Jump to content

AoS Power Creep


Drazhoath

Recommended Posts

On 1/7/2021 at 2:21 PM, Saxon said:

Best books? According to everyone? OK.... It's as if rules have been quickly hashed together to mash the forgotten model ranges into a somewhat playable force.  It's an improvement on the tome-less rules but it's not one of the best.

Sadly i have armies collecting dust because cities of sigmar vs. something like Orruc Warclans, OBR or Lumineth is hilariously outclassed. The only joy i get out of three of my armies these days is when we put our low tier armies up against each other. 

 

Nope.  One of the best books they've done.  A LOT of extensibility, a lot of warscrolls improved, units available across a lot of units. and they've made two new cities and incorporated even more options with DoK. There isn't a book with as many warscrolls.

I would be surprised to see anything hilariously outclassed.  The book pre covid was placing quite well and since then it's been doing still well.

As a Wanderer player I'm happy with what the book offers in just TE and LC.  So many list options, so many things to try.  

Perhaps stop making sweeping judgements of doom and consider looking at why you aren't doing well with it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Popisdead said:

Nope.  One of the best books they've done.  A LOT of extensibility, a lot of warscrolls improved, units available across a lot of units. and they've made two new cities and incorporated even more options with DoK. There isn't a book with as many warscrolls.

I would be surprised to see anything hilariously outclassed.  The book pre covid was placing quite well and since then it's been doing still well.

As a Wanderer player I'm happy with what the book offers in just TE and LC.  So many list options, so many things to try.  

Perhaps stop making sweeping judgements of doom and consider looking at why you aren't doing well with it.

The freeguild which i have is basically a minor stat improvement to hit for most units, yawn. The artefacts are meh, the battle traits are meh.  You're also locked into the cities which really makes magic hard unless you go magic heavy and the wizards are woeful unless you bring sigmarines. 

I like to use a diverse list which is easily punished in an AOS game these days where spamming units seems to be the way. I have a pistollier/outrider list with Demigryphs which goes alright. It's a bit boring to play though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who did quit over a few reasons, balance among them, I thought I might chime in, but those who do not return, obviously, won't have a voice.

I think GW's rulebooks are just bad. And they are priced as if they are printing gold.

I was back on the forums for a while because I still like some models, but I have purchased a 3d resin printer, and will be moving to STL designers from now on, where I can just fix any scale issues.

It isn't just balance, but balance is a large part of the problem.

Say the spell in a bottle. When I first read it, I thought "This would be a nightmare to balance". And they didn't.

When I read Petrifex, I thought "That doesn't look like it's equal to other subfactions". And it wasn't.

I have opinions about a few of Lumineth's abilities, but honestly haven't bothered with the game enough to watch battlereports.

There hasn't been much thought about balancing subfactions, and these often can't be fixed by changing points.

I have lots of rulebooks, most are better. All are priced better. GW constantly feels like late-edition d&d, where power creep runs rampant to keep selling books.

Now points creep isn't that bad, but it's also what ultimately killed fantasy, as the barrier of entry is nudged up each time with it.

Then, of course, we have dumping armies/units entirely. No sense in starting if you don't know something will stay.

Models-wise, there are still lots of problems, but GW is at least good at designing those.

  • Like 3
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Saxon said:

The freeguild which i have is basically a minor stat improvement to hit for most units, yawn. The artefacts are meh, the battle traits are meh.  You're also locked into the cities which really makes magic hard unless you go magic heavy and the wizards are woeful unless you bring sigmarines. 

I like to use a diverse list which is easily punished in an AOS game these days where spamming units seems to be the way. I have a pistollier/outrider list with Demigryphs which goes alright. It's a bit boring to play though. 

Sorry but again, Cities has several builds that can do well in competitive environment and this is visible in the results of the few tournaments happening in real life https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/22/metawatch-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-1-list-building-with-dan-street/   as well as on TTS. Sure enough, it's not among the "top tier" factions and it does not have one "killer list" and, being a huge book, it is difficult to master so that many casual builds will end up feeling very weak for lack of synergies.

As for the "spamming units seems to be the way": what is your basis for this conclusion? Where do you see this prevalence of spammy lists? Also, what is your definition of "spamming"?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marcvs said:

Sorry but again, Cities has several builds that can do well in competitive environment and this is visible in the results of the few tournaments happening in real life https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/22/metawatch-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-1-list-building-with-dan-street/   as well as on TTS. Sure enough, it's not among the "top tier" factions and it does not have one "killer list" and, being a huge book, it is difficult to master so that many casual builds will end up feeling very weak for lack of synergies.

As for the "spamming units seems to be the way": what is your basis for this conclusion? Where do you see this prevalence of spammy lists? Also, what is your definition of "spamming"?

Several as in 2 or 3 max with 1 being phoenix guard heavy and the other two using sigmarine support heroes? My difficulty was having a singular faction (freeguild), in order to have a somewhat decent list i had to bring in models from other armies. On its own, freeguild even with the update are low tier. 

As for spamming, for me it's running singular units outside heroes and monsters. Remember when running blocks of grimghast reapers was a thing when nighthaunt weren't bad? These days I see eel only armies in IDK. No thralls. 

To me it indicates that warscrolls need to be more balanced to give these units a purpose. I dont get why GW wouldn't address this to ensure their full range sells well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

To me it indicates that warscrolls need to be more balanced to give these units a purpose. I dont get why GW wouldn't address this to ensure their full range sells well. 

I have several theories:

  • They want to create  "seasons" for minis, sometimes this is tied to boxes (e.g. indomitus). Those minis are top tier, but then they get nerfed and some other minis take top tier. It is a way to manage the range that keeps the sales stream coming, whereas otherwise people might just buy 1 set that they prefer and move on. In this way, you force them to buy the relevant set each time.
  • Limited composition armies sell fewer models of that army, but more of other armies. If you are playing a HB spam list, odds are you'll want a different thing to paint and play. So you have to buy another set of rules, potentially new paints, new support heroes (no recycling here!), new everything for that faction. I suspect they make more money from 2 small armies from different factions that a larger range from one.  This we can check, I am willing to bet money that most often 2k from 2 armies is more pricey than 2k + spares from one.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

Several as in 2 or 3 max with 1 being phoenix guard heavy and the other two using sigmarine support heroes? My difficulty was having a singular faction (freeguild), in order to have a somewhat decent list i had to bring in models from other armies. On its own, freeguild even with the update are low tier. 

As for spamming, for me it's running singular units outside heroes and monsters. Remember when running blocks of grimghast reapers was a thing when nighthaunt weren't bad? These days I see eel only armies in IDK. No thralls. 

To me it indicates that warscrolls need to be more balanced to give these units a purpose. I dont get why GW wouldn't address this to ensure their full range sells well. 

Phoenix guard spam, irondrakes + bridge, tempest eye with kharadron units, and these are just the lists I have actualy witnessed in tournaments I have myself played on TTS or in real life -and real world tournaments are almost nonexistent at the moment. There aren't many books with a larger number of viable "decently competitive" lists -apart from the very top ones of course. I don't know much about those lists using "sigmarine" support heroes, though of course the occasional knight azyros or knight incantor pops out here and there.

Your definition of spamming is "all non-leader non-monsters" are the same unit. Let's use this although of course you are easily excluding half the units in a list with this definition. So what are the competitive lists that are doing well using this format? Even IDK do not fit the description right now as both defensive and offensive eels are used, while sharks and turtles are having a resurgence thanks to broken realms. The only strong list commonly seen fitting that description is Fyreslayers with HB, then we could add *some* OBR lists with only mortek guards (but that's because your definition excludes the heavy presence of crawlers) and some seraphon lists only have skinks. So we are doing... fine-ish?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

Phoenix guard spam, irondrakes + bridge, tempest eye with kharadron units, and these are just the lists I have actualy witnessed in tournaments I have myself played on TTS or in real life -and real world tournaments are almost nonexistent at the moment. There aren't many books with a larger number of viable "decently competitive" lists -apart from the very top ones of course. I don't know much about those lists using "sigmarine" support heroes, though of course the occasional knight azyros or knight incantor pops out here and there.

Your definition of spamming is "all non-leader non-monsters" are the same unit. Let's use this although of course you are easily excluding half the units in a list with this definition. So what are the competitive lists that are doing well using this format? Even IDK do not fit the description right now as both defensive and offensive eels are used, while sharks and turtles are having a resurgence thanks to broken realms. The only strong list commonly seen fitting that description is Fyreslayers with HB, then we could add *some* OBR lists with only mortek guards (but that's because your definition excludes the heavy presence of crawlers) and some seraphon lists only have skinks. So we are doing... fine-ish?

Isnt that a problem when there are so many units available? So much diversity to make it seem like several units in cities are actually useful. 

Armies doing this well:

-cities spamming pistolliers/outriders

-mortek 

-eels be they offensive or defensive ones. 

-grimghast spam in nighthaunt. 

-horrors in tzeentch

I exclude fyreslayers due to their tiny range. OBR are similar but mortek guard in big blocks is a boring list to fight. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Isnt that a problem when there are so many units available? So much diversity to make it seem like several units in cities are actually useful. 

Armies doing this well:

-cities spamming pistolliers/outriders

-mortek 

-eels be they offensive or defensive ones. 

-grimghast spam in nighthaunt. 

-horrors in tzeentch

I exclude fyreslayers due to their tiny range. OBR are similar but mortek guard in big blocks is a boring list to fight. 

 

That is the nature of any game where you select the pieces a player can take. 

But also, you are wrong about what is winning events. And, you ignore anything not winning events as not competitve. If a list with a decentish player can go 4-1 it's competitive, even 3-2 is a 60% win rate.

CoS have at least 3 builds in the 4-1 range; pistoliers, PG and hammerhal combat builds

OBR: Basically every warscroll in the faction has shown up in competitive play globally.

IDK: turtles and sharks are showing up in lists post Broken Realms, even zero eel lists have been played. I've seen Namarti builds being put into production as well so they will start showing up.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

Isnt that a problem when there are so many units available? So much diversity to make it seem like several units in cities are actually useful. 

Armies doing this well:

-cities spamming pistolliers/outriders

-mortek 

-eels be they offensive or defensive ones. 

-grimghast spam in nighthaunt. 

-horrors in tzeentch

I exclude fyreslayers due to their tiny range. OBR are similar but mortek guard in big blocks is a boring list to fight. 

 

Here you are changing the definition of the problem. If the problem is "all the same unit", defensive and offensive eels by definition do not fit into it, just as a list with both pistoliers and outriders, or a list of horrors and flamers (exceedingly rare to see only horrors)

The fact that some units emerge as the best in their role is intrinsic in list/deck building games. You can try as much as you want to balance them but if two units end up (to simplify) costing 100 pts, the one with a 101% return will always be taken over the one with 100% return in the high competitive end of the game. To counter this you can try to have ALL units perfectly balanced, which of course risks eliminating rules diversity and is likely doomed to fail because there are a lot of moving parts in AoS with allegiances/sub-allegiances/buffs/battleplans. Or, you can try and force players to include more roles in the army, which is arguably done better by 40k at this time (both because of army building restrictions and secondary objectives). This IMHO would require greatly expanding (or merging) quite a lot of armies so it's not a viable short term solution.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

That is the nature of any game where you select the pieces a player can take. 

But also, you are wrong about what is winning events. And, you ignore anything not winning events as not competitve. If a list with a decentish player can go 4-1 it's competitive, even 3-2 is a 60% win rate.

CoS have at least 3 builds in the 4-1 range; pistoliers, PG and hammerhal combat builds

OBR: Basically every warscroll in the faction has shown up in competitive play globally.

IDK: turtles and sharks are showing up in lists post Broken Realms, even zero eel lists have been played. I've seen Namarti builds being put into production as well so they will start showing up.

 

 

Well of course because I'm not talking about what's winning events, that tends to change every time a new release comes out. If you restrict your view of what is competitve to what wins tournaments specifically, the range gets even smaller. I dont think I ever mentioned winning them specifically. I also never mentioned that not winning a tournament made something uncompetitive? 

Diversity is good. Singular builds are bad. Given the volume of units available to cities of sigmar, the common lists popping up on the websites tracking tournaments and competitive play isn't as large as i would expect it to be. 

As far as limited range coming up across many gaming systems, probably true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Well of course because I'm not talking about what's winning events, that tends to change every time a new release comes out. If you restrict your view of what is competitve to what wins tournaments specifically, the range gets even smaller. I dont think I ever mentioned winning them specifically. I also never mentioned that not winning a tournament made something uncompetitive? 

Diversity is good. Singular builds are bad. Given the volume of units available to cities of sigmar, the common lists popping up on the websites tracking tournaments and competitive play isn't as large as i would expect it to be. 

As far as limited range coming up across many gaming systems, probably true. 

You say that "winning tournaments" is not the problem, but then base you assessment on "lists popping up on the webstites tracking tournaments".

If winning tournaments is not the problem, what's stopping you from playing whatever list you want? Of course, but this has been said in every topic, you should have a clear communication with your opponent to be on the same page (i.e. we're not playing competitive lists, we're playing funny lists, fluffly lists etc)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

Here you are changing the definition of the problem. If the problem is "all the same unit", defensive and offensive eels by definition do not fit into it, just as a list with both pistoliers and outriders, or a list of horrors and flamers (exceedingly rare to see only horrors)

The fact that some units emerge as the best in their role is intrinsic in list/deck building games. You can try as much as you want to balance them but if two units end up (to simplify) costing 100 pts, the one with a 101% return will always be taken over the one with 100% return in the high competitive end of the game. To counter this you can try to have ALL units perfectly balanced, which of course risks eliminating rules diversity and is likely doomed to fail because there are a lot of moving parts in AoS with allegiances/sub-allegiances/buffs/battleplans. Or, you can try and force players to include more roles in the army, which is arguably done better by 40k at this time (both because of army building restrictions and secondary objectives). This IMHO would require greatly expanding (or merging) quite a lot of armies so it's not a viable short term solution.

I think I actually agree with the part about the massive amount of moving parts in AOS. Its an extremely complex game compared to other systems available. Its a fine balance between boringly the same and convoluted and tedious.

I dont really like 40k but the primary/secondary objectives is a step forward for GW. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

Or, you can try and force players to include more roles in the army, which is arguably done better by 40k at this time (both because of army building restrictions and secondary objectives). This IMHO would require greatly expanding (or merging) quite a lot of armies so it's not a viable short term solution.

Some people equate "more roles" to fixed battleplans. 40k does this better, despite not being perfect, because it is not about satisfying min requirements. It is actually beneficial to take units with different specializations in the game. An all "X" and some support is an extremely rare sight in 40k, but it isn't in AoS.

The reason being that you need units to perform different functions on the table (anti tank, anti infantry, defensive, buffing, long range shooting, mid range shooting, melee, and within those there are subspecializations as well). That is why you get more "realistic" (read fluffy) compositions. That said, every iteration has a bias against some types, so the relative balance is altered. Still, more real variety in the composition for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

You say that "winning tournaments" is not the problem, but then base you assessment on "lists popping up on the webstites tracking tournaments".

If winning tournaments is not the problem, what's stopping you from playing whatever list you want? Of course, but this has been said in every topic, you should have a clear communication with your opponent to be on the same page (i.e. we're not playing competitive lists, we're playing funny lists, fluffly lists etc)

Well only because I suggested cities weren't much better since the battletome came out and I think it was actually you who linked me to tournament lists. Carried from there as a precedent. Perhaps I expected too much for my free people in particular from a book covering several factions in one hit? 

Simple answer to what you're asking is because its still nice to win every now and then without spending hours math-hammering and this social contract in gaming is idealism. The frequent issue i have is that I create a list based on models I like and try to incorporate a diverse one. If my opponent just happens to love models that happen to actually have good synergy and be extremely good too, isn't it unreasonable to expect them to do things differently? My group is also 50% waac players which complicates it further. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Simple answer to what you're asking is because its still nice to win every now and then without spending hours math-hammering and this social contract in gaming is idealism. The frequent issue i have is that I create a list based on models I like and try to incorporate a diverse one. If my opponent just happens to love models that happen to actually have good synergy and be extremely good too, isn't it unreasonable to expect them to do things differently? My group is also 50% waac players which complicates it further. 

I don't think social contract in gaming is idealism. In fact, all gaming is a social contract: if we agree to play a football (or soccer, depending on where you are) match among friends, I would be surprised if you bring your cousin, the professional Premier League player. I must also say that an explicit social contract is my experience in 100% of the games I play at my club ("are we playing fun, soft, or hard lists?", "I am looking for a game, 2k points, tournament prep") and I don't think I am alone in this considering how many others have pointed this out to you in this discussion.

I do agree very much with you second problem: there are huge imbalances between armies (which has nothing to do with spam or not, power creep or not, so please note we are moving away from the previous topic) and this can be a huge problem precisely at casual level because it makes the social contract so hard: a "soft" list for your friend playing tzeentch, who, in perfect good faith, happens to like horrors and flamers, will destroy a "soft" list in CoS if you happen to like corsairs. Addressing this should be a major focus for GW, as it has the potential to alienate many "casual" games with bad experiences, but of course the changing of relative power levels does (I suppose) drive sales so 🤷‍♂️

Edited by Marcvs
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

I don't think social contract in gaming is idealism. In fact, all gaming is a social contract: if we agree to play a football (or soccer, depending on where you are) match among friends, I would be surprised if you bring your cousin, the professional Premier League player. I must also say that an explicit social contract is my experience in 100% of the games I play at my club ("are we playing fun, soft, or hard lists?", "I am looking for a game, 2k points, tournament prep") and I don't think I am alone in this considering how many others have pointed this out to you in this discussion.

I do agree very much with you second problem: there are huge imbalances between armies (which has nothing to do with spam or not, power creep or not, so please note we are moving away from the previous topic) and this can be a huge problem precisely at casual level because it makes the social contract so hard: a "soft" list for your friend playing tzeentch, who, in perfect good faith, happens to like horrors and flamers, will destroy a "soft" list in CoS if you happen to like corsairs. Addressing this should be a major focus for GW, as it has the potential to alienate many "casual" games with bad experiences, but of course the relative power levels does (I suppose) drive sales so 🤷‍♂️

I think you have made a very good point in this post i have been trying to make for several messy and unco-ordinated posts regarding my second problem and the difficulties I personally face in the game. 

To expand on personal experience. My opponents (2 in particlar) love the optimisation side of things. They get joy out of a combo coming off. 1 of them is a terrible loser. I would expand the social contract to ensuring that both players get to play their style even if it means getting regularly stomped. I've played a specific nurgle list about 8 times with 3 different armies and im 0-8 against it!

I guess this is the gripe with GW. A lack of diversity can be punished due to under performing warscrolls and very specific requirements to obtain any reasonable synergy. 

Edited by Saxon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As city of sigmar player i agree with you that we are behind new books.

But we are at t1 only behind of the overpowers tiers(idoneths,seraphons,tzenth,kharadrons)

Im happy with the cos book.

Yes at the release i was very angry(i had my 100% new and at 80% built with 0 games played army of dispossesed at sale for some days) because the 40% of dispossesed units were deleted,also every dwarf warscroll was nerfed HARD: in general we lost the ignore spells with every unit,the halve moral loost and the reroll every save from shields for nothing back

Irondrakes:changed from only be 10+ models to you cant move doing them umplayable

Ironbreakers: changed from save 2'5(4 rerrolling alls) to 3, lost the ignore rend and nothing was buffed or new to compensate it

Longbeards:before we had 2 hand axes and shield for 80 points and with the book only shield and 1 hand or only  hands that is a huge nerf but moreover a nerf in points to 110

Quarrelers\thunderers\warriors\slayer hero deleted

 

Even now im 100% for sure that a army with old dispossesed rules\points\alegiance is better than a new cos army of only dispossesed but now even if it is painfull i have come to terms with the fact that dispossesed isnt a army anymore and they are only a bunch of units to finish any cos list.

Im happy with the tome because as fantasy lover(but that never played it) now im buying EVERY unit from the tome to collect it and all is pretty good.

Also you saying that free peoples are bad is wrong, they are the best units of the tome,points per damage free people units are the best in every aspect of city of sigmar.

Best behemot: karl franz in deathclaw

Best  buffer unit: hurricanum

Best elite troop: big swordmans

Best shooting unit:pistoliers

Best chaf unit: free guild basic troops

Best cavalry: gryfons cavalry

Best battallion: karl franz+gryfons or the pistolliers batallions.

 

Sorry but as cos player i cant take you serious or real when you says that free people units are bad.

 

Even you criying about phoenyx guard.

Phoenys guard 160 poins for 10 wounds with save of 4 and 4 vs freeguild troops 20 models for 160 points are 20 wounds with save 4 that is the same than have 10 wounds with save4 and other 4 of phoenyx guard.

Aos have powercreep (idoneths turtle is the best example) but cos is in a good spoot and in special free people.

Hnnn i think i have gone offtopic and only have been a rant about my loved dwarfs 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doko said:

Yes at the release i was very angry(i had my 100% new and at 80% built with 0 games played army of dispossesed at sale for some days) because the 40% of dispossesed units were deleted,also every dwarf warscroll was nerfed HARD: in general we lost the ignore spells with every unit,the halve moral loost and the reroll every save from shields for nothing back
{...}

Hnnn i think i have gone offtopic and only have been a rant about my loved dwarfs 

That went in the book, you know which one.

Yes, I cannot believe for a second they want balance when they just nuke certain units because they are in full planned obsolescence schedule mode.

So old dawi have to die, if they don't let's nuke them until they die and retire the units. Look at chaos dwarves; I mean, they should be eradicated, but still. They weren't precisely cheap to erase without a single comment. In fact, I saw around here someone selling a chaos dwarves army a few months ago; maybe I should have taken note... when prominent players abandone ship, something might be cooking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2021 at 2:41 PM, Saxon said:

To expand on personal experience. My opponents (2 in particlar) love the optimisation side of things. They get joy out of a combo coming off. 1 of them is a terrible loser. I would expand the social contract to ensuring that both players get to play their style even if it means getting regularly stomped. I've played a specific nurgle list about 8 times with 3 different armies and im 0-8 against it!

 

That sucks and I truly feel for you. But don’t let yourself be put behind just because two of them like a more min-maxing playstyle. 
there’s nothing wrong with that, but they should also adjust their playstyle to yours. At least once in awhile. And I use playstyle but for a lack of a better description of what someone wants from the game. 

so if you occasionally tussle with their them for tournament prep. After the tournament they should also play that (narrative) campaign with you. Or at the very least a more matched list to yours. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2021 at 8:41 AM, Saxon said:

To expand on personal experience. My opponents (2 in particlar) love the optimisation side of things. They get joy out of a combo coming off. 1 of them is a terrible loser. I would expand the social contract to ensuring that both players get to play their style even if it means getting regularly stomped. I've played a specific nurgle list about 8 times with 3 different armies and im 0-8 against it!

This is a two way street. You shouldn't always have to adapt to how your opponent wants to play the game every once in a while they should accommodate how you want to play (less combo's and stuff). If they don't I would just stop playing with them in the long run as they clearly do not see a happy opponent as a good thing. Also terrible losers are the worst. Its fine to gripe if your luck goes sour for a bit but just give it to the winner they worked for it...

I always try to  talk to my opponents to find out what they want to do that day/week/the next week. Is it tournie prep? I'll try and bring something hard. Goof off list? I'll bring my fluffy dark elf pirates list. Experimenting with something new? Usually I bring a middle of the road Hallowheart list as it can go both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2021 at 12:55 AM, TheCovenLord said:

This is a two way street. You shouldn't always have to adapt to how your opponent wants to play the game every once in a while they should accommodate how you want to play (less combo's and stuff). If they don't I would just stop playing with them in the long run as they clearly do not see a happy opponent as a good thing. Also terrible losers are the worst. Its fine to gripe if your luck goes sour for a bit but just give it to the winner they worked for it...

I always try to  talk to my opponents to find out what they want to do that day/week/the next week. Is it tournie prep? I'll try and bring something hard. Goof off list? I'll bring my fluffy dark elf pirates list. Experimenting with something new? Usually I bring a middle of the road Hallowheart list as it can go both ways.

It can be difficult when an opponent doesn't see how their play style affects others. They often get upset if some of us just put models down to have a fun game and then give up when the fully optimized list goes brrr.... It can be our fault that we don't put in enough effort to be a WAAC player. 

None of us do tournaments. We usually just play the game. The WAAC players are usually stuck watching because no one can be bothered with a 2 turn game :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

It can be difficult when an opponent doesn't see how their play style affects others. They often get upset if some of us just put models down to have a fun game and then give up when the fully optimized list goes brrr.... It can be our fault that we don't put in enough effort to be a WAAC player. 

None of us do tournaments. We usually just play the game. The WAAC players are usually stuck watching because no one can be bothered with a 2 turn game :( 

 

So, not a fan of any game that gets a double turn then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2021 at 5:44 PM, Saxon said:

The WAAC players are usually stuck watching because no one can be bothered with a 2 turn game :( 

I hate to say it but this is usually for the best. Let the WAAC's play against each other. If they are really competitive they will enjoy the challenge. If they just like to "style" on their more casual opponents and they don't make up the majority of your group then so be it. I have been part of far too many groups that either got into escalating arms races that burn players out. Or just a complete loss of interest in the game when WAAC's aren't being accommodating to their less competitive peers.

 

Its not wrong just a different definition of fun and unfortunately they have to adapt to the majority or they should move on.

Edited by TheCovenLord
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...