Jump to content

3.0 Actual Games Conversation


Recommended Posts

Currently they pretty clearly aren't even paying what they should be paying for a 3+ save, so I think it's a good bet they aren't paying for bravery either. There is no real way to justify a lot of the points based on the new ruleset, they definitely weren't based on a solid understanding of the new rules and how they change the value of things. You can go through the units in the game and demonstrate this - despite heroic monsters being much more powerful than they were before, their average increase is the same or often less than the increase to generic troops. Nor did models with a 3+ armor save get significant bumps across the board to account for how much more powerful a 3+ is in 3.0 than in 2.0.

Look at ironbreakers vs freeguild guard, for example. These both went up 5 points - this is actually a larger increase for guard than for ironbreakers, despite the fact that these two units are polar opposites on the winners and losers of the new armor save system, with ironbreakers making out like champs thanks to the native 3+, while freeguild guard get screwed under the new system by having a 5+ with a +1 for shields instead of a base 4+. There is no way these points have properly taken into account how the value of these units changed on a relative basis.

You can find examples of this all over the new points. It was the same with the 40k launch points for 9th, GW is not very good at doing prospective point changes to account for changed rulesets. Gotrek dropping almost 100 points is a great example of this, he dropped 100 points because he wasn't worth his old cost under the 2.0 ruleset, while they didn't take into account how much better he is now than he was. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

Currently they pretty clearly aren't even paying what they should be paying for a 3+ save, so I think it's a good bet they aren't paying for bravery either. There is no real way to justify a lot of the points based on the new ruleset, they definitely weren't based on a solid understanding of the new rules and how they change the value of things. You can go through the units in the game and demonstrate this - despite heroic monsters being much more powerful than they were before, their average increase is the same or often less than the increase to generic troops. Nor did models with a 3+ armor save get significant bumps across the board to account for how much more powerful a 3+ is in 3.0 than in 2.0.

Look at ironbreakers vs freeguild guard, for example. These both went up 5 points - this is actually a larger increase for guard than for ironbreakers, despite the fact that these two units are polar opposites on the winners and losers of the new armor save system, with ironbreakers making out like champs thanks to the native 3+, while freeguild guard get screwed under the new system by having a 5+ with a +1 for shields instead of a base 4+. There is no way these points have properly taken into account how the value of these units changed on a relative basis.

You can find examples of this all over the new points. It was the same with the 40k launch points for 9th, GW is not very good at doing prospective point changes to account for changed rulesets. Gotrek dropping almost 100 points is a great example of this, he dropped 100 points because he wasn't worth his old cost under the 2.0 ruleset, while they didn't take into account how much better he is now than he was. 

 

I think people are overvaluing gotrek again just like they did when he first appeared. He is a 4 inch moving ****** kicker. But 4 inches with limited tricks to increase that isn't enough. 

 

He also is super vulnerable to mass damage one shooting which is still quite popular.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that until I actually played on the new battleplans. The reduced board size and more importantly the reduced number of objectives that tend to be all clustered toward the middle make his movement much less of a disadvantage than it used to be. On a map with 3 objectives, paying 400 points to annihilate anything that comes near an objective is very cheap.

He also really isn't very vulnerable to massed damage 1 shooting, I don't think you've really done the math here honestly. About the only thing that can kill him through all out defense and best day is 30 fully buffed irondrakes doubleshooting with literally every buff - +1 to hit, +1 to wound, rerolling 1s to hit and wound, 2 rend, the whole schebang. I mean if you want to use 50 buffed-up sentinels or something sure I guess (though even they don't kill him unless you've got lambent light off), but they're going to kill that many points shooting almost anything else, too. And that's kinda the point generally - it's not that he's impossible to kill, he isn't, but he's so hard to kill that even for the armies that can kill him, it takes basically the entire army's output to do it, which makes it a pretty efficient trade. 

He's not Archaon or anything, but dropping his points by 100 while also massively buffing him does not make sense. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotrek is very, very good right now for all the reasons stated above. I'm not gonna repeat/repost my essay on him from another thread, but basically the new battleplans (generally more clustered in the middle with less number of objectives) smaller boards (harder to avoid him) more CP (so you can more freely spend one to auto run 6") more commands (to give him a 3+ save among other things) and Heroic Actions (he's almost certainly healing D3 wounds each hero phase) all mean he's much harder to handle in 3.0, and he got slapped with an enormous point drop to boot. Don't sleep on Gotrek. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jaskier said:

Gotrek is very, very good right now for all the reasons stated above. I'm not gonna repeat/repost my essay on him from another thread, but basically the new battleplans (generally more clustered in the middle with less number of objectives) smaller boards (harder to avoid him) more CP (so you can more freely spend one to auto run 6") more commands (to give him a 3+ save among other things) and Heroic Actions (he's almost certainly healing D3 wounds each hero phase) all mean he's much harder to handle in 3.0, and he got slapped with an enormous point drop to boot. Don't sleep on Gotrek. 

He will be good while people use 2+ hero monsters, because he can deal with them (and for some armies is the only way). But against mass attacks he will underperform as he already did in the end of 2.0. Last night he didn’t get anywhere in the table, my reavers straight shoot him off.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 reavers don't even close to kill Gotrek assuming he has a +1 to save, my napkin math shows an average of like 4 wounds (unless you get curse off, of course, but that requires a lot of setup and then getting lucky on a 4+). I mean it's not impossible, but it'd require some huge RNG to shoot him straight off in a round. 

Edited by yukishiro1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all this Gotrek discussion does anyone else wonder if he will remain avalible to all order armies in the future or be included as part of the much debated Duardin Soup?

I hope he stays an open pick but that maybe a Keyword will give him just enough synergy to be taken more often in a Duardin book with out making him even more powerful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2021 at 10:17 PM, yukishiro1 said:

.

He also really isn't very vulnerable to massed damage 1 shooting, I don't think you've really done the math here honestly. About the only thing that can kill him through all out defense and best day is 30 fully buffed irondrakes doubleshooting with literally every buff - +1 to hit, +1 to wound, rerolling 1s to hit and wound, 2 rend, the whole schebang.

 

Or, funnily enough, 2x20 Sisters of the Watch with a single All out attack on one of them. They do barely enough damage to shoot him down in a single phase. But they are pretty much perfect for killing Gotrek.

 

21 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

30 reavers don't even close to kill Gotrek assuming he has a +1 to save, my napkin math shows an average of like 4 wounds (unless you get curse off, of course, but that requires a lot of setup and then getting lucky on a 4+). I mean it's not impossible, but it'd require some huge RNG to shoot him straight off in a round. 

I guess he uses 2x30 Reavers in his build then, probably with Leviadon lasering their targets. Which is weirdly poplular, but is pretty cool, and I'd take almost anything over Eels spam. And that combo kills Gotrek in one go (together with Leviadon).

 

But yea, Gotrek is a weird one. Due to a 4+ base save he's still quite vunerable to a no rend or a MW mass missile and melee spam, but there are not a lot of builds that can do enough 1 damage wounds to kill him within a turn or two. At the same time you pay almost quarter of your funds for basically being able to say "this objective is mine, anything that comes here dies" in most of your games. It it balanced? Eeeeh, more of a weird and unconsisted desigh here. But 2d3 healing in any army makes him extremely great in any attrition battles, so now it's even more a question of a alpha strike or do not engage. Which is not much fun either way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brief note regarding Unleash Hell and some other Issues caused by Command Abilities in 3.0: Geminids are currently a really solid tool, althrough expensive at 80 pts, to shut down some save stacking and unleash hell sheningans. 

Edited by Charleston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, whilst Geminids doesn't apply in the Combat phase, so can't stop saves there, it does stop commands being issued in Hero, Movement, Shooting and Charge phases.

The Hero phase is something I hadn't considered before. I can imagine it really messing up people's day if you get it to hit something that's putting out a good command ability, such as Daughters of Khaine fight in the hero phase etc,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Liquidsteel said:

Yeah, whilst Geminids doesn't apply in the Combat phase, so can't stop saves there, it does stop commands being issued in Hero, Movement, Shooting and Charge phases.

The Hero phase is something I hadn't considered before. I can imagine it really messing up people's day if you get it to hit something that's putting out a good command ability, such as Daughters of Khaine fight in the hero phase etc,

Since spells are moved at end of hero phase, it is not going to stop anything in that phase

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

1-3Rattling guns buffed with curse and the overseer of destruction trait on a Warlock, can definitely kill a Gotrek in a turn.

although as it is part of skaven tech, I guess it always depends on your rolls

When people talk about something being difficult or impossibly impractical to achieve, there is an unspoken 'unless you are playing Skaven or Tzeentch' after it XD

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

When people talk about something being difficult or impossibly impractical to achieve, there is an unspoken 'unless you are playing Skaven or Tzeentch' after it XD

unlike a tzeentch player, who loves having his certainty (thanks to his cheating dice)

The skaven literally us just the incarnation of true majestic chaos.

Especially the doomwheels.

I haven’t had yet an opponent, who didn’t look down at this majestic unit, laughing at it and calling it a joke, after having read it stats on paper.

Yet over 78% of those player, who played against my doomwheels lost.

After all there is always that possibility pf the doomwheel rolling amazing, yet for some reason people always and only look at the average chance of dealing damage, while missing the potential chance, also known as skaven trickery.

Something Tzeentch just has to accept that they can’t do, jealousy 

Edited by Skreech Verminking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So i have had my first 3.Ed game and have to say: 

I do not mind the new coherency rules at all. Sure, they hit some units harder than others. That is change for you

But those Hero- Monster- and Command Abilities are just too much. I warnt to win by making smart desicions, not by remembering all the rules and actions i have available. 

 

Not that i do not wish everyone who Likes those rules all the fun in the world. But it does make the game considerably less enjoyable for me.

 

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

A huge thing that makes wargaming interesting to me at least: doing what you want to do with any and all tools provided, not the tunnel vision strats obviously outlined in several books, especially before they are out, to influence the vision GW  wants you to play with and deal with it. 

Its obvious with current player data, a lot of people are dissatisfied with how this is being handled in games especially played exactly as designed and intended. I would hypothesize they will do a shift sometime spring 2022 to deal with stagnation in list building but I personally believe they will not be designed with a focus intuition in mind still.  

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts about the current command list selection and if they would like to see changes to the way they are given to units. Aura's too big? inconsistent? maybe how accessible they are to some factions?

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Koala said:

But those Hero- Monster- and Command Abilities are just too much. I warnt to win by making smart desicions, not by remembering all the rules and actions i have available. 

It's a bit daunting early on, but not a big deal after two or three more games. 

There are a lot of "AoS 3.0 Resource Sheet" with  all you can do in each and every phase. You can try to customize them with your own list (attach your own warscroll CAs to the main ones, etc...).

5 hours ago, Blood0Tiger said:

Aura's too big? inconsistent? maybe how accessible they are to some factions?

As a KO player, I think they are fine. We have some "within" and some "wholly within", but with Skyvessels and usually a 10 man troops, it's easy to play around.

Imo, AOS 3.0 is an improvement, but I still think that GW is using  Monstruous Rampage and Hero Actions as a parasitic design instead of integrating them to the core game. Josh Strife talked about that design some weeks ago for anyone interested (based on videogames, but they can be extrapolated to tabletop wargames):

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Beliman said:

It's a bit daunting early on, but not a big deal after two or three more games. 

There are a lot of "AoS 3.0 Resource Sheet" with  all you can do in each and every phase. You can try to customize them with your own list (attach your own warscroll CAs to the main ones, etc...).

As a KO player, I think they are fine. We have some "within" and some "wholly within", but with Skyvessels and usually a 10 man troops, it's easy to play around.

Imo, AOS 3.0 is an improvement, but I still think that GW is using  Monstruous Rampage and Hero Actions as a parasitic design instead of integrating them to the core game. Josh Strife talked about that design some weeks ago for anyone interested (based on videogames, but they can be extrapolated to tabletop wargames):

 

This is not something new unfortunately, its been around for as long as people have been purposely stealing or just cutting corners out of greed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Beliman said:

It's a bit daunting early on, but not a big deal after two or three more games. 

There are a lot of "AoS 3.0 Resource Sheet" with  all you can do in each and every phase. You can try to customize them with your own list (attach your own warscroll CAs to the main ones, etc...).

As a KO player, I think they are fine. We have some "within" and some "wholly within", but with Skyvessels and usually a 10 man troops, it's easy to play around.

Imo, AOS 3.0 is an improvement, but I still think that GW is using  Monstruous Rampage and Hero Actions as a parasitic design instead of integrating them to the core game. 

 

To follow this up with my curiosity, what about your opponents from your perspective, are there specific circumstances you found in games where the rules are highlighted in favor of a player or faction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Beliman said:

It's a bit daunting early on, but not a big deal after two or three more games. 

There are a lot of "AoS 3.0 Resource Sheet" with  all you can do in each and every phase. You can try to customize them with your own list (attach your own warscroll CAs to the main ones, etc...).

As a KO player, I think they are fine. We have some "within" and some "wholly within", but with Skyvessels and usually a 10 man troops, it's easy to play around.

Imo, AOS 3.0 is an improvement, but I still think that GW is using  Monstruous Rampage and Hero Actions as a parasitic design instead of integrating them to the core game. Josh Strife talked about that design some weeks ago for anyone interested (based on videogames, but they can be extrapolated to tabletop wargames):

 

Interesting concept, thanks for sharing

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, my group is loving the game. But we tend to find an incrase in lethality.

Last night, we decided to start house ruling (we all played around 30 gams of 3ed before). We are not going to use the double turn anymore and we are going to change some unit costs that seems too high or too low (pink horros or troggboss).

 

But the most disturbing is that most of our games end at the end of round 2 or 3.And it's a bit disappointing honestly. With the exception of games where tankish armies face each other (ossiarch vs sylvaneth).

 

My last game was a funny Big Waaagh list with sub-par units facing a gloomspite gitz army with a mix of trolls and squiggs. The game was over pretty quickly at the beginning of turn 4 even if we had not a lot of lethality.

 

Anyway, we always have a lot of fun but it's true that there are much more rules density now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've played more than a dozen 3.0 games at this point, and unfortunately it doesn't fix the fundamental issues with AoS, which are the clear have and have-not battletomes. Generally, the rich got richer and the poor mostly stayed where they were. Until the rules writers figure out that writing books like Seraphon's or Lumineth's are inherently damaging to the community, we're going to continue suffering through non-games between higher or lower "tier" armies with massive rules disparities. This isn't a "meta" problem; it's an army design problem.

The less we obsess over tournament statistics and the more we talk about the casual games 90% of people are actually playing, the clearer the true issues of the game are going to shine through. It sucks having to hear yet another player talk about wanting to quit AoS because they played multiple unwinnable games against an egregious faction.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2021 at 10:02 AM, Sleboda said:

Over the next few days, I'm playing some actual games with the new rules. I'll come back here and talk about how it went.

 

I'd encourage others to share here as well. Not full on battle reports, just commentary on how the new rules impacted your games.

Right now, folks are speculating. Let's end that with, oh, I dunno, real experiences.

I hope it goes well for you.  :)  I hope you find a lot of positive experiences in the game so you don't get turned off Warhammer.  

Also what's this crazy talk about using real experiences not baseless speculation for wild sweeping comments of doom.  We're playing a game and being on the internet aren't we 😉  bwahahahahaha.

I've only played the one game but for me,.. well I told the player (arguably one fo the top in the area) I just want a casual game.  I have a couple more games this weekend.  

The Grand Strategy is key with your army.  I've heard of cases it winning or losing games.  I would say it's like another fancy layer on top a cupcake.  

Also Battle Tactics are something to really get to know.  You have 5 founds, so pick 5 you feel confident with but of course be loose with the ability to adapt.  If you have a bad turn consider burning one you can't get to avoid failing to get one you could later.

Garrisoning buildings is huge and people need to be aware of this for shooting.

I think Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics add another tool to leverage armies for different composition.  

I'm also at the casual level.  I'm long done tournaments so I'm looking at what I have and wanting to use it with minimal changes.  

But what do I know, this is the internet and i'm a gamer so probably just spewing sweeping comments of doom :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2021 at 7:10 AM, Mutton said:

I've played more than a dozen 3.0 games at this point, and unfortunately it doesn't fix the fundamental issues with AoS, which are the clear have and have-not battletomes. Generally, the rich got richer and the poor mostly stayed where they were. Until the rules writers figure out that writing books like Seraphon's or Lumineth's are inherently damaging to the community, we're going to continue suffering through non-games between higher or lower "tier" armies with massive rules disparities. This isn't a "meta" problem; it's an army design problem.

The less we obsess over tournament statistics and the more we talk about the casual games 90% of people are actually playing, the clearer the true issues of the game are going to shine through. It sucks having to hear yet another player talk about wanting to quit AoS because they played multiple unwinnable games against an egregious faction.

I think it's the opposite, they should write more battletomes like Seraphon and LRL. You don't want books which have uninspiring rules, or not much of list building options. 

Ask Seraphon and LRL players, they are mostly happy with their battletome, wining is likely part of it, but they are just well done. They provide many options to play the game, and basically play exactly as you think they would. 

The rest is just conjecture - you don't know if these books "damage" the community more than all the negativity and gatekeeping around almost any new book or faction that comes out. I've heard from LRL players that they give up on the game because of all the negativity they encounter. I think in both cases that's more of a fringe situation than anything that happens all the time. 

Do these books alienate more people than they attract? Is there any evidence for that at all? 

There isn't a clear cut difference between tournaments and local games either. Have a look at the many relatively small tournaments (ca. 30 people) which are played right now, and look what factions are in the 3/2 and 2/3 bracket. There is a lot of variety there. If both people play several games against each other with normal lists, there aren't that many "unwindable" match-ups out there. 

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...