Unpopular opinion thread

[Beliman]

On 11/26/2021 at 2:39 PM, Dogmantra said:

It's a competitive game.

Unpopular Opinion:

AoS is not a competitive game. It has everything to NOT be competitive. Let's be honest here, a game that's 1vs1 is not enough to be competitive nowadays. It needs a LOT more than what AoS have:

No bans, no league/ divisions (or matchmaking), no company or federation behind the game (that is not the selling company), no regulation past 2 FAQs  a year even if there are broken things since first day, or just a regulation to stop using broken things until they are fixe'd...

I mean, AoS can be competitive if we ignore what a competitive game should look like.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Beliman
Grammar

[zilberfrid]

26 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Unpopular Opinion:

AoS is not a competitive game. It has everything to NOT be competitive. Let's be honest here, a game that's 1vs1 is not enough to be competitive nowadays. It needs a LOT more than AoS have:

No bans, no league/ divisions (or matchmaking), no company or federation behind the game (that is not the selling company), no regulation past 2 FAQs  a year even if there are broken things since first day, or just a regulation to stop using broken things until they are fixe'd...

I mean, AoS can be competitive if we ignore what a competitive game should look like.

I would add that AoS doesn't have good quality control in its rulebooks. Often with rules previews, we see rules that make us go "wait, that sounds OP", and often, this turns out true. It's as if they know it will be OP, and just tease it to shift more boxes.

[Bosskelot]

It's weird how the AOS scene actually pays attention to the GW metawatch articles and takes them seriously. It's the total opposite of the 40K scene where they're rightly treated as a joke and a bunch of fluff pieces, with other stat sites and places like Goonhammer providing a much more informed and accurate set of data and analysis.

[Kaylethia]

On 11/26/2021 at 3:39 PM, Dogmantra said:

Take matters into our own hands and change the rules to give weaker factions or models a leg up, and take the stronger ones down a peg.

While I'm not entirely against this kind of approach, I believe the solutions that come up via comping have too much subjective bias to ever become truly universal fixes, and the knock-on effects of such fixes need to be well thought out.

If you've looked at how some problem elements in games outside of AoS have been dealt with by the designers, oftentimes the solution doesn't involve a direct approach at all, but rather changing a different mechanic to influence the problematic parts. The problem discussions on this forum alone haven't looked at the game in such a holistic fashion. 

From what I've read about the comps before the GHB came out, they were intended for a specific local meta at first, were entrenched as the standard way to play, and still had the same winners and losers problem when new players with new armies entered and discovered that their army wasn't supported in the comp very well.

 

[Dogmantra]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

Unpopular Opinion:

AoS is not a competitive game. It has everything to NOT be competitive. Let's be honest here, a game that's 1vs1 is not enough to be competitive nowadays. It needs a LOT more than AoS have:

No bans, no league/ divisions (or matchmaking), no company or federation behind the game (that is not the selling company), no regulation past 2 FAQs  a year even if there are broken things since first day, or just a regulation to stop using broken things until they are fixe'd...

I mean, AoS can be competitive if we ignore what a competitive game should look like.

To clarify, "competitive" can mean two things. The first is what you are describing your preferences for here, competitive meaning something along the lines of "appropriate for tournament play". The other meaning is more straightforward: a game where players act as each other's antagonist and winning is mutually exclusive. In the section of my post you quoted, I was using this latter definition, and AoS is unquestionably a competitive game by that definition, two players compete to find a single winner. The point of the opening sentence is that to be a good player, you just have to win consistently because that's the objective of the game.

The rest of my post admittedly, does use competitive in the former sense and I agree that the current AoS competitive scene is not as strong as it could be, but I think most of the things you have pointed out that it is missing are surface level visual indicators of a strong competitive scene rather than the causes.

7 minutes ago, Kaylethia said:

While I'm not entirely against this kind of approach, I believe the solutions that come up via comping have too much subjective bias to ever become truly universal fixes, and the knock-on effects of such fixes need to be well thought out.

 

I 100% agree with you, and I think your point about a holistic approach to balance is a very good one. I wish that I had made it in my original post!

Edited November 29, 2021 by Dogmantra

[Beliman]

Hey @Dogmantra, don't get me wrong. I wasn't talking just about your points nor what's a competitive game (meaning of it). 

19 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

I think most of the things you have pointed out that it is missing are surface level visual indicators of a strong competitive scene rather than the causes.

I was just pointing out how other games/ e-games/ board games deal with the competitiveness side of the game to make my point a bit clear.

[Charleston]

Quite some new take I noticed recently:

Normal T1 casters should have a massive point drop. Due to Arcane Tome Artifact it is often easier just to upgrade a hero to be a caster rather than taking a dedicated one. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

11 minutes ago, Charleston said:

Quite some new take I noticed recently:

Normal T1 casters should have a massive point drop. Due to Arcane Tome Artifact it is often easier just to upgrade a hero to be a caster rather than taking a dedicated one. 

Normal casters are just really kind of awful. Getting out a spell of any casting level through an unbind at one cast per turn with no bonuses is at best a coin flip. If spells straight up said "on a 4+...", I doubt people would be putting up with paying 130 points for their wizards, but the math hides how low your odds to cast successfully really are.

[Marcvs]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Normal casters are just really kind of awful. Getting out a spell of any casting level through an unbind at one cast per turn with no bonuses is at best a coin flip. If spells straight up said "on a 4+...", I doubt people would be putting up with paying 130 points for their wizards, but the math hides how low your odds to cast successfully really are.

at the sme time, if you don't bring that one unbind, the opponent's normal casters immediately become quite a bit better

[pnkdth]

8 hours ago, PJetski said:

I agree we must buff stormcast!

Yeah, they deserve a new book or something! 😂

[Jefferson Skarsnik]

The Rumour Engine is actively annoying and mainly serves to show how terrible the streaky edge highlights on GW's house style for metallics look up close

The Rumour Thread is de facto a rumours, news and general discussion thread, has been for years, and should be treated as such instead of exhorting people to "get back to rumours" which don't actually meaningfully exist for about half the year

Whoever pitched Khorne having endless spells should have been summarily fired and possibly physically beaten

[Kadeton]

6 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Normal casters are just really kind of awful. Getting out a spell of any casting level through an unbind at one cast per turn with no bonuses is at best a coin flip. If spells straight up said "on a 4+...", I doubt people would be putting up with paying 130 points for their wizards, but the math hides how low your odds to cast successfully really are.

Also, most spell effects are pretty naff. The only spell I really care about casting is Mystic Shield, most of the time - my casters know other spells, but they're really just a way to try to bait out the opponent's dispels before I cast Mystic Shield.

[Sagittarii Orientalis]

All abilities allowing movement or shooting in hero phase should altogether be removed. 

It gives too much importance to early phases(i.e. first two battle rounds) of the game and, combined with lack of tactically meaningful terrain rules, relegates the matchups into "who decides the priority". Removal of such abilities, along with improvement of terrain rules and layout, would help toning down lethality of the game; thus making later phases of the game more meaningful.

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Sagittarii Orientalis

[NauticalSoup]

6 hours ago, Jefferson Skarsnik said:

The Rumour Thread is de facto a rumours, news and general discussion thread, has been for years, and should be treated as such instead of exhorting people to "get back to rumours" which don't actually meaningfully exist for about half the year

++NOT-A-MOD HAT ON++

This is a very popular opinion, please get back to the thread topic which is unpopular opinions.

Edited November 29, 2021 by NauticalSoup

[Noserenda]

Yeah the rumour engine is pretty worthless, it would be better if they compiled the unsolved ones together, maybe grouping the related ones for some actual intrigue. 

[Kodos der Henker]

18 hours ago, pnkdth said:

Yeah, they deserve a new book or something! 😂

Yes, 4 ones

AoS is in the better spot than 40k because the designers got the hint that it is healthier for the game instead of randomly throwing in new units that replace existing ones (or not if their rules are not better)

And than Stormcast exist, we all those problems 40k collected with Marines over 20 years are put in copy&paste without thinking twice (because Marines sell and if you do exactly the same with SCE, those must sell as well)

For now the only useful option to solve it would be for each champer to be its own book

[Bosskelot]

Stormcast don't have as many different units as Marines, but they definitely feel like they do. I've been trying to figure out why this is the case and it might just be because a lot of them aren't as distinct, there are no vehicles (obviously) and a lot of the names are just nonsense sounding or completely non-descriptive; the characters especially.

Obviously Primaris have that same issue with the names, but at least you sort of know just from hearing the words what a Captain, Chaplain, Apothecary and Techmarine do. What is a Lord-Imperatant? A Knight-Azyros?

[Gitzdee]

3 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

Stormcast don't have as many different units as Marines, but they definitely feel like they do. I've been trying to figure out why this is the case and it might just be because a lot of them aren't as distinct, there are no vehicles (obviously) and a lot of the names are just nonsense sounding or completely non-descriptive; the characters especially.

Obviously Primaris have that same issue with the names, but at least you sort of know just from hearing the words what a Captain, Chaplain, Apothecary and Techmarine do. What is a Lord-Imperatant? A Knight-Azyros?

GW is doing what i did as a 12 year old when internet became a thing and i was nerding out claiming all kind of domain names just because i could. They make up ridiculous names for units for the sake of copyrighting stuff.

Also GSG really need a new battletome asap. They feel so underwhelming even for such a luck based faction. Its so bad it almost becomes comical. I just picture soft squigly squigs bouncing around like people in sumo suits trying to hurt someone.  Or Spiderfang with their toy bows dressing up like indians. Troggs are kind of ok i guess.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Iksdee

[Skreech Verminking]

15 minutes ago, Iksdee said:

luck based faction.

So are the skaven, yet those guys at least have a risk and reward system. While the gloosmpite are currently sitting on a risk but no reward system instead 

personally I would like to see the risky part being kept, yet the reward system for both armies, being reworked.

[Gitzdee]

15 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

So are the skaven, yet those guys at least have a risk and reward system. While the gloosmpite are currently sitting on a risk but no reward system instead 

personally I would like to see the risky part being kept, yet the reward system for both armies, being reworked.

I agree, i love the random/risky factor. It feels like what playing gitz should feel like. The damage just is nowhere to be found. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Iksdee

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, Iksdee said:

I agree, i love the random/risky factor. It feels like what playing gitz should feel like. The damage just is nowhere to be found. 

Yeah, who knows maybe the faq could be a helping hand, in this case.

maybe not 

[pnkdth]

5 hours ago, Kodos der Henker said:

Yes, 4 ones

AoS is in the better spot than 40k because the designers got the hint that it is healthier for the game instead of randomly throwing in new units that replace existing ones (or not if their rules are not better)

And than Stormcast exist, we all those problems 40k collected with Marines over 20 years are put in copy&paste without thinking twice (because Marines sell and if you do exactly the same with SCE, those must sell as well)

For now the only useful option to solve it would be for each champer to be its own book

I do not actually think SCE needs more books. It was just an attempt at a joke (given the meta data was only relevant for the old book and they just got one). Overall, I think the way AoS handles sub-factions is much cleaner than tons of supplements (let's not give GW ideas!). I do not think SCE are distinct enough internally either to warrant supplements.

[EntMan]

There seems a lot of love for Thunderstrike SCE on other threads, but I have to say I think the old chunkier SCE look way better and the new ones are a bit meh. 

[Dingding123]

On 11/25/2021 at 4:17 PM, Skreech Verminking said:

Just wondering, but what exactly makes a good player, well good at the game in your opinion, guys?

Edit: (because I do have my own believes, but wouldn’t mind hearing the thoughts of others first)

It's not tied to any one game but my definition is the ability to adapt on the fly to overcome obstacles.  If people need more rules or bigger numbers than their opponents to do that, or have to get lucky, skill wasn't present.  AoS caters to a non-player fanbase and I get that, but a game's very much not worth playing if it played itself, just like models wouldn't be worth painting if they came pre-painted.

[RamsesIII]

I liked the previous skeleton warriors better. Don't get me wrong, I think the new ones make for a "better" miniature, but I think their uniform armoured look worked better for Cursed City, which takes place in a very specific location where the skeletons are explicitly raised from the old guard of Ulfenkarn.

The previous skeletons looked slightly more cartoonish, but their armour pieces (especially the helmets) felt like they could come from different cultures to an extent, which worked better for the idea of a necromancer travelling the land and raising more dead from their defeated foes. It works very well for narrative-oriented games with a necromancer who isn't in one place (or simply makes forces out of failed invasions to their domain).

Plus I feel like that variety gives you more to work with when building 2 boxes of 10, compared to the newer box of 20. The old and the new each have their appeal though!