Jump to content

Unpopular opinion thread


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

With all due respect, this simply is not true. I am immersed in AoS play from small scale narrative up to being part of the staff at some of the biggest tournaments in the US and the look of resigned disappointment on players faces as an otherwise close game is aborted from an early double is universal at all levels. It isn't limited to the losing party either. Non-WAAC tourney players in particular WANT to be challenged, they spend a good chunk of time and money to go to an event for some engaging high-level play only for a match to become entirely one-sided.

For every game where the underdog gets a comeback from a timely double I see one where an underdog that had a slim but fighting chance get obliterated, and I see three where what would have been a contested game becomes one-sided. I see players who are invested, who have fully assembled and beautifully painted armies, who have set aside their weekend for an event, sitting at the table like it's a morning commute. Something they do to get to the next game which might be better.

And quite often it IS better. The majority of games don't have a 1-2 double and the round 3 objective removal makes taking a 2-3 double a meaningful choice in relevant scenarios. AoS is a great game at its core, GHBs have consistently delivered excellent scenarios overall, and the eccentric style of GW rules design lends itself to all sorts of crazy antics and cinematic moments. More often than not early-double matches just end up as a chore players push through so they can play the real game next time.

With the lack of anything like 40k 9th edition obscuring or dense terrain, AoS would 100% degenerate into a race to get the first turn to shoot the opponent off the table. This was the entire issue with 8th and remained an issue to be grappled with in 9th design. They had to change last turn scoring to help solve it. Where is the challenge for players in an opponent with 50 sentinels getting first, then carefully measuring to know the other player has zero chance to reach them within X number of turns? 

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

5 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

With all due respect, this simply is not true. I am immersed in AoS play from small scale narrative up to being part of the staff at some of the biggest tournaments in the US and the look of resigned disappointment on players faces as an otherwise close game is aborted from an early double is universal at all levels. It isn't limited to the losing party either. Non-WAAC tourney players in particular WANT to be challenged, they spend a good chunk of time and money to go to an event for some engaging high-level play only for a match to become entirely one-sided.

For every game where the underdog gets a comeback from a timely double I see one where an underdog that had a slim but fighting chance get obliterated, and I see three where what would have been a contested game becomes one-sided. I see players who are invested, who have fully assembled and beautifully painted armies, who have set aside their weekend for an event, sitting at the table like it's a morning commute. Something they do to get to the next game which might be better.

And quite often it IS better. The majority of games don't have a 1-2 double and the round 3 objective removal makes taking a 2-3 double a meaningful choice in relevant scenarios. AoS is a great game at its core, GHBs have consistently delivered excellent scenarios overall, and the eccentric style of GW rules design lends itself to all sorts of crazy antics and cinematic moments. More often than not early-double matches just end up as a chore players push through so they can play the real game next time.

With all due respect, you're simply not reading what I'm writing. I'm not contesting the double turn ruins a lot of games, you're preachign to the choir here. What I am saying is very specifically that if you removed the double-turn right now, in the absence of other big changes to the way the game works, you'd see the win rate for going first immediately spike to competitively unacceptable levels, i.e. well above 60%. Nothing you've written here addresses that. In a game without double turns but otherwise the same as it is now, everyone goes 1 drop and tries to go first every game because there is every incentive to do so, and the advantage from getting that first turn is immense. 

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

1 hour ago, BadDice0809 said:

With the lack of anything like 40k 9th edition obscuring or dense terrain, AoS would 100% degenerate into a race to get the first turn to shoot the opponent off the table. This was the entire issue with 8th and remained an issue to be grappled with in 9th design. They had to change last turn scoring to help solve it. Where is the challenge for players in an opponent with 50 sentinels getting first, then carefully measuring to know the other player has zero chance to reach them within X number of turns? 

The other player putting important targets in reserve or outside of 36". If the sentinels players wants to choose first they are using low deployment drops, giving the opponent the opportunity to see where they are. Sentinels raw damage output is quite low--their strength is in being able to pick off key pieces. The bodies to hold objectives can be placed in their range to move forward and take them; even after weathering a round of fire all but the most elite factions will have no trouble outnumbering a Lumineth list with 50 sentinels.

After that it is down to tools available to the army in question, and oh boy are there a lot of them. Some armies are perfectly happy to move and charge from 30+ inches away, others have anvils that can tank that level of shooting, quite a few have reserves that can teleport in and shoot or have bonuses to charge.

A better question is, what do you do when that 50 sentinels player makes you go first then gets two turns to shoot you before you go again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

With all due respect, you're simply not reading what I'm writing. I'm not contesting the double turn ruins a lot of games, you're preachign to the choir here. What I am saying is very specifically that if you removed the double-turn right now, in the absence of other big changes to the way the game works, you'd see the win rate for going first immediately spike to competitively unacceptable levels, i.e. well above 60%. Nothing you've written here addresses that. In a game without double turns but otherwise the same as it is now, everyone goes 1 drop and tries to go first every game because there is every incentive to do so, and the advantage from getting that first turn is immense. 

No, because the first turn advantage is not that immense. An extra CP every round is nothing to sneeze at, especially if the general dies. And most scenarios the player going second gets to pull an objective round three, a tremendous advantage. Redeploy, unleash hell, all out defense, and finest hour give more tools to combat alpha strike than the game has ever had.

And again, where are these alpha strike builds that are so strong? Why is such a powerful tactic not being widely used? Why is ruining 40% of EVERYONE'S games considered an appropriate price to pay to -theoretically- combat a strategy with sparse evidence it even works? Why do I have to watch players in my community tell me they are quitting because of the double, so that you can have a completely luck based chance of beating a strategy that has a dozen and one other tools to counter?

The solution you are defending is analogous combatting the current monster-hero meta by implementing a rule where players roll off at the start of every combat phase and the winner gets to fight with all their non-monster units twice.

And I has strengths, but 'stops an alpha strike meta' is most definitely not one of them.

Edited by NinthMusketeer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

No, because the first turn advantage is not that immense. An extra CP every round is nothing to sneeze at, especially if the general dies. And most scenarios the player going second gets to pull an objective round three, a tremendous advantage. Redeploy, unleash hell, all out defense, and finest hour give more tools to combat alpha strike than the game has ever had.

And again, where are these alpha strike builds that are so strong? Why is such a powerful tactic not being widely used? Why is ruining 40% of EVERYONE'S games considered an appropriate price to pay to -theoretically- combat a strategy with sparse evidence it even works? Why do I have to watch players in my community tell me they are quitting because of the double, so that you can have a completely luck based chance of beating a strategy that has a dozen and one other tools to counter?

The solution you are defending is analogous combatting the current monster-hero meta by implementing a rule where players roll off at the start of every combat phase and the winner gets to fight with all their non-monster units twice.

And I don't even want random initiative to be cut entirely because I think it has strengths, but 'stops an alpha strike meta' is most definitely not one of them.

Where are those 40% coming from?

You claimed EVERYONE‘s game so I‘m included as well and I don‘t feel that double turns ruin 40% of my games. 
 

Actually most of the time priority doesn‘t even matter for my gameplan, except me or my opponent goofed hard. 

 

Your perception of the game is dangerously flawed and I say that because you claim to organize events. I dont want to imagine how you talk about the game and its mechanics at said events. 

I criticize you that hard because I know many LGS owners that behave just like that, thinking they know everything about the game systems they sell while in reality being pretty mediocre at best, all while being overall pretty negative about the systems, in worst cases even claiming they speak for the MAJORITY of the world wide gaming community.

I think its some sort of self esteem issue working in retail.

Maybe it‘s because they are frustrated that they are just selling someone elses product because they neither have the resources nor the knowledge / skill to create a successful product themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shrug, we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I think you're absolutely wrong that first-turn advantage isn't a major thing in the absence of a double, you obviously think I'm absolutely wrong that it is a thing. I don't think there's anything I could possibly say that would change your mind if you don't think removing a significant chunk of your opponent's army and moving up to control the board before they get to do anything is a significant advantage. 

But FWIW, on the question about why we supposedly don't see lists that go in hard on the top of T1...uh, we do. They're literally all over the place. There was recently a game at a high profile UK tournament where the players actually rolled to see who went first and then the player who got second (playing Lumineth, against Tzeentch) conceded without even setting up. Now I personally think that was a mistake precisely because of the possibility of a double...but without that possibility, that was probably a fairly reasonable thing to do. 

 

 

Edited by yukishiro1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Shrug, we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I think you're absolutely wrong that first-turn advantage isn't a major thing in the absence of a double, you obviously think I'm absolutely wrong that it is a thing. I don't think there's anything I could possibly say that would change your mind if you don't think removing a significant chunk of your opponent's army and moving up to control the board before they get to do anything is a significant advantage. 

But FWIW, on the question about why we supposedly don't see lists that go in hard on the top of T1...uh, we do. They're literally all over the place. There was recently a game at a high profile UK tournament where the players actually rolled to see who went first and then the player who got second (playing Lumineth, against Tzeentch) conceded without even setting up. Now I personally think that was a mistake precisely because of the possibility of a double...but without that possibility, that was probably a fairly reasonable thing to do. 

Perhaps you can advise me on how to counteract when that Tzeentch lists goes second and gets a double. What do I do to win that game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Lumineth are one of the very few factions that probably can win that game even if Tzeentch doubles them - assuming you got your 5++ up and your army is mostly castled within the protection and spell shrug, and you deleted significant portions of their army using your T1 alpha or at a minimum forced them to blow their good fate dice preventing you from doing that...you're in a comparatively pretty good spot. Under 50% win rate? Yeah, probably. But probably not dramatically under that. Definitely in the realm of still worth playing. 

But your general point that it's hard to win against someone who gets the T1 to T2 double is absolutely true. For the fourth time...you're preaching to the choir there. My preference would be that they remove the double and reign in alpha strikes, because I don't like either of those things. But you can't do one without the other, the game would just collapse. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

The other player putting important targets in reserve or outside of 36". If the sentinels players wants to choose first they are using low deployment drops, giving the opponent the opportunity to see where they are. Sentinels raw damage output is quite low--their strength is in being able to pick off key pieces. The bodies to hold objectives can be placed in their range to move forward and take them; even after weathering a round of fire all but the most elite factions will have no trouble outnumbering a Lumineth list with 50 sentinels.

After that it is down to tools available to the army in question, and oh boy are there a lot of them. Some armies are perfectly happy to move and charge from 30+ inches away, others have anvils that can tank that level of shooting, quite a few have reserves that can teleport in and shoot or have bonuses to charge.

A better question is, what do you do when that 50 sentinels player makes you go first then gets two turns to shoot you before you go again?

We can play the army chair general game on the specific examples all day (the LRL player teleports the sentinels, a CoS player places a wizard outside dispell and casts the bridge for irondrakes, KO get ready to drop off the clown car, etc etc). Also, I'm sure a lot of armies can afford to play slammed against the rear of the table to desperately avoid the 36" threat....

The point is, in the game as is (a point yukishiro1 made previously and you never responded too), NOT having the double turn creates a game of haves and have nots (like in 8th edition 40k). You either have one drop and heavy shooting/power projection, or you don't, and are competitively a second class citizen (once again, we saw this split in 8th edition 40k). The double turn providing a  CHANCE for the second army to MAYBE close the gap before they are shot/magicked to pieces means the other army can't just measure deployments and ranges and have it 100% certain they will have it their own way.

Is it a good system? No. Its still horrible. Frankly every mainstream 40k game still hugging the dinosaur of IGOYOUGO is so pathetically flawed the idea of taking it seriously as a competitive game is crazy. BUT, stating as you do that getting rid of the double turn would be better, given the current lack of anything to mitigate shooting (a la 40k style dense or obscuring terrain) is simply wrong. If anything, it would be EVEN WORSE because AoS, for some unfathomable reason, still has first turn order determined by drops (something even 40k has completely ditched). Games could literally be decided by who wins the roll off for attacker and defender.

To answer your last point, given the state of AoS as is, I would rather play a game where there is at least a CHANCE of the LRL player NOT getting a double, then live in a world were the LRL player knows for certain the turn order and can plan accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize why my opinion is so different. It's the looks on players faces. I'm at the events, I'm checking in on games in my community. I see the looks on people's faces when double turns happen. You guys support a 'solution' that stasticially unbalanced as many games as it balances, and you don't have to witness players' passion for the game die. Over and over again.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're just repeating the same straw man that's already been debunked. Neither one of us said we "support" this "solution." We both said it isn't ideal, and that we'd like to see a different approach. The sole point I was making was that you can't just remove the double turn, that isn't a "solution" either, to use your term. The first turn advantage in the game is too great for that. You'd need to change a bunch of other variables too to create a game that wasn't largely determined by the roll-off to go first. 

 

 

 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Why is ruining 40% of EVERYONE'S games considered an appropriate price to pay to -theoretically- combat a strategy with sparse evidence it even works?

What a strange sentence - citing a phantom 40% statistic, and then chastising others for their "sparse evidence", all within the space of a few words.

Unless you have substantial evidence that the double turn ruins 40% of all games, in which case I'm all ears?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PlasticCraic said:

What a strange sentence - citing a phantom 40% statistic, and then chastising others for their "sparse evidence", all within the space of a few words.

Unless you have substantial evidence that the double turn ruins 40% of all games, in which case I'm all ears?

Ah, this is on me for not communicating clearly. The 40% is not an exact statistic but rather an approximate chance of a 1-2 double occurring (the exact stat being 41.66%). Obviously that chance is not a guarantee that the game is ruined, but then doubles on later turns are also capable of ruining games. But naming a statistic was the wrong choice on my part since it indeed implies a specific occurance when really what I meant was to highlight that while the issue does not hamper the majority of games it is not a small fraction either. That is on me for not communicating properly, my apologies.

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

Having been playing 1-3 games a week for some time, I can't remember the last game I played that was 'ruined' by a double turn.

Its swung the balance a couple times, or reinforced a strong position, but I can't remember it being the sole deciding factor in a long time.

Since 3E, I'm way more likely to lose a game because I made a bad decision and failed on a Battle Tactic than I am to lose to getting doubled.

But it also probably helps that every game I play isn't set in some hypothetical hellscape of nothing but Tzeentch and LRL tournament lists...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh the game without the double 100% works--I have hundreds of games done like that. I know from a wealth of experience the gameplay doesn't break down. That is just hard reality--I have tried it, it works, period. The claim that alpha-strike dominates is objectively false, but that was never really a point in contention because there was never any evidence raised. Only shooting lists billed as alpha strike, which the double empowers as much as solves. But I should have known better than to engage the toxic people, I should have known they don't, won't, understand.

What this has done is convince me more than ever that people who support the double do so from a lack of skill in the other ways to win--skills they never needed to develop when the double exists as a crutch. But they are there, alpha strike lists can be easily, crushingly countered with no double involved. The only way to reach a rational conclusion that alpha-strike lists need a double to counter is to be unaware of how to counter them otherwise. When the viewpoint is so based on ignorance it was my mistake to engage it at all. I should have known better.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NinthMusketeer I think the unfortunate reality you are not thinking through is given everyone knows the double turn is no longer a thing, what does that do to the current play space? I think if we also keep the original methods of scoring, that's likely to create an equally ****** meta for people (in fact, probably much worse).

 

The double turn is a band-aid on a serious issue: going first is too powerful. But talking about why going first is too powerful leads you down the rabbit hole of board sizes, alpha strikes, projection of force, how magic works to set up spells, etc. The core changes you need after that to make things work are strange. I think the estimate of a >60% win rate for going first in a world where everyone knows going first means no double turn would be correct.

 

So should you eliminate the double turn? I think yes. However, I think you also need to re-work a lot of the other elements of the game and the scenarios when you do that. So essentially that is an argument for AoS 4.0. Removing the double turn alone neither makes things better nor worse: they are just dumb in a different way, as your disappointment on faces when the double turn happens will instead just move to the same disappointment on faces when they lose the coin flip / roll off to go first.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eliminate it? No, I think pushing it to round 3 is a better alternative for gameplay. But if it is going to result in a bunch of people perfectly happy to sling insults for expressing how their training wheels harm my community then it would be better in the end for it to be gone--along with them.

 

That reality with no double turn? I've lived it. It doesn't look like what the critics are describing. Once the prospect of a come-back double is gone people look for alternate solutions. And find them, in abundance. If you want to see alpha strike lists get utterly wrecked, have a community play without random initiative for a month.

Edited by NinthMusketeer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinions time again:

The double turn hides faction imbalance by introducing a random boost that scrambles win rates. I believe this is the main reason it was made. I even think the turn 1 problems are because that's the one turn that isn't random.

Warscrolls like Sentinels and Cathaller are a bad idea for a game that's meant to be friendly. Likewise with factions like Ossiarch and their messing with your CP while being immune to it themselves.

All units should have a second save characteristic for mortal wounds. It should be high for all Order dwarves.

GW vastly overvalues rend and undervalues mortal wounds, especially in this edition.

Now for a spicy take: In AoS 1 and 2, all mortal wounds could just have been high rend damage. I would still prefer that in this edition.

Language in combat is atrocious. Wound characteristic, to wound, mortal wounds, wounds taken as well as damage characteristic, damage taken and damage dealt are confusing because they sound the same but do something different and as such need more different words the English language is perfectly capable of providing.

Chaos warriors inspired early Stormcast (as well as space marines) so calls for corrupted Stormcast forget that Stormcast are already pressure washed Chaos Warriors.

Keywording within factions that are souped should be more generous to actually add spice to the soup. Things like buffing Orruks instead of Bonesplitter.

Stormcast players should be allowed to kitbash their battleline to the new shiny to combat power inflation. This should also apply if GW decides to iterate on the same concept (like armoured tall person with hammer) for other factions.

At the advent of the second decade of age of the box, kitbashing should be explicitly allowed. Sprues that are of drinking/voting age should be refreshed with new technology in mind.

Space marine mold space is mostly wasted, because it iterates in small changes that work perfectly with an upgrade sprue. All the freed up mold and design space should be filled with dwarves of every grand faction, Silent People, Ghost pirates, Grotbag scuttlers and other things that cater specifically to me.

The Snotling Blood Bowl team should be included in AoS in some fashion. In one box, there's as much variety as the whole of Fyreslayers.

Spell in a bottle is a nice idea but needs to be curtailed.

The Old World was a bad setting that got bandaided through a few good stories. Outside of "Europe" GW didn't even try and just went for straight up racism.

Edited by zilberfrid
  • Like 1
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not-sure-if-it's-an Unpopular Opinion but:

  • Look Out Sir should be a 2+ bodyguard instead of a -1 to be hit.
  • Challenge should return to engage (and kill) that pesky characters that stays in the middle of a unit (with Look Out Sir).

I know that there are a lot of buffers in the game that must be killed ASAP for gameplay reasons, but it's boring to kill them with magic/pew-pew-pew.

We see the villains engage with the heroes in a one-on-one fights in movies. Sometimes using swords, sometimes just with bare fists. But always with pure epicness!!! And Age of Sigmar should try to emulate that!

Heroes on foot should fight other Heroes on foot, in a ferocious battle!!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They definitely need to change Look Out Sir in some way that makes it not completely useless against mortals, the failure to do so is one of the most surprising oversights in the AOS3 ruleset.

 

But I would be very surprised if that's an unpopular opinion. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know whether this one is unpopular or not:

Mortal Wounds are just a bad mechanic. They shouldn't exist. Just give stuff high rend if you want it to go through armor saves, or even let it ignore armor saves entirely. MWs in 40k sorta make sense because you have a toughness stat, they don't make sense in AOS. Spells should just deal x amount of normal wounds at x rend. It would give you a lot more room to work with in that space too, instead of having practically every damage spell be "yeah, you guessed it, this one does d3 mortal wounds too!" 

 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 3
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RexHavoc said:

A lot of AoS & 40k (and even a lot of wider wargaming hobby) reads like it was created by people that grew up with warhammer, but not the things like the real history that warhammer was built around.

I don't dislike AoS lore- I'm often found crying foul at loosing the eight lamentations sequels. But I can see why people can be put off by it. Its almost like a parody of a parody at this point.

I apologize since I couldn't summarize what others were saying.

I agree 100%. What made warhammer so iconic was, IMO, the fact that it was:

  1. satire of sci/fantasy
  2. a bit more grounded on history (as opposed to fantasy, which gave it a more solid foundation)
  3. had elements of political satire
  4. still "serious" enough to engage in "deep" word building

Others have described this as "punk nerd" or something similar, which I really like. It all had a bit of an ironic flavor, as if the narrator had an ironical smile while telling you the story.

I think this unique combination is what gave it the "edge" over other settings, as it has something beyond the stereotypical "paladin lvl 200 with dragonkiller sword" that is ridiculed so often. I apologize if I haven't read enough about them, but stormcast seem like warcraft paladins to me; cartoony gaming inspired archetypes designed to be easily painted (drybrush armor). And I don't mean this as an attack on those who like them!

Right now, I am missing bits of most of these 4 elements. It seems that, like others said, it takes the fantasy both too seriously (as in straight up I should not laugh and what I am being told) and too lightly, in a way I don't like. When I read about Roboute Guilliman as the saviour of the empire, which is a flawed but ultimately noble thing, I can't help but be surprised. The empire had never been touted as a good thing, there weren't "good" and "bad" things in 40k, it was pretty awful all around. And too lightly, because by losing its "historical" core, it is now much harder to ground.

As others have said, it seems to me that before warhammer was looking outwards for inspiration AND commentary, and now it just looks inwards. The parody (also been said here), if it still exists, is at most of warhammer itself.

  • Like 5
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...