3.0 Actual Games Conversation

[Liquidsteel]

16 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

To be honest, I'm not convinced about having grand strategies and battle tactics being "generic rules" for gaining additionnal victory points.

Problem with Grand Strategies is that there is one clear winner in terms of securing the points for the maximum security.

I would rather use secondary objectives tied to the battleplan.

I'm also not convinced it's really a gain for the game to add more complex battle tactics / grand strategies. Maybe it's because we're still learning the game but we don't feel it's needed in our games so far when we already have so many things to keep in mind. Maybe it will feel more natural once we get more games on our counter.

40k seems to do it quite well, secondaries make up 50% of the scoring and require certain things e.g. perform actions over 3 turns, keep a kill tally, control the board, break through enemy lines, kill the warlord, as well as having mission-specifics.

 

Furthermore, factions get their own as well which can be thematic. KO could have something to do with map control/investigating Aethergold, Deepkin could have something related to capturing prisoners possibly tied to destroying battleline units/units with 10+ models.

Edited July 28, 2021 by Liquidsteel

[Karragon]

12 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

I think that kinda goes back to winners and losers. The heal is irrelevant on a 5 wound foot hero with 7 bravery and a 5+ save. It's not irrelevant on Archaon or one one of the ten or twenty premier monstrous hero options in the game. 

Even on Archaon and Mega-Gargants it's pretty irrelevant, D3 wounds out of a pool of 20 or 35 is insignificant and I've generally found that lethality is such that even 3 wounds aren't going to make a difference, when something dies it usually dies 2 or 3 times over

[Marcvs]

1 hour ago, Karragon said:

Even on Archaon and Mega-Gargants it's pretty irrelevant, D3 wounds out of a pool of 20 or 35 is insignificant and I've generally found that lethality is such that even 3 wounds aren't going to make a difference, when something dies it usually dies 2 or 3 times over

It's insignificant on mega-gargants due to their bravery. On Archaon you are realistically looking at 12-16 extra wounds over a game which is not nothing. Sure, it won't mater when confronted with armies able to kill him in one go, but it makes all chip damage essentially meaningless for those who can't

[Magnus The Blue]

1 hour ago, Karragon said:

Even on Archaon and Mega-Gargants it's pretty irrelevant, D3 wounds out of a pool of 20 or 35 is insignificant and I've generally found that lethality is such that even 3 wounds aren't going to make a difference, when something dies it usually dies 2 or 3 times over

I think it's only really a problem on models that both have damage reduction abilities (ward saves, good armour and other tricks) AND are tough enough to survive a significant attack.  Gotrek is probably the best (worst?) example, amazing damage migration and tough enough that few units can kill him in one turn (also high bravery).  
On Mega Gargants, not big deal as they are 4+ save only and meh bravery.  

[Kadeton]

Who's dealing enough damage to kill Archaon or a Mega-Gargant 2-3 times over?

[Karragon]

8 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Who's dealing enough damage to kill Archaon or a Mega-Gargant 2-3 times over?

My most recent game was SoB vs S2D, turn 2 I had 2 mega-gargants in combat with Archaon, 1 gatebreaker alone killed him outright without the other ever attacking.

The following turn, 30 marauders went into a cursed mega-gargant (with a ward save) and it was dead after rolling 1/2 the dice.

Gotrek can easily kill a MG in a single activation, let alone 2

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

2 hours ago, Karragon said:

Even on Archaon and Mega-Gargants it's pretty irrelevant, D3 wounds out of a pool of 20 or 35 is insignificant and I've generally found that lethality is such that even 3 wounds aren't going to make a difference, when something dies it usually dies 2 or 3 times over

Agreed on Mega-Gargants, because their toughness is largely meat-based (high base wounds). On units whose toughness comes from high armour and a good ward save, though, it's a different story. Because a single wound healed on such a unit is potentially worth much more. I think the standard for a tough monster in AoS 3 is a 3+ save (2+ with a buff) and a 5+ ward from the amulet. That means every wound healed is another 9 rend '-' damage the opponent needs to deal, which is definitely significant.

[baiardo]

10 minutes ago, Karragon said:

My most recent game was SoB vs S2D, turn 2 I had 2 mega-gargants in combat with Archaon, 1 gatebreaker alone killed him outright without the other ever attacking.

The following turn, 30 marauders went into a cursed mega-gargant (with a ward save) and it was dead after rolling 1/2 the dice.

Gotrek can easily kill a MG in a single activation, let alone 2

 

You need to play against tzeentch + archaon, in S2D archaon lose the over the top support and it's possible to kill him.

Sorry guys if I insist on this point.

Edited July 28, 2021 by baiardo

[azdimy]

After 10+ games. I m finding that games do get decided quite a bit later and that has been problematic in a few instances at tournaments where we didn t get to finish our game because of time. I m not sure what the solution is but freezing the score as is at time does not feel very fair and talking through the next turns can sometime be a lot more difficult than it used to be. As a TO I may look at kill points as a tertiary obective to avoid ties and games undecided or do smaller points events for now

[KrispyXIV]

I think some people aren't interpreting the point of Grand Strategies as they're likely intended, from a gameplay role perspective.  

Without Prized Sorcery, Hold the Line, etc. theres very little reason at all to play conservatively or care for your own losses at all.  Go all in win on VPs, and sacrifice absolutely everything to do so. 

The Grand Strategies appear to exist to reward at least some degree of conservative, survival focused gameplay over the course of the game, and to grant your opponent a reward for inflicting significantly more casualties than they absorb.  

Theyre a "soft" virtualization of kill-points.

Battle Tactics are the strategic/tactical VPs - Grand Strategems aren't really occupying that space. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by KrispyXIV

[yukishiro1]

But they don't actually do that. They could in theory, but they don't in practice. In practice they reward skew lists and punish balanced ones. Because this isn't a game you can play conservatively anyway. There's basically no LOS blocking, the board is tiny, mobility is huge, heroes can easily be sniped out of a crowd, etc. This isn't 40k where it's genuinely possible to shield your units from harm if you choose to. This is a game where the best you can generally hope for is to screen stuff for a turn, maybe two if you're extremely lucky. And then you come up against sentinels, and you can't even do that. So in practice, the only realistic way you can hedge in favor of your strategy is to take such a large percentage of your army as that role that your opponent can't chew through it all. 

A balanced list with a variety of units has a much lower chance of scoring a grand strategy than a list that just doubles down hard on something. That's the problem with them. They reward the precise opposite of what good game design should reward. 

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[frostyeel]

One change in 3.0 that I haven't seen any discussion around yet is the change from warscroll battalions being flexible in deployment to the battle regiment now being required to deploy all at once. For those who've got games in, has that felt meaningful at all as a slight disincentive to going low drop?

[yukishiro1]

The main change is that it makes going high drop less of a disadvantage. For people who want to go low drop it's not going to stop them doing it, the advantages are still too high. But it does mean you don't get double punished for going high drop. It's a good change overall, though the better change would have been just to get rid of the drop system entirely and determine priority on the first turn with a completely random roll-off, after deployment, like 40k does. 

[Xil]

Units like Archeron and Gotrek seem way more unkillable than Morathi nowadays. Morathi cant be oneshot, but she isn't as tanky as those and she can't heal up.

Maybe Archeron and Gotrek shouldn't be able to heal as well?

[Enoby]

21 minutes ago, Xil said:

Units like Archeron and Gotrek seem way more unkillable than Morathi nowadays. Morathi cant be oneshot, but she isn't as tanky as those and she can't heal up.

Maybe Archeron and Gotrek shouldn't be able to heal as well?

Archaon's a really weird one - he's still super powerful, don't get me wrong, but without rerolling saves or other support he's prone to bad luck. By that I mean he has no wound shrug, so if a -2 rend d6 damage attack goes through, 6 damage can hurt. If that can happen multiple times a turn, Archaon falls. He's much stronger against Mortal Wounds. I've lost Archaon to bad luck turn 1 to Sylvaneth - without rerolls or wards, he's 800+ points of an army that can be close to dead or just killed by one round bad luck. 

Unlike Gotrek and Morathi who have built in bad luck protection. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by Enoby

[Skreech Verminking]

10 hours ago, Xil said:

Units like Archeron and Gotrek seem way more unkillable than Morathi nowadays. Morathi cant be oneshot, but she isn't as tanky as those and she can't heal up.

Maybe Archeron and Gotrek shouldn't be able to heal as well?

That is true, yet here mobility and chance of having two heroes, one for buffing and the other one for dealing damage, she really

 feels very significantly better then gotrek.

Also only being able to be killed in the fourth battle round at best, if there even is a single army that can currently kill her at all, she really seems more then worth here points (she is probably even under-pointed, but so is Gotrek and maybe Archaon)

Edited July 29, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[RedemptionUK]

2 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

That is true, yet here mobility and chance of having two heroes, one for buffing and the other one for dealing damage, she really

 feels very significantly better then gotrek.

Also only being able to be killed in the fourth battle round at best, if there even is a single army that can currently kill her at all, she really seems more then worth here points (she is probably even under-pointed, but so is Gotrek and maybe Archaon)

*4th Turn at best, i.e. end of 2nd battle round.

[Skreech Verminking]

5 minutes ago, RedemptionUK said:

*4th Turn at best, i.e. end of 2nd battle round.

Well if somebody is able to do 3 damage to her, every single turn even in the enemy turn, then yes, it is possible.

Yet you would basically have to throw here into that death scenario to have her end dead at turn2.

Or there would need to exist an army that can not only function normally in their turn but in your turn as well.

Currently no such army exist and hopefully never will.

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

23 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Well if somebody is able to do 3 damage to her, every single turn even in the enemy turn, then yes, it is possible.

Yet you would basically have to throw here into that death scenario to have her end dead at turn2.

Or there would need to exist an army that can not only function normally in their turn but in your turn as well.

Currently no such army exist and hopefully never will.

 

I suppose getting a few extra wounds on Morathi if she happens to be in combat with you on your opponent's turn is not out of the question, but yeah.

Can anybody think of any armies or units that can consistently deal a few wounds on your opponent's turn, actually? I feel like there could be one or two out there, but none come to mind right now.

[Ragest]

Morathi is one of the worst wizards that can get a misscast, in pair of nagash and Kroak, you can use endless, overwatch or having a unit fighting her (she's supposed to work in combat, with the buff to melusais)

[Blitzd]

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I suppose getting a few extra wounds on Morathi if she happens to be in combat with you on your opponent's turn is not out of the question, but yeah.

Can anybody think of any armies or units that can consistently deal a few wounds on your opponent's turn, actually? I feel like there could be one or two out there, but none come to mind right now.

Endless spells and unleash hell can pop them on her pretty easily, and if she's not charging, I'm not overly concerned about her continued existence. 

[NinthMusketeer]

I've killed her round 2. She charged me turn one and that was that; 3 wounds per combat phase. It's really not difficult; I imagine round 3 kills are pretty common. Dying round 3 or even round 2 doesn't mean she didn't get enough work done to be worthwhile though.

[PrimeElectrid]

It’s not difficult guys just give the other player turn 1 and get them to charge her into something that can reliably do 3 wounds to her. Easy

[yukishiro1]

If they're a bad player, sure. Realistically Morathi hardly ever dies before T3 if the player using her is competent, unless the player wants her to. If you're taking the first turn you don't charge her into something that's going to deal 3 wounds back to her, unless they screwed up and gave you a really juicy target like a big block of sentinels or something like that...in which case that's a winning trade so you're happy to do it.

 

 

[BadDice0809]

On 7/28/2021 at 3:32 PM, yukishiro1 said:

The main change is that it makes going high drop less of a disadvantage. For people who want to go low drop it's not going to stop them doing it, the advantages are still too high. But it does mean you don't get double punished for going high drop. It's a good change overall, though the better change would have been just to get rid of the drop system entirely and determine priority on the first turn with a completely random roll-off, after deployment, like 40k does. 

It still blows my mind that the stupid low drop game is still in matched play. Hell they finally got to the level 8th edition 40k was at, over a year ago, in the core rules, then they immediately rule back to the drop bull ****** in the GHB. 40k is much better for not making first turn priority a sure thing (or next to one). 

I would love to hear why it was shoe horned back into the game.

Edited July 29, 2021 by BadDice0809