirit of the game is entirely situational and should be considered more of a loose contract or understanding between two gamers trying to have a good time that changes slightly every time you play. 

I too am mostly a competitive gamer, and the strategy (whether that be list-building, or in game) is the biggest aspect I like in wargaming.  If I am at a tournament for example this competitive spirit is clearly understood and everyone in attendance should know that going in.  I am obviously going to try to ensure my opponent has a good time with me, but I will absolutely do my best to club him without mercy within the game itself, while still being as fair as possible. 

But if I go to a local shop playing people I don't know it makes no sense to take the same attitude.  Playing a stranger, or even a friend for that matter, bringing a fluff list who isn't great at strategy and destroying them does very little to increase my skill as a player or my understanding of my list.  It is not enjoyable to beat someone who isn't playing the same game as me and make for a bad experience for both them and me.  If I am at a store I am going to always ensure I am very clear on what type of opponent I am playing and what type of list they are bringing.  Its as simple as asking "are you competitive or are you more a fluff/hobby guy?"  If the former, great we are playing the same game and your and my ideal playstyle will be what I do though keeping in mind that maxing out isn't really important and its still just a random game at a store.  But if he makes clear he is a hobbyist first, new and learning, or a beer and pretzel guy I would be doing both myself and him a disservice by bringing the same attitude and "spirit" I bring to a tournament.  If I am only there looking to hone my competitive skills I will either explain that to him and either see if he has a competitive build he can play in this one instance, and if not respectfully explain that I am only really looking for a certain type of game and move on. 

Otherwise I am going to bring out my own fluff and enjoy a break from my eel spam list or whatever.  I'm not going to "take it easy on them" per say. but I'm also not going to worry about doing ticky tacky things, or virtually end the game top of turn 1 by sniping every hero in his army just because I can or whatever.  I'm going to play fair and try to win, but within reason keeping in mind that the spirit in this situation is to have fun and do fluffy things, not simply to win, though I will still try to do so within reason.  I might make that epic looking,  but high risk charge, I wouldn't normally, or whatever.  It need not be one or the other, and there is no reason not to try out the game from a different angle every once in a while (not saying you or anyone else doesn't do that). 
 

The reason the more casual crowd gets so touchy about competitive play and tactics, is because they have had competitive players come to their store, with no tact or situational awareness and be "that guy".  This is a cooperative community based game at its heart, and not figuring out what your opponent is about before the game starts is does a disservice to both of you and is why those of us who tend to think mostly in terms of competitive play get lambasted online a lot.  I know most of us do understand this, and I am sure you do as well, I am just saying this is why and the "spirit of the game" to me is always fluid and situationally dependent, and that's why I don't like discussing it, because I don't think there should just be 1 answer for anyone.

As to you wondering about the big difference between card games vs tabletop gaming in the communities and approach, in my opinion it all comes down to the depth of the hobby.  In a card game it is significantly more shallow (this is not a criticism, there are just fewer aspects to the hobby).  A card game is meant to be played, there is really not much more to be done.  There is collecting and trading or whatever, but its a lesser thing.  Certainly you can build themed decks to a certain extent, but there is not the depth of customization and personal investment into said cards.  You bought them, there are no conversions, or painting or personalization.  In tabletop gaming the hobby is so much larger then just the game.  Painting, converting, and putting together the models take up more time then actually goes into playing the game, unless you buy your armies fully painted (totally valid).  The money and time investment leads to attachment, the lore is one of the key reasons to get into the hobby, not to say card games don't have lore, but its far more present in tabletop gaming and customizing it to your army in non tourney play is kinda the point, while the flavor text and portrait for any given card is set, kinda hard to change what that card is or represents.  Its just a different beast and the two are not really comparable imo.

Edited by tripchimeras
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Unfortunately whenever spirit of the rules is a topic of debate, it becomes a touchy subject.  I and others like me get criticized daily across social media or other forums for playing the game competitively as if its an abomination to play to win and is akin to "clubbing baby seals and enjoying it".

Weirdly enough I did not really encounter this type of stance until I started tabletop gaming.  Card gaming it was accepted by pretty much everyone. 

I don't think there's anything weird about resenting the increasingly competitive nature of the AoS scene at all. Matched is but one of the three ways to play, after all. It's a definition GW felt a need to formalize precisely to help keep the different playerbases out of each other's noses. Some people just don't like tryharding, and feel a need to voice their concerns about where they feel the scene they love is headed,  and that's totally fine. 

Consider this other fella's point:

2 hours ago, Overread said:

I'd rather see a game where you can't perform vast actions within a single turn, esp the early turns. You should not be able to wipe out half an enemy army or their characters in the first couple of turns. The games should have a system whereby the first two are getting into combat; the middle are a grind then the last is where you might get to ping off combos and wipe out larger numbers as a resolution. With a few tricky abilities that might spark earlier in the game.  

 This is how a good competitive focused wargame *should* work. This *isn't* how AoS works. At least not yet.

We're seeing some interesting changes in GW at large that seem to be setting down the foundations of a more robust competitive scene (Nightvault, KT Arena, Apocalypse), and I think they're doing that with AoS as well especially with what I've seen of the new GHB. Meeting Engagements in particular seems to me like its taking everything I don't like about the system and jostling it around. Will it work? Who knows! At least they're actively going for it in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Unfortunately whenever spirit of the rules is a topic of debate, it becomes a touchy subject.  I and others like me get criticized daily across social media or other forums for playing the game competitively as if its an abomination to play to win and is akin to "clubbing baby seals and enjoying it".

Weirdly enough I did not really encounter this type of stance until I started tabletop gaming.  Card gaming it was accepted by pretty much everyone.

Interesting thought to ponder I suppose.

On to topic I'm looking forward to seeing what changes the GHB brings the tournament scene and figuring out what army I will be playing in 2019/2020.

It may be because there's no hobby aspect in card games- it's all crunch. Painting an army is a labour of love (unless it's just a 3 colour minimum, or shipped off to a commission painter) and the fluff in wargames often conflicts with the crunch (in 40k the best anti-aircraft gun I have as imperial guard is a flamethrower tank. my dedicated AA gun is terrible).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how a good competitive focused wargame *should* work. This *isn't* how AoS works. At least not yet.

I think that that is a purposeful design choice however.  There is a lot of complaining about more complicated rules and it seems the majority of the AOS-fanverse does not want anything to do with complicated rules.

Additionally there is a lot of complaining about games taking too long, so having a system that is deadly from turn 1 was what a good majority of the AOS-fanverse wanted.  This was delivered upon.  

For every person I see that complains about half an army or more dying in turn 1 being a negative, I read two or three others countering that saying thats exactly what they want it to be.

This could be another instance of we don't know what the majority vote on in the polls however because that data is never shared with us.

It may be because there's no hobby aspect in card games- it's all crunch

That could be.  The majority of people I associate with pretty much treat everything as all crunch though, tabletop or card game.  The models are pogs.  

I think that the rules could be made to work with both desires, but right now there is this implied social contract that is nebulous and means something different from person to person, and therein lies the primary issue.  The rules should be the rules.  Play by the rules.  If it is not desired that the listbuilding aspect be so powerful that a competitive list will turn 1 table a casual list, do something in the rules to make it less polar.  Right now the listbuilding aspect of the game is very strong and a desired feature for a great number of players, and while that is true you will always have alpha busted lists running amuk against other lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Qrow said:

If the cost of the lords of the lodge battalion also increased to 160, then I would be 100% ok with this; that would be a ~80 point hit to the more popular lists. I just take umbrage to the idea of HGB going up to 150/900 when there are clearly far stronger armies out there that are getting signficantly less sever nerfs.

 

Edit: me not math good. So yeah, gonna leave that shame out for people to see.

That would actually change nothing sadly. The drop in vulkites and RFoMD would lead to an overall net change of 0 in most of the competative lists. Increase lords of the lodge to 160, remove horde bonus, lower the others just as you said. Boom, 80 point increase in list cost.

Problem is though, most people complaining are mainly complaining about the lords of the lodge battalion. Unless the battalion ability itself is changed then no amount of point changes will stop it from happening. People will simply trim their lists of the 240ish spare points that you have left over after the cornerstone units and keep on playing the same way. If you jump the points up to 900 it will still be the same, they may lose at most 5 HGB models in their big unit at the expense of punishing everyone that doesn't abuse the LotL battalion and the rest of the army, with a total of 3 units to choose from FS is extremely hard to balance if you want all units to see the table.

Same as FeC and to an extent HoS, no amount of point changing can fix a broken ability.

I'll chime in and say that Hermdar adds another layer onto the HGBs with the start of combat phase command ability, battleshock immunity (most of the time), and -1 to wound. In the last Warhammer Weekly Vince made a good point that with Gristlegore the real problem is the stacking of so many buffs on the general rather than the warscroll itself (though its still good). I feel there's a similar issue with HGB.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the whole power turns is a bit like the double turn.

People who tend to win (ego get to wipe out most of their opponents army in turn 1/2 or who get the double turn more often) tend to like those mechanics because they get to win in the game. Even if they might feel like its cheating a bit; they still feel like they like it because they are getting to win games.

Those who tend to not experience the problem, ergo they never see half an army or more die in a single turn or never see double turns; tend to either be neutral or not see the point in "rocking the boat" and changing the game from what it is. So they tend to fall on the more positive side

It's those who tend to lose because of the above who tend to hate those mechanics. Especially because many times they lose with a feeling as if there was nothing they "could" do to prevent it. Now this approach (losing with no chance of a win) isn't always hated, Rogue like games (computer) are built on the idea of losing due to random elements beyond player control. 

However a massive difference is that in those games getting started and playing the game is typically pretty quick. In tabletop wargames, the last thing I think anyone wants is to have games where you spend more time setting it up than actually getting to play; or where after the first turn you're losing the game without question and its jsut a case of seeing how fast/badly you lose. 

 

 

 

So I agree the picture can get a bit muddy, but a logical think through the various situations I think shows which elements are more universally positive and which are not. Furthermore with alternative game modes its possible to build a slower more sensible core game and then bolt-on options outside it. Eg how Killteam doesn't try to change 40K, but instead just stands to the side being its own thing

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I'll chime in and say that Hermdar adds another layer onto the HGBs with the start of combat phase command ability, battleshock immunity (most of the time), and -1 to wound. In the last Warhammer Weekly Vince made a good point that with Gristlegore the real problem is the stacking of so many buffs on the general rather than the warscroll itself (though its still good). I feel there's a similar issue with HGB.

Buffs is an issue, its like Daughters of Khaine where witch aelfs are good, but become broken good with built in combos within the army due to buffs and auras and army abilities. 

I posed the idea of limiting the number of buffs a unit can be under at any one time and still think its a viable option; even if it varies so some units have a greater or lesser limit. However I think such a rule would require GW to be very clear in tehir wording about what is a "buff" so that players could easily count them up rather than wondering "is a priest prayer a buff? Do endless spells count? Etc.."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Forrix said:

I'll chime in and say that Hermdar adds another layer onto the HGBs with the start of combat phase command ability, battleshock immunity (most of the time), and -1 to wound. In the last Warhammer Weekly Vince made a good point that with Gristlegore the real problem is the stacking of so many buffs on the general rather than the warscroll itself (though its still good). I feel there's a similar issue with HGB.

Yeah, I originally wanted to run hermdar (I forget the objective way to much,  it would force me to play it), but now I'm going to go Vorstag with Bael-grimnir and the lords of vorstag battalion.

I think this situation is the risk that is taken when an army that relies a lot on buffs is made. If all those buffs are layered on one decent unit, it become overwhelming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like Fyreslayers, like Slaanesh, are very good but not broken and my gut tells me that they are at GW’s intended new power level. They are powerful but it’s at a price and you leave yourself weak elsewhere. DoK, FEC and Skaven are the real problems here, being either so well rounded or so stupidly good at one thing that almost nothing else matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soak314 said:

This is how a good competitive focused wargame *should* work. This *isn't* how AoS works. At least not yet.

See this I disagree with strongly.  This may be how you want your competitive games to work, but it does not mean it is how a good competitive game must function.  There is no "right" way for a competitive game to work.  There is no reason a game with a lot of early turn action cannot be a good game or a competitive one, or even a game that still lasts all 5 turns (or most of them).   The type of competitive games being referred to already exist (most of which use alternating activations), GW games have never worked like that.  GW games function in competitive play and almost always have (though occasionally a little comp has been required in bad editions). 

For a competitive game to function as such it simply requires that

A. skill is extremely important to the outcome of the game (it is)

B. there is skill to list building more then just taking the net list every single time (contrary to popular belief this is true of AoS)

C. there are multiple strategic paths to victory

D. games aren't usually decided before the armies have hit the table barring garbage list design.

AoS does better in some of these categories then others, but in general all of these are more or less true (you can see that in tourney results).  It is by no means the height of competitive gaming, and that is either a problem for you, or the things GW DOES do better then everyone else make up for its weaknesses.  I think AoS can be more competitively balanced then it is, but that is not at all in keeping with the direction you guys are thinking.  

You guys are defining a competitive game as how you would like your matches to play out, not based on the competitive merits alone.  No competitive games, even the ones that mostly function how you want them to are going to have a highly skilled player going up against a significantly less skilled player going 5 rounds having combat form in turn 3 etc.  The game is going to be over very quickly whether the less skilled player realizes it or not.  In fact the extraordinarily rigid game structure you seem to desire would make the game significantly less competitive, and curtail the strategy involved significantly. 

 

Edit: Also meeting engagements are perfect if you want turn 3 to be primary battle round etc.  So GHB def has addressed this issue for those that prefer to play this way.

Edited by tripchimeras
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think the whole power turns is a bit like the double turn.

People who tend to win (ego get to wipe out most of their opponents army in turn 1/2 or who get the double turn more often) tend to like those mechanics because they get to win in the game. Even if they might feel like its cheating a bit; they still feel like they like it because they are getting to win games.

Those who tend to not experience the problem, ergo they never see half an army or more die in a single turn or never see double turns; tend to either be neutral or not see the point in "rocking the boat" and changing the game from what it is. So they tend to fall on the more positive side

It's those who tend to lose because of the above who tend to hate those mechanics. Especially because many times they lose with a feeling as if there was nothing they "could" do to prevent it. Now this approach (losing with no chance of a win) isn't always hated, Rogue like games (computer) are built on the idea of losing due to random elements beyond player control.

I think you are mistaken.  In my experience competitive players are by far the most vociferously in favour of any change that is going to bring more balance and strategic importance to the game they play.  Most competitive players don't just want to win.  They want to win because they played a superiorly tactical game when they win, and 2. they just like strategy in general and want to test their wits against other skilled gamers.  None of this is possible without a balanced games.  WAAC players exist for sure, but for the most part the definition of WAAC is misused as a catch all for competitive play, and especially at the top of the scene I rarely have seen people advocate for anything less then balanced and fair game-play. 

Top players tend to like double turns, but not because they mean they win (this is a ridiculous notion considering how random they are).  They like them because they are actually extremely strategic, and the ability to limit an opponents option in a double turn/ have enough to strike back can take quite a lot of skill, and the single biggest mistake "casual" players make in the game imo is in thinking double turns are this outside factor completely out of your control.  They are not.  You know how much an opponent can move in 2 turns, you know exactly where they can move if they get the two turns, making your moves as if you don't know this is a mistake.  If you get first turn and make your moves assuming your opponent will not double turn you are making an active tactical decision in the double turn mechanic whether you realize you are or not.  You are taking a calculated risk based on the slightly higher percentages of you getting the first go turn 2 for better or worse, you want to guarantee the game goes till turn 3?  Force the issue by denying your opponent the opportunity of a killing blow turn 2.  And if you take a list that has no tools at all to mitigate the effects of double turns, you again are acting as though list building is divorced from strategy and the game occurring on the table.  You know double turns exist, if you do not take that into account when building a list you are not playing the game competitively, which is fine, but there is a reason there are 3 ways to play, and again this goes back to my post about the "spirit" of the game.  You know yourself, if you have no desire to play tactically like this, or you want to play the models you want to play you need to make sure your opponents understand that, and you shouldn't be going to tournaments unless you are OK knowing there are going to be people taking advantage of your armies weaknesses, and double turns are going to be swingy as hell for you. 

I totally understand not liking them as a mechanic on principal, or because you prefer a different type of wargame, its totally subjective, but its not because they aren't strategic or are impossible to plan for.  I hate hearing about how double turns remove strategy, they really don't, the strategy is just different.  If you hate double turn, you just prefer a different style game, which I do think is one of the areas the GHB has really succeeded in.  Lots of great open play and narrative play changes, and even within match play, while I still don't think it is as balanced as 2k Meeting Engagements does much to put limits on what a double turn can do for you even if you choose to ignore them in your list building and strategy.

 

Edit: I am by no means suggesting I exist within this "top player" heirarchy.  I am relatively new to AoS, and not going to be winning any tourneys in the near future.  Even when I was a seasoned Whfb player I was not a top player though at the time I liked to think I was but I did run in the same circles as many of them in my region and I can tell you none of them ever wanted a rule solely because it benefited the army/playstyle they were using at that moment.  In fact many were actively thrilled when loopholes they benefited from were closed/fixed.

 

Edited by tripchimeras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are truths about high level competition that people don't want to accept.

People who are good at things understand there are other people who are good at things. The best strategy in competition is to not let the opponent do the things they are good at. The underlying nature of competition is specifically a lack of interactivity. 

AoS actually tries to curb the excesses in this regard but by building lists to be competitive you almost instinctively max out in aspects that decrease interactivity. 

Low drops

High movement

Ranged damage

Early activations

Deathstars

Out of unbind range magic

MSU

Fly

Bracketing

All these things are concepts or abilities lauded in competition, and all specifically because they decrease the opponent's ability to influence the game.

We see it sports where you keep possession of the ball, the aggressive press, or persistent fouling, etc.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People like me arent asking for nerfs to fyreslayers as army. Only want that hearthguard be a bit more balanced. Since right now they are absolutly broken op and noone can deny it. Saying dont go cloose them is a joke i think. Since it is sooo stupid. So a unit can be broken since you only need to avoid it..... 

 

And 4 mv... When they can deepstrike or have the tools to run ( auto 6) and charge with +2 to more, run or charge i dont remember. So they can move 12 minimun and charge with rigth setup. I wouldnt call slow to that.

 

I dont mind if they lower the cost in every other unit of the book and nerf hearthguard down to earthling levels. Even if the full list get 100 points discount. Fyreslayer as army dont need a nerf ( still too soon to know it for sure) they seems really strong and being able to get to 4-5 place. But still far away from the god tier. But hearthguard deserve to be sligthy balanced.

Edited by Kitsumy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 3:53 PM, prochuvi said:

Those two books seems overpower and out of balance,easier nerf HARD ( not the joke nerf of this gh to idk per example)those 2 books than buff the other tomes.

Fec need get the free sumon nerfed,the 1-3 extra attack spell need be as 2 or 3 more hard to cast.and the comand trait to double attack must dissapear or only work for weak units as gouls because a dragon with 3 extra attacks,double attacking and allways attack first cant be and isnt aceptable 

Skavens with a increase of 40-80 to verminlords and to every warp weapon is fine

I think they come across as overpowered for the sole reason that GW was trying new things. Clearly the double attack from gristlegore and terrorgheists is a bit much. Same with the always strike first business which I believe should be much harder to come by. But they are fleshing out the combat, similar to the way MTG adds keywords. And just like MTG sometimes those keywords break the game a bit.  Unlike MTG however, GW seems hesitant to make drastic changes or implement warscroll alterations similar to MTG's banlist. I won't begrudge the attempt at innovation and I may be harping on. But this is definitely a case where having a "living ruleset" and a live playtest phase would greatly benefit GW IF balanced factions was the goal.

 

This does not appear to be their current business model and I doubt they will change any actual warscrolls without a full faction update. Which is not in the interest of balance whatsoever. 

Edited by TheCovenLord

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...