What would you like for AoS 3

[Doko]

The problem and for me do overpower and broken sentinels is the 0 counterplay and the damage vs heroes.

Vs regular units i think they are fine,yes havent counterplay but his damage isnt so high.

A look out sir doing imposible target heroes would fix it.

But as other have said it is a joke as a unit with 36 treath range and los have this damage,others units with same range as city of sigmar artillery cost the same but have less damage(and not mortal or ignore vision and very risky),or stormcast long range bow that cost 170 and have same damage output but dont ignore vision.

 

Really this unit need a new warscroll changing the mortal to wound rolls or a huge increase in points to 200+ to be balanced.

The keywords are 0 counterplay,easy to play and unfun for rival. All these words makes them in need of a huge nerf and i hope the year that we get a faq gw finnally do his work.

But i guess new lumineth artillery gonna be worse yet....

[Ragest]

29 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Telling people they "lost in deployment" for being able to be targeted by a unit with a 36" threat range (actually 42" if you really need it to be) that ignores LOS is pretty silly and illustrates just how dumb the unit design on Sentinels is.

If Sentinels had 18" range and spell portal was removed from the game, that'd be good advice. As is, it really isn't. 

Note that I'm not saying that 30 sentinels + a full round of magic casting being able to kill 380 points of stuff is necessarily OP. But the "L2deploy" advice here is kinda silly. The whole problem with Sentinels is that you really can't avoid them; how they perform comes down almost 100% to how much the LRL player wants to invest in boosting their deadliness, not on anything you do as the player on the receiving end.

Ok so you know you are not going to choose who goes first, you know your army (sylvaneth) is worst in focused damage, has any kind of protection about mw but have way more mobility than lrl.

You know menace ranges from all lrl is 36”, more if they are (obv) in shinning company, becasue they are forming in two lines. Plus, the soellportal gives teclis another 36” (little less, the second umbral has to be ww the first one) aswell. So you decide to place your most important unit in those ranges, for all sentinels+teclis and, because you think “uh oh, they ignore los” you place them with los, ignoring your woods, EVEN IF TECLIS STILL NEED IT FOR CASTING SPELLS and finally you choose to place all your wizards 30” away from teclis, at least to give some pressure even if you cant dispel him.

Again, terrible deployment. Choose to stay away screening and hiding or be in front to try to force him to get more diverse focus and look for double turn, not half one and half another.

And my final point, comparing a strong A-tier army with one of the bottom is not the right way to get conclussions.

You think if you change sylvaneth to fyreslayer, fec, mawtribes, orruk, std, tzeentch, sersphon, sob, dok, idk, ko, cos or nurgle you are going to lose almost 400pt first turn?

Edited March 8, 2021 by Ragest

[yukishiro1]

The damage Sentinels do isn't the issue, it's the way the whole LRL book is set up to promote a buff-stacking, castling, non-interactive gameplay style that is extremely boring to play against. Playing against LRL feels like being the NPCs in a castle defense game - you basically just have to take it and hope you have more stuff than they do. It's not even so much that LRL are overpowered as that they are just unfun to play against, the ultimate NPE army. 

[yukishiro1]

22 minutes ago, Ragest said:

You know menace ranges from all lrl is 36”, more if they are (obv) in shinning company, becasue they are forming in two lines. Plus, the soellportal gives teclis another 36” (little less, the second umbral has to be ww the first one) aswell. So you decide to place your most important unit in those ranges, for all sentinels+teclis and, because you think “uh oh, they ignore los” you poace them with los, EVEN IF TECLIS STILL NEED IT FOR CASTING SPELLS and finally you choose to place all your wizards 30” away from teclis, at least to give some pressure even if you cant dispel him.

Again, terrible deployment. Choose to stay away screening and hiding or be in front to try to force him to get more viable focus and look for double turn, not half one and half another.

This sounds like theorycrafting that doesn't translate to the real world. "Just stay away" from a 36" ranged threat doesn't work in an objective game being played on a 48" x 72" board. Map that out and look at what that actually means on a variety of missions, and you'll see it really doesn't work.. Even when it's physically possible to deploy outside that threat range (which it simply isn't on some missions), unless your unit has an automatic teleport followed by an effectively guaranteed charge or ranged attack or something like that, it'd be forfeiting the game to deploy in a way that keeps your unit irrelevant just for the sake of not being deleted. 

Besides, in this case, the guy was given 1st turn. So I dunno what he was supposed to do - deploy outside 36" AND not come within that range on his turn? That really is forfeiting the game. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Ragest]

13 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

This sounds like theorycrafting that doesn't translate to the real world. "Just stay away" from a 36" ranged threat doesn't work in an objective game being played on a 48" x 72" board. Map that out and look at what that actually means on a variety of missions, and you'll see it really doesn't work.. Even when it's physically possible to deploy outside that threat range (which it simply isn't on some missions), unless your unit has an automatic teleport followed by an effectively guaranteed charge or ranged attack or something like that, it'd be forfeiting the game to deploy in a way that keeps your unit irrelevant just for the sake of not being deleted. 

Besides, in this case, the guy was given 1st turn. So I dunno what he was supposed to do - deploy outside 36" AND not come within that range on his turn? That really is forfeiting the game. 

Again, you have more mobility, you can hide yourself from spells (yes, the lambent that made him another 7mw) using your own woods, and if you place a wizard the opponent has to choose to shoot your wizard or the unit, being impossible to lambent both of them and with some lucky rolls dispel the umbral to halve the damage.

And, again, the lumineth player used 1150 points to kill 380. 1150 points from almost every army is going to kill your kurnoths most of the time anyway, the only difference is that lrl will do from afar (yes, a shooting-magic focused army kills you with shooting and magic oh surprise) in exchange of terrible movement and scoring, the most important part of the game.

People have to learn this is not fantasy anymore, you can annihilate all 2000 points and still lose because the otheR player scored better.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Ragest

[whispersofblood]

28 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

I don't mind. I was playing Sylvaneth so I summoned a forest on the top of 1 and teleported as close to his sentinels as I could. Naturally I failed the charge which left me much closer to them. However he did have a spell portal so I'm not sure I would have been safe from lambent light anywhere. (though I think my forests may have blocked line of sight from portal, not sure).

No I play Lumineth quite I often and win as many as I lose. Overall I think they are just a strong faction, not necessarily OP. Its sentinels I take issue with.

My list had no ranged or magical threat. (and honestly Sylvaneth doesn't do either of those well). I have found in my past experience with lumineth that  simply rushing them is the best option. Once Sentinels and/or Teclis are dead they lose their primary means of controlling the board. Then you just have to deal with Eltharion and Dawnriders lol. 

Sylvaneth I think they are just extremely unforgiving and inflexible. That being said your build having no shooting is a big risk in the current meta, not just because other people can do ranged damage, but because you limit how you can interact with the opponents army and the sorts of questions you can ask. Basically, correct me if I'm wrong,  it sounds like you went for the alpha which was around 40% likely to come off, but with an extraordinary risk of losing the game if you failed? 

Secondly you are both right and wrong about how to manage LRL. If you can take a hit then rushing LRL and locking them in their zone is a good strategy and it sounds like you were caught out a bit by the output from the Sentinels(Without Lambent light 3x10 Sentinels do 9 mws after power of Hysh, which is 1 Hunter and no Bravery check). If you aren't extremely durable then you need to manage  and dismantle the army, starting with their ability to score points. Dawnriders are key, but so is whittling down the wardens. So the question is without Sentinels,  to draw people in and limited maneuverability how do LRL play the objectives? I would argue we need to take a more wholistic look at faction warscrolls and how factions play on the board. LRL are going to be forever very limited as allies, and who they can ally, because of the how specialized and self-reliant they can be.

Regarding the deployment. Well the reality is you are going to take damage its a wargame after all, but it's the level of difficulty you want to present to your opponent. One of the hardest things I had to learn about playing Dwarfs was that it was better to spend multiple turns doing nothing or very little then it was to march into their fire and hope to pass my panic checks so I could hopefully get a charge off. By going for the high risk alpha you effectively made it easy for the LRL player. They could get all the necessary buffs required, and target the primary threat with no sacrifices. The same combo that was used to destroy the Hunters with particular deployment been impossible as you easily could have measured where the Spell Portal would have needed to be, and put a wyldwood there blocking line of sight.

I think the fix here is probably just making lambent light rr failed hits, but that doesn't seem to be a very common mechanic these days. In this specific scenario by the way without Lambent light 30(20x1 and 10x1) Sentinels kill 1 Hunters, and with Lambent Light as rr fails, they still only have an expected damage of 2 Hunter. Just food for thought.

[yukishiro1]

21 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Again, you have more mobility, you can hide yourself from spells (yes, the lambent that made him another 7mw) using your own woods, and if you place a wizard the opponent has to choose to shoot your wizard or the unit, being impossible to lambent both of them and with some lucky rolls dispel the umbral to halve the damage.

Teclis has fly, so I don't think you can hide from his lambent light using the woods? Edit: though maybe it's blocked since the portal itself doesn't have fly?

"Hope to roll an 11 or better on your dispel" kinda says it all re: how lame LRL are to play against, doesn't it? 

Edited March 8, 2021 by yukishiro1

[yukishiro1]

8 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

The same combo that was used to destroy the Hunters with particular deployment been impossible as you easily could have measured where the Spell Portal would have needed to be, and put a wyldwood there blocking line of sight.
 

Lol no offense intended here, but you clearly don't play Sylvaneth if you can describe placing a wyldwood as "easy" with a straight face. 😄 

[whispersofblood]

3 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Teclis has fly, so you can't hide from his lambent light using the woods. GG to GW for that brilliant piece of rules nonsense. Somebody was obviously absolutely determined to make line of sight totally irrelevant in AOS, and they've succeeded. 

"Hope to roll an 11 or better on your dispel" kinda says it all re: how lame LRL are to play against, doesn't it? 

You measure line of sight from the Spell Portal model, which doesn't have the Fly keyword. 

I think subjective (even popular) analysis of playstyle is probably not a good barometer if something is well designed, different armies are for different kinds of people. Personally I find all the Death factions quite boring, but I know people who quite enjoy them. 

[Landohammer]

 

14 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Sylvaneth I think they are just extremely unforgiving and inflexible. That being said your build having no shooting is a big risk in the current meta, not just because other people can do ranged damage, but because you limit how you can interact with the opponents army and the sorts of questions you can ask. Basically, correct me if I'm wrong,  it sounds like you went for the alpha which was around 40% likely to come off, but with an extraordinary risk of losing the game if you failed? 

Secondly you are both right and wrong about how to manage LRL. If you can take a hit then rushing LRL and locking them in their zone is a good strategy and it sounds like you were caught out a bit by the output from the Sentinels(Without Lambent light 3x10 Sentinels do 9 mws after power of Hysh, which is 1 Hunter and no Bravery check). If you aren't extremely durable then you need to manage  and dismantle the army, starting with their ability to score points. Dawnriders are key, but so is whittling down the wardens. So the question is without Sentinels,  to draw people in and limited maneuverability how do LRL play the objectives? I would argue we need to take a more wholistic look at faction warscrolls and how factions play on the board. LRL are going to be forever very limited as allies, and who they can ally, because of the how specialized and self-reliant they can be.

Regarding the deployment. Well the reality is you are going to take damage its a wargame after all, but it's the level of difficulty you want to present to your opponent. One of the hardest things I had to learn about playing Dwarfs was that it was better to spend multiple turns doing nothing or very little then it was to march into their fire and hope to pass my panic checks so I could hopefully get a charge off. By going for the high risk alpha you effectively made it easy for the LRL player. They could get all the necessary buffs required, and target the primary threat with no sacrifices. The same combo that was used to destroy the Hunters with particular deployment been impossible as you easily could have measured where the Spell Portal would have needed to be, and put a wyldwood there blocking line of sight.

I think the fix here is probably just making lambent light rr failed hits, but that doesn't seem to be a very common mechanic these days. In this specific scenario by the way without Lambent light 30(20x1 and 10x1) Sentinels kill 1 Hunters, and with Lambent Light as rr fails, they still only have an expected damage of 2 Hunter. Just food for thought.

"Rush the zone" strategy is a good way of describing how i play a lot of my games lol. 

So I appreciate your analysis, but Sylvaneth simply don't have a competitive way to reach out and damage an army aside from Drycha or maybe some expensive allies. And Sentinels are going to be dealing damage every turn, regardless of where you are. Combine that with the popular "Tecnado" combo then ranged mortal wound output is quite substantial. Dawnriders are no joke either.

The defensive strategy may work in a tournament where you wish to mitigate how many VPs your opponent scores or play for a tie, but I dont' think its a realistic way of winning a traditional game.  

[Ragest]

If someone shoot you 30 times from 30 sentinels or measure los “flying” from umbral is not lumineth problem, is cheating problem.

[yukishiro1]

 

2 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I think subjective (even popular) analysis of playstyle is probably not a good barometer if something is well designed, different armies are for different kinds of people. Personally I find all the Death factions quite boring, but I know people who quite enjoy them. 

Of course it is. The fact that most people find something unfun means it is bad game design. There is no barometer of "good design" other than what creates an enjoyable game. If people hated playing against Death armies that would be a good sign that they needed a rework. Games don't exist for any purpose except to have fun. An army that is unfun to play against is a problem, whether or not it actually wins at an outsized rate. 

[Landohammer]

28 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Again, you have more mobility, you can hide yourself from spells (yes, the lambent that made him another 7mw) using your own woods, and if you place a wizard the opponent has to choose to shoot your wizard or the unit, being impossible to lambent both of them and with some lucky rolls dispel the umbral to

You keep saying "better mobility" as if most of the Sylvaneth range isn't Move 5 while Lumineth BASE speed is 6 and includes move 12 Dawnriders and the ability to double move.

Every ounce of Sylvaneth's "mobility" is tied to summoning a second forest with a spell which can be easily unbound or zoned out, especially by an army full of unbind bonuses.  Also, in this case Sentinels and Teclis can see through our forests so they are effectively useless other than as teleportation

You seem to be trying to deflect Sentinel overperformance to my own lack of playskill. But they are mutually exclusive. Sentinels can be OP and I can suck as a player. Both can be true lol. 

 

[Ragest]

Every army that could fill the “control” archetype will be “unfun” for the opponent, because they are most of time made to competitive scene more than casual playing and are very disruptive with rival's plans.

And you can see that in every strategy game, from league of leagends to magic but that doesn’t mean they are all bad designed, it's the opposite.

[whispersofblood]

3 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Lol no offense intended here, but you clearly don't play Sylvaneth if you can describe placing a wyldwood as "easy" with a straight face. 😄 

Its hard to proliferate sure, but one is all that is necessary. 

 

2 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

 

"Rush the zone" strategy is a good way of describing how i play a lot of my games lol. 

So I appreciate your analysis, but Sylvaneth simply don't have a competitive way to reach out and damage an army aside from Drycha or maybe some expensive allies. And Sentinels are going to be dealing damage every turn, regardless of where you are. Combine that with the popular "Tecnado" combo then ranged mortal wound output is quite substantial. Dawnriders are no joke either.

The defensive strategy may work in a tournament where you wish to mitigate how many VPs your opponent scores or play for a tie, but I dont' think its a realistic way of winning a traditional game.  

Its a very straight forward strategy which means it has very straightforward solutions. We should draw a distinction from being good and being capable though. 6 hunters with bows where the bane of existence for many armies the original Sentinels if you will sylvaneth are at about a 2/5 when it comes to damage delivery where the power curve is probably on average around a 4. I assume you are playing the GHB Battleplans? I'm not suggesting you have a good chance of victory btw, I'm more suggesting you aren't playing to Sylvaneth's admittedly meager strengths 😅

I play my Orruks probably similar to the way you envision your Sylvaneth but the book lets me have enough power and units to develop a more nuanced tactical approach inside that strategy. Sylvaneth are quite literally the weakest book around, so it might play dividends to do what you should do and lose,  rather then do what they aren't suited to and still lose? I'm just thinking out loud at this point haha

Also yes Dawnriders are amazing.

 

3 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

 

Of course it is. The fact that most people find something unfun means it is bad game design. There is no barometer of "good design" other than what creates an enjoyable game. If people hated playing against Death armies that would be a good sign that they needed a rework. Games don't exist for any purpose except to have fun. An army that is unfun to play against is a problem, whether or not it actually wins at an outsized rate. 

A game of requiring 2 people to play will probably have 3 opinions on how it should be played and what is fun or not fun. A better goal to shoot for is that the majority of factions have a playstyle that the people who play that faction find attractive and room to make choices about their army, such that they can play the greatest variety of other people as possible. Which necessarily includes playstyles which some players might find to be unfun. Personally I find the desire to have a few multiturn combats to be an exercise in banality but if someone wants the freedom to design their list to make that outcome more likely that's their prerogative. I'll build my army so that to the best of my ability I don't need to engage with that, as is my perogative, and the better player will have their way on the table. 

[Ragest]

10 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

You keep saying "better mobility" as if most of the Sylvaneth range isn't Move 5 while Lumineth BASE speed is 6 and includes move 12 Dawnriders and the ability to double move.

Every ounce of Sylvaneth's "mobility" is tied to summoning a second forest with a spell which can be easily unbound or zoned out, especially by an army full of unbind bonuses.  Also, in this case Sentinels and Teclis can see through our forests so they are effectively useless other than as teleportation

You seem to be trying to deflect Sentinel overperformance to my own lack of playskill. But they are mutually exclusive. Sentinels can be OP and I can suck as a player. Both can be true lol. 

 

As you said, you can teleport. Oh, and you can run, vanari can't in turn 1 unless the other guy stated that they are not in shinning.

Again, you need los when casting throught portal. Why there are two players that think teclis can freely target with no vision with portal? 
Lumineth have that much rules that is easy to make mistakes (hope unpurposely) but things like teclis measuring from umbral without los, unit using aetherquartz to +1 save when in ethereal, cathallar absorbing two -1 bravery debuffs in the same phase, wardens running turn 1 with shinning, avalenor giving -1 hit to all units instead of every model ww12”, sentinels makin one shoot per model... Are not legal.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Ragest

[yukishiro1]

13 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Every army that could fill the “control” archetype will be “unfun” for the opponent, because they are most of time made to competitive scene more than casual playing and are very disruptive with rival's plans.

And you can see that in every strategy game, from league of leagends to magic but that doesn’t mean they are all bad designed, it's the opposite.

Right...which is why you have to be very careful with those sorts of archetypes. LRL goes way too far. It's not just the Sentinels that ignore all the normal rules of the game. It's the spellcaster who also ignores all the normal rules of spellcasting. It's the board-wide spells that debuff your morale then prevent you from being able to autopass. We could go on for a while here. 

In general, people play wargames to do stuff with their dudes, not to sit there unable to do anything while their opponent makes all the choices. Mechanics which take away the ability of your opponent to do stuff with their guys need to be very carefully implemented to avoid NPE. 

Obviously this is a subjective opinion of mine re: LRL, but that's the only kind of opinions that exist. The only question is how widespread my opinion is. If a large proportion of the player base doesn't enjoy playing games of AOS against LRL, that by definition is a sign of major design failure. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by yukishiro1

[yukishiro1]

18 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

A game of requiring 2 people to play will probably have 3 opinions on how it should be played and what is fun or not fun. A better goal to shoot for is that the majority of factions have a playstyle that the people who play that faction find attractive and room to make choices about their army, such that they can play the greatest variety of other people as possible. 

But that's really just saying the same thing. If a faction is making it impossible for other people to play their factions in an attractive way, that's a design problem. It all always comes back to "is this game fun?" and if the answer is "not when I'm playing X" that's a problem for the game designers, assuming the feeling is widespread. 

[Iradekhorne]

I want better rules for scenery, for example is a bit abstract eh fact of have a monster in a single point of a column.

Also i want an  area for ruins withouth base, right now is very hard take cover.

Keywords for scenery (I think thats comming, bcause the SoB rule).

Priority on combat for the 2nd on the round, or a chance to get the priority of activations, to do the double turn less destructive.

More general items.  One realm item for army is really annyioning, i dont want get a batallion on my Archaon or Idolator army bcause i havent items to pick. Maybie 3 general items or 2 or 3 per realm was better.

[whispersofblood]

5 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

But that's really just saying the same thing. If a faction is making it impossible for other people to play their factions in an attractive way, that's a design problem. It all always comes back to "is this game fun?" and if the answer is "not when I'm playing X" that's a problem for the game designers, assuming the feeling is widespread. 

Is it? I'm saying that players should have room in the rules, and in their own lists to be able to choose if they will just suffer against things they don't like to engage in or mitigate it to some degree to make allowances for even extreme differences in playstyles. But, realistically most people are tightly grouped so it probably won't come up very often unless an individual plays strangers fairly often. Last GW poll had the most popular factions as like SCE and Khorne which probably tells us something about the average player and their preferences. 

You are saying its impossible, I'm saying people don't want to make the necessary adjustments because it is contrary to how they want to play. Those are different things. 

 

[JonnyTheKing]

At the end of the day no matter your opinion on Sentinels, the army is just not fun to play most times when using heavy Sentinels, Sentinels just make certain armies impossible to play against them and that just sucks. Being able to shoot without line of sight and mortal wounds on 5+ is just AWFUL game design there is no excusing it, it is not fun and the end of the day that is what matters

[yukishiro1]

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

You are saying its impossible, I'm saying people don't want to make the necessary adjustments because it is contrary to how they want to play. Those are different things. 

 

But the end result is the same; whether you blame them for it or not, if the result is a game they don't enjoy, that's a failure of game design. The object of a game is to get people to play it, and to do that, you have to make a game people enjoy playing. If they aren't enjoying the experience, you're failing as a game designer, no matter how much you insist that it's just because they need to L2P and come to embrace their heroes getting sniped out at 36" with LOS-ignoring ranged mortal wounds. To say "yeah just accept that, you can still win!" It's missing the point: it's the mechanic itself that is causing the NPE, not whether they're losing the game because of it or not. 

[zilberfrid]

3 hours ago, Ragest said:

Every army that could fill the “control” archetype will be “unfun” for the opponent, because they are most of time made to competitive scene more than casual playing and are very disruptive with rival's plans.

And you can see that in every strategy game, from league of leagends to magic but that doesn’t mean they are all bad designed, it's the opposite.

Then don't make non-interactive armies. Just don't.

It does not matter whether they are good, LRL is a stack of rules seemingly made mostly to compel the opponent to never play you again.

If the only thing I get to do is picking my models off the table before I can get anywhere, and if I manage to get close have to wait for the opponent to rotate the stupid spears so my models can stand where they need to, then they make sure you can't inspire courage and offload their own battleshock to you, have lots of other thing I don't even get to roll for, why would I ever bother to set up for that player again?

Yes, I might win (I won't, I'm not good), but for a large part of the game the only relevant thing I can do is pick models and get them off the table.

It's like playing vs a trinistack deck in a friendly setting.

[Ragest]

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

But the end result is the same; whether you blame them for it or not, if the result is a game they don't enjoy, that's a failure of game design. The object of a game is to get people to play it, and to do that, you have to make a game people enjoy playing. If they aren't enjoying the experience, you're failing as a game designer, no matter how much you insist that it's just because they need to L2P and come to embrace their heroes getting sniped out at 36" with LOS-ignoring ranged mortal wounds. To say "yeah just accept that, you can still win!" It's missing the point: it's the mechanic itself that is causing the NPE, not whether they're losing the game because of it or not. 

It depends, in competitive environments the "fun" is secondary, i don't tend to have fun y high elo in league of legends, or in mythic raids in wow, same with competitive magic or even clash royale, we are there to win.

Is different for casual games and there's where LRL fails, is not fun, is impossible to play vs with certain armies or certain lists and most of all, is so so so frustrating that everything you want to try is being negated, but is not just about lumineth, we are in the same position vs top tzeentch/seraphon/kharadron/idoneth/dok lists in different ways. Vs Idoneth, per example, i can move around and charge and alternate in combat phase, to fight 2+ unrendable eels that hit like trucks. I throw more dices, the result is the same. 

The only way to avoid that is to come to your partner and say "hey, this is a fun game, use fun strategies" and play with that.

And any nerf to magic or shooting or mortal wounds is going to change that. You remember petrifex? >They had any of those, still very unfun to play vs because of the boring unkillable walls they threw, but you remember slaneesh? Was the opposite, they charged and destroyed everything, same with FEC. 

There is no solucion about that, not in 3.0 or any edition, some lists will be a pain and some lists will be fun.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Ragest

[yukishiro1]

I don't think it is secondary. I mean the competition is part of the fun for sure, but there's a reason you are competing at AOS, not at some other game. I mean lord knows there's a lot of other games out there that are better tests of skill and competitive edge than this one. The reason you're (the general you, not you specifically) competing  in this particular one can't really just be chance (or, even sadder, that it's casual enough that you can win without actually being all that good).

Btw, not to derail the conversation, but the 2+ unrendable eels hit like wet noodles, not trucks, and only get the 2+ unrendable from T2 on if they manage to charge and be within the leviadon bubble (and even then, it's only on their half of the turn). The ones that actually hit hard are rendable and also don't get the +1 save on the charge.

But the broader point, for me at least, is that you can interact with a list like that - yes, it may or may not work out the way you're hoping, but there's play. You don't just feel like an NPC who is having stuff done to you without having any options for doing anything back. Even something like Seraphon - while undoubtedly more powerful than LRL - isn't nearly such a drag to play, because Seraphon is more about doing its own thing really well than it is about shutting down your ability to do your thing. You'll probably lose, because they're just better...but the experience isn't nearly so frustrating for the person on the receiving end. Same for basically all the other top armies, with the noted exception of the WLV-in-a-bottle KO list - but at least there it's really just one extremely broken wombo combo that is the core of the NPE of the list. With LRL, it's the fundamental design of the faction that sets it up to make it a lame experience for the opponent. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by yukishiro1