Meeting Engagements Relevance Declining?

[Infeston]

16 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

I've painted 2k armies in less than a month to a standard that's gotten me paint nominations (player's choice because its all about pop, but you get the idea). 2k only seems daunting until you've built and painted a few armies and then you can see its really not a difficult process (time wise) to get there in a relatively quick time frame. Money is obviously a bit of a different story but that's the hobby in general. 

I genereally agree. Right now I can get an army painted pretty fast. Maybe not a whole army in less than a month. But I also have practiced on a lot of models.

But I was initially talking about someone who is starting the hobby. And for someone who is just starting this hobby, 2k as a "standard" format is incredibly hard to get into. 

Other competitive games are easier to get into, because it doesn't take such a huge amount of time to get started. I guess I just do't really understand why 2k is the "standard" or "normal" way to play. Normally in other games the standard format isn't the one which is the hardest to get into.  Often it is the format that is easy to get into, but hard to master.

I think I can't get used to the idea that the "standard" format is a format, where you have to spend 1-2 months painting, spend 200$ -300$ for miniatures and paint just to get into the "standard way to play". I just have to ask why isn't the standard format something like 1k, where you might "only" have to spend 100$-200$ for everything.

This is why I wanted to advocate Meeting Engagements. Because I think it is a good format, where more people can participate than 2k competitive formats. I just think ME is closer to the reality of most Warhammer AoS players, whereas 2k games are only a format for a small selected group of players. But this is coming from someone, who is also driven away from competitive, because of the high barrier of entry. So I can't talk from the same level as most competitive players.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Infeston

[CommissarRotke]

On 7/19/2019 at 9:33 PM, kenshin620 said:

To be a little fair, this forum isn't a 1 to 1 match of AoS as a whole.

 

For example our Seraphon topic here sometimes has no one posting in it for like weeks, that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of seraphon players. (In fact the last post was July 11th, a full 8 days ago)

Agree with the first part: I'm more interested in narrative and casual play, but I'm here for the competitive knowledge to guide what I buy and to keep up with news.

Seraphon have their own entire community over at Lustria online, so they may not be a good example for your second point (or maybe it reinforces it more?)

[SwampHeart]

9 minutes ago, Infeston said:

I think I can't get used to the idea that the "standard" format is a format, where you have to spend 1-2 months painting, spend 200$ -300$ for miniatures and paint just to get into the "standard way to play". I just have to ask why isn't the standard format something like 1k, where you might "only" have to spend 100$-200$ for everything.

I mean this is why a good game club runs both right? The idea is that you run ME for new players/week night games but you can still build people up to 2k games. You've taken a very binary view to the 2 methods when in fact both can (and realistically should) exist in the same spaces. I far prefer 2k games but that doesn't mean I won't play ME/regular Vanguard games. 

The game is a growing process - most people don't dive head first into 2k games. They buy, build, and paint and play games with what they have and continue to add to it. And a lot of people like playing 2k games because they want to play with their toys - its really that simple. People want to use big models like Star Drakes and Nagash and that's not doable at 1k levels. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by SwampHeart

[wayniac]

Honestly I haven't seen any interest all in Meeting Engagement, even before I had my issues voiced previously.  Haven't seen anyone even consider talking about it here.  We have one group that tends to be more competitive which I don't think likes anything other than 2000 point stuff, and another group or two (overlap here) which are much more laid back that could be interested but I haven't heard anything.

Personally like I said before, I am not a fan of dividing the armies, especially since you NEED all three parts, so you're basically forced into having to take filler to meet all the requirements.  It doesn't work well IMHO with how you normally have to build lists, and adds an extra layer of complexity that can just make things more imbalanced depending on what you can field to start versus what your opponent can., and just from my playing around with it on Scrollbuilder it seems like it makes army building more difficult than it should be adding additional weird restrictions. I admit I haven't tried it, however, so it might be more fun than it seems.

The 3x4 part is still bothersome to me, even though I get the reason now, but that's more because GW doesn't sell a 3x4 board (the RoB boards are 2x2 squares, so putting two together you have 1 foot that needs to be blocked off, that weird mouse pad mat they had was 4x4, and the Hallowheart or whatever it was thick cardboard was somewhere in between IIRC with some very odd measurements to fit on a dining room table).  Which is interesting because the latest White Dwarf has a Meeting Engagement battle report and they show a 3x4 board (I assume it's some custom thing in the studio or VERY clever photoshopping).  Which yes, you can make your own etc. etc. but this is GW.  I would expect this to be sold if they plan to encourage Meeting Engagement as a play style.

The concept seems cool, but the interest seems to have died on the vine here or died out quickly just like Skirmish before it, which I thought was also a great idea but done in such a way that it was nearly unplayable.

Edited July 23, 2019 by wayniac

[Infeston]

5 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

I mean this is why a good game club runs both right? The idea is that you run ME for new players/week night games but you can still build people up to 2k games. You've taken a very binary view to the 2 methods when in fact both can (and realistically should) exist in the same spaces. I far prefer 2k games but that doesn't mean I won't play ME/regular Vanguard games. 

The game is a growing process - most people don't dive head first into 2k games. They buy, build, and paint and play games with what they have and continue to add to it. And a lot of people like playing 2k games because they want to play with their toys - its really that simple. People want to use big models like Star Drakes and Nagash and that's not doable at 1k levels. 

Jeah. I think this would be the best of both worlds. I don't want 2k to go away. But I just think it would be easier if there is another format for new people to get into. 

I just fear that Meeting Engagements might be pushed away from a certain part of the community, because it not the "normal" format. I don't want Meeting Engagements to  replace 2k point battles. But it would be cool if the community embraces the format as a valid alternative to big 2k point battles.

[wayniac]

16 minutes ago, Infeston said:

I just fear that Meeting Engagements might be pushed away from a certain part of the community, because it not the "normal" format. I don't want Meeting Engagements to  replace 2k point battles. But it would be cool if the community embraces the format as a valid alternative to big 2k point battles.

This is something that will always happen as communities will always veer towards "normal".  But I agree to a point, ME seems like the sort of thing you have simultaneously or alternate with your typical 2k tournament style matched play stuff you usually see.  Granted that's easier in a club than in the USA's game store mentality, and there's always the resistance from people who don't want to do "weird" 1k point games they just want 2k "normal" games but it sounds like a good idea.

[SwampHeart]

3 minutes ago, Infeston said:

I just fear that Meeting Engagements might be pushed away from a certain part of the community, because it not the "normal" format.

This is always going to happen. You have people who's hobby is very structured around tournaments - I'm personally in this boat. I travel as often as I can to as many tournaments as I can go to. So I want to spend as much of my time playing games that fit this format as possible. This isn't even so much as a thing where I'm practicing to take down podium spots, so much as it is making sure I can play quickly and still be a fun opponent. 

The counter point for me personally is I'm the sort of unofficial head of my local AoS scene. So I have to balance my personal play style with the fact that I want to grow my community. And that kind of circles to my main point, if you want ME to be a thing you may have to take the reins. I'm sure there are people out there who are organizing ME events right now, but the best way to increase the visibility is to just run events for it. 

[JPjr]

44 minutes ago, wayniac said:

The 3x4 part is still bothersome to me, even though I get the reason now

Also whilst it's not a 100% match and comes up a few inches short, 2 x Kill Team/Warcry boards is close enough to be a good size for a Meeting Engagement game. If people are getting into the hobby via that much tighter game then as/if they start to expand their collections they'll have the perfect setup (with loads of terrain too) to transition to a 1000pts game and then beyond that too.

Edited July 23, 2019 by JPjr

[Eevika]

21 hours ago, wayniac said:

The 3x4 part is still bothersome to me, even though I get the reason now, but that's more because GW doesn't sell a 3x4 board (the RoB boards are 2x2 squares, so putting two together you have 1 foot that needs to be blocked off, that weird mouse pad mat they had was 4x4, and the Hallowheart or whatever it was thick cardboard was somewhere in between IIRC with some very odd measurements to fit on a dining room table).  Which is interesting because the latest White Dwarf has a Meeting Engagement battle report and they show a 3x4 board (I assume it's some custom thing in the studio or VERY clever photoshopping).  Which yes, you can make your own etc. etc. but this is GW.  I would expect this to be sold if they plan to encourage Meeting Engagement as a play style.

I would guess 90% of people play on 6x4 neoprene mats. Thats what every game store except GW I have been to uses. 3x4 is the perfect size

[Nin Win]

I think the kitchen table consideration is real.  That they really want people to be able to do any and all of the "three ways to play" without a 6x4 table.  The GHB2019, combined with a stream of products like Kill Team and Warcry make me think GW is trying to break down the barriers when it comes to where you can play and how much space it takes up.   The GHB2019 could also be subtitled "Age of Sigmar: The Small Table Guide." The added benefit is that stores suddenly have double the capacity for running small events.

[Warfiend]

I played a game against a friend the other day and it went alright. I played troggoths and he played beastmen.

I absolutely smashed him as I got very lucky several times. Got first turn and hand of gorked 3 rockguts forward who ended up making their charge and killing his caster (and only chance at summoning) turn 1. Later when 20 of his bestigors charged my fellwater troggoths they managed to do exactly 2 wounds which they healed back up after having dispatched the entire unit two turns, and after that his minotaur and doombull failed their charge and got absolutely dumstered by my 6 rockguts and dankhold troggboss (Minotaur being rather weak compared to rockguts seeing as they're more expensive too). In the end I only lost the three rockgut troggoths I teleported forward, and my friend lost his entire army.

Anyways, there are some rather large flaws in the design of meeting engagements if you're facing a semi-competitive player or those people that can't not play tactically. often the area where part of your armies march in are rather small and if you get first turn it's  very easy for many factions to just move or teleport a unit to block the enemies second wave  severely crippling their army. if you then manage to get first turn again you could do the same again and you'll end up only having to defeat your opponents turn-0 force and that shouldn't pose a challenge for any self-respecting general.

But it can be obviously be fun especially if you like fielding unconventional forces (as I do) and have nice opponents who are of a similar mindset. I'll probably play more ME games as I regularly play 750-1250 point games already.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Warfiend

[Infeston]

9 hours ago, Warfiend said:

But it can be obviously be fun especially if you like fielding unconventional forces (as I do) and have nice opponents who are of a similar mindset. I'll probably play more ME games as I regularly play 750-1250 point games already.

I have to say I often like 1200-1250 point games more, because with 1k points I am always missing something or there is something I can't fit in. I still like 1k battles and find them more enjoyable than 2k point battles. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Infeston

[TimM85]

 

On 7/19/2019 at 7:11 PM, tripchimeras said:

The problem is that it isn't competitive.  Its about as unbalanced as1k pitched was before it, just in slightly different ways.  Its never going to be a go to tourney format for competitive players without significant changes.  I also suspect that warcry is cutting into its popularity/# of discussions about it right now.  As different as they are they fill the same "change of pace"/smaller/faster game void within the AoS hobby.  I suspect once warcry has been out a bit you will see more discussion around meeting engagement again.

Overall, I think its a fun mode of play, and great for a change of pace.  But I think 2k will continue to be the dominant form of the game, at least on discussion boards and competitively, with Meeting Engagement being the change of pace play option, rather then the other way around as it sounds like you would wish it.  I can understand why, but frankly the balance is pretty damn horrific, and now that I've played a decent number of games of it my enthusiasm for the format has dropped precipitously.

 

But it shouldn't matter, play the way you want to play, and I have no doubt there will be meeting engagement events around going forward, most especially at the local "1-day" event level, regardless of whether it is competitively lacking.

I have to agree and disagree with this. 2000pts will always be the the dominant format it gives you enough points to play and also for most of us whfb players it was the format for the last 20years GW tried to make its more skirmish but we all ended playing 2000pts and making our own movement trays anyway.

How is meeting engagements not competitive? how is it more unbalanced? if anything it is now more balanced than traditional match play as cheap horde chaff may out number you on objectives but you can score enough kills to boost your vps. List building becomes more challenging as you may end up starting with your rear party on the board against their spearhead. also limiting behemoths to 2 and limiting unit sizes stops you coming up against 80 plague monks and a furnace that are immune to battle shock sitting on the objectives.

Also the variation of the battle plans means that you have to be more tactfully aware and make better decisions than just making an unbeatable list you actually have to be a better player.

[tripchimeras]

On 7/28/2019 at 12:42 PM, TimM85 said:

 

I have to agree and disagree with this. 2000pts will always be the the dominant format it gives you enough points to play and also for most of us whfb players it was the format for the last 20years GW tried to make its more skirmish but we all ended playing 2000pts and making our own movement trays anyway.

How is meeting engagements not competitive? how is it more unbalanced? if anything it is now more balanced than traditional match play as cheap horde chaff may out number you on objectives but you can score enough kills to boost your vps. List building becomes more challenging as you may end up starting with your rear party on the board against their spearhead. also limiting behemoths to 2 and limiting unit sizes stops you coming up against 80 plague monks and a furnace that are immune to battle shock sitting on the objectives.

Also the variation of the battle plans means that you have to be more tactfully aware and make better decisions than just making an unbeatable list you actually have to be a better player.

EDIT: Changed my mind decided not to post on this topic yet again, after the previous disdainful response I got, making clear my opinions on this subject had warn out their welcome.  As you directly responded to me though, if you are actually interested in why I think its unbalanced, look at my last post in the deepkin order forum, think it covers my thoughts pretty well. 

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by tripchimeras

[TimM85]

1 hour ago, tripchimeras said:

EDIT: Changed my mind decided not to post on this topic yet again, after the previous disdainful response I got, making clear my opinions on this subject had warn out their welcome.  As you directly responded to me though, if you are actually interested in why I think its unbalanced, look at my last post in the deepkin order forum, think it covers my thoughts pretty well. 

A well written bit, but i do not see it being unbeatable, though I have have played a lot of games (mostly 2000pts) at 1000pts I found the eels to be the weakest I managed a win with a fluffy khorne list no bts, no Bws, only 1 slaughter priest though I bubble wrapped well and see the point of advantage but have you come up against a khadron overlords or a shooting skaven list the still have the numbers to bubble wrap and lay down heavy fire,, I haven't faced them in meeting engagements yet (only at tourneys) is it more your local meta that have difficulty with it? or have have you played a lot of meeting engagements outside of that group?

Unfortunately our local gaming group much prefer the classical fantasy themed armies chaos, witchaelves, FEC, Skaven, dwarves flying and non posties and orks, in our local meta skaven are the strongest atm in all formats sheer numbers heavy shooting high bravery with lots of options for battle shock immunity and fast.

we don't see much of the stormiest or idoneth but hopefully the will pick up aswell. interested how your local meta army choices are, as some can be just bad match ups for example i know if I rock up with my khorne against Khadron I will mostly get shot off the table in all formats regardless if i go horde or elite, slaanesh seems quite a good match up for my khorne but other khorne players say its a difficult match up.

1 hour ago, tripchimeras said:

 

 

[Bululu]

For me, i like the format, but it needs to deal with some things like summoning armies. Especially the ones that can summon the same at 2k games as at <= 1k games.  Summoning not only breaks all kind of restrictions (size limit, same unit duplicates, behemots, etc) but it also breaks the scalated deployment.

[Pitloze]

The rules need an update already. But I like the format. Summoning for sure needs a hard look.

[Dead Scribe]

Since summoning came back, we knew it was going to cause some issues.  We had to sacrifice game balance for fun, and people like summoning because its fun.

[Kramer]

22 hours ago, Bululu said:

or me, i like the format, but it needs to deal with some things like summoning armies. Especially the ones that can summon the same at 2k games as at <= 1k games.

Just to satisfy my curiosity. I can’t think of anything that can summon the same as 2K in meeting engagements? 

[Maier666]

I won a friendly Meeting Engagement Tournament a few weeks back with my Fyreslayers.

But we mostly did not play maximized lists I think.

 

The rankins in the end:

1) Fyreslayers

2)Gloomspite Gitz

3) Free People

4) Flesh Eater Courts

5) Stormcasts

6) Khorne

 

My observations where that it was balanced pretty good.

 

The first Mission with only one Objective is the only one I would'nt play anymore, because it was the least fun.

 

I beat Stormcast pretty easy, but just because my Vulkites ran 6 and got to the objective Turn 1

The Stormcast came to the Objectives by Turn 3 and ran then wild on my army, but I was already to far ahead (he did run 1'' with nearly his whole army)

 

We will be running a second Round of our Tourney with probably 8 players at the Start of October.

 

I will try my new Bonesplitterz then and hope for another fun Day of gaming, but I know at the moment Bonesplitterz look not that great.

 

On the counter I could play with my Skaven and could probably win pretty easy with a nasty build.

 

So I kind of agree that when you see It purely on 'Balance' it doesnt help, but I think thats the same at 2000pts.

 

We have a pretty good gaming group and we have a lot of fun, but probably GW marketing it as THE Matched Play feature was a bit of to optimistic.

 

 

[Bululu]

On 7/31/2019 at 8:17 AM, Kramer said:

Just to satisfy my curiosity. I can’t think of anything that can summon the same as 2K in meeting engagements? 

Seraphon, for example can only make points from 2 sources, Slann and Astrolith, and they basically bring those two to every list as they are 420 points,  i believe slanessh can make quite and output on meeting endgagement too, and maybe tzeentch (i dont really know how this one works)

[Dead Scribe]

Nurgle summons the same.  It doesn't scale at all.  Khorne would summon less blood tithe technically since less units on the table.  Slaanesh you can throw in two keepers and get a lot of depravity summons.  

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Bululu said:

Seraphon, for example can only make points from 2 sources, Slann and Astrolith, and they basically bring those two to every list as they are 420 points,  i believe slanessh can make quite and output on meeting endgagement too, and maybe tzeentch (i dont really know how this one works)

But that can't work. Because only 1 Hero can be in the spearhead. So you lose at least one turn of that benefit. So you can get quite far but that's not the same as at 2K. And if you put them all in the main body that's 2 scenario's where they start, 3 where they come on turn 2.  But put them all in Main and you lose a turn of generation right? 

How bad does it get in real life? Because I have no Seraphon players in my area to test it out with  

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

Nurgle summons the same.  It doesn't scale at all.  Khorne would summon less blood tithe technically since less units on the table.  Slaanesh you can throw in two keepers and get a lot of depravity summons.  

How does Nurgle work again? Don't have easy acces to the book.

Khorne I thought of as well. Don't know how it ends up. Lot's of min sized units so could roughly the same. S

laanesh, keepers are behemoths, so 1 would need to go in Main, 1 in Rearguard. So no scenarios where they both are in full time. 2 scenarios where neither shows up turn one. I only have one model that I could proxy as a Keeper so I can't even test it. (although it's #noproxy2019 in our group 😂) I'm curious as well how this turns out. Say one keeper arrives turn one. Get's a charge in turn two. Can spend the Depravity points in turn 3 (potentionally form two combat phases). But end of turn 4 it's already done. 
So the same amount for Slaanesh is not true because you have less Hero's, but yeah that could most easily explode as far as I can see. (because you could potentially put a bladebringer in the Spearhead.

[Dead Scribe]

Nurgle gets their points based off of nurgle trees present, and then if they have models in their deployment and their opponent's deployment.  Its the same number of points regardless of game size.  

Typically the nurgle guys in our area can pull about 500 or so points on average a game, and thats the same at 2000 points or 1000 points.  Its not as bad at 2000 points but at 1000 points that is a hefty bonus.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[Kramer]

On 8/2/2019 at 6:09 PM, Dead Scribe said:

Nurgle gets their points based off of nurgle trees present, and then if they have models in their deployment and their opponent's deployment.  Its the same number of points regardless of game size.  

Typically the nurgle guys in our area can pull about 500 or so points on average a game, and thats the same at 2000 points or 1000 points.  Its not as bad at 2000 points but at 1000 points that is a hefty bonus.

Yeah that won't work as well. Bubble of the tree is better as well on a smaller battlefield