Unpopular opinion thread

[Grimrock]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

This is the exact issue I've had (and am still having). I don't mind taking never before used units, but I do mind being asked to use said units in a bad way.

My list was something like (at 750pts)

- Chaos Lord

- Chaos Sorcerer lord 

- Darkoath Chieftain 

- Darkoath Warqueen

- Untamed Beasts 

- Untamed Beasts

- Spire Tyrants

- Chaos Spawn 

- Chaos Spawn

(Path to Glory so 2 extra heroes allowed from territory)

It is, narratively, the dregs of warriors and cultists (hence no armoured S2D units) gathering under the banner of a Chaos Lord and Sorcerer. 

So not exactly the most intimidating list in the world, and when it's going against Blood Knights and Goregruntas on the regular, it feels bad to be asked to not summon or to play more 'casually' (which, when asking for elaboration, seemed to be playing objectives less, less screening and less retreating). 

It's a tricky one, because I do see their point - it is very frustrating to feel as if a game never goes your way and summoning does seem blatantly unfair in a 'common sense' way (as in, "wait, so you get points for free? I had to pay for my units!"). But I think blaming an opponents list rather than trying to look for weaknesses doesn't help someone improve as a player (should they want to), and can diminish the fun of the opponent.

In addition, intentionally playing badly can feel quite patronising and really takes the wind out of your sails if you find out you only won because someone let you.

 

Maybe it's just a consequence of playing Narrative? It's not like your opponent can quickly change their list or tactics for next week to make it a better game, they're kind of locked into what they have. Your list definitely hits like wet tissue paper and will crumple about as fast, but it does skew on bodies pretty hard and I can easily see a number of lists at that point level that wouldn't stand a chance regardless of tactics. I get not wanting to play down though, these kind of mismatches have been one of the big reasons why I've avoided stuff like Path to Glory. Too easy to make the wrong decisions and get stuck being too powerful and having no fun or being too weak and having no fun. 

 

[Kasper]

2 hours ago, Andrew G said:

1) No shooting unit should have more than 12" range unless it's artillery. Adjust points down to compensate. 

2) True line of sight is stupid and they should implement a fixed height system for all units/terrain based on type, and better LOS determination rules so you can't claim LOS because you see under a models feet or their hand is raised. 

My issue with true line of sight is that it directly causes issues with 2 huge aspects of the hobby for me. 

First off it makes any bases you create a disadvantage if they elevate your models that dont want to be sniped. The reserve is obviously true for your shooting units.

Second off it really messes with conversions, kitbashes, proxies etc. which are all a big part of the hobby. Models might suddenly have a different size, pose etc. 

It absolutely baffles me that true line of sight is a thing considering what this hobby is made up of.

 

[Andrew G]

3 minutes ago, Kasper said:

My issue with true line of sight is that it directly causes issues with 2 huge aspects of the hobby for me. 

First off it makes any bases you create a disadvantage if they elevate your models that dont want to be sniped. The reserve is obviously true for your shooting units.

Second off it really messes with conversions, kitbashes, proxies etc. which are all a big part of the hobby. Models might suddenly have a different size, pose etc. 

It absolutely baffles me that true line of sight is a thing considering what this hobby is made up of.

 

Completely agree, you can slice it from a gameplay or hobby perspective, it would better serve the game better to change how LOS works. 

It's honestly not complex at all to implement (rules light wargames like KoW do it fine) and I do think it potentially adds a lot from tactical perspective as well. There's scrambles for archers to get to hills first to see over the enemies infantry lines to snipe support characters, distraction carnifexes can be arrow sponges for the little guys behind in a more meaningful way,  you can mitigate damage against you slow foot slogging hammers with shield infantry in front, etc.  Overall, I think it adds a lot to a wargame like this without a lot of rules bloat, it only benefits the hobby like you mentioned, and it also is just... cleaner, IMO.




 

[Dingding123]

It doesn't seem appropriate anymore for units on the charge to be able to wield command abilities in the combat step. All-out Attack/Defense on the charge are obnoxious, especially with there now being fewer models on the board than in 2.0.  It also heavily favors massive models that just like to wipe out units in one fell swoop, taking turns using AoA and Finest Hour.  There's just not a whole lot of gameplay going on there.

[Battlefury]

1. The current meta is "Monster & Hero Hammer" playstyle. That was intended by GW before releasing AoS 3.0, so people would change their lists and buy into new models / entire armies. ( It would be fine ok, if the game rules where better and the prices where adequate )

2. A rules of thumb can be use to increase the chance of winning:

"If a model is new and expensive tu buy, then the chance of winning increases."

3. The fact, that people won't try to win an uphill battle by figuring the opponent's weakness has nothing to do with the players themselves, but with the army designs, made by GW. There are armies, that have no weak point to be exploited, since they might have none, ot that point is amssively outnumbered by the armie's strength.

4. Also the fact, that the same 5 armies dominate the meta ebfore, and also after A0S 3.0 is a testament to the point above.
 

[Skreech Verminking]

57 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

Also the fact, that the same 5 armies dominate the meta ebfore, and also after A0S 3.0 is a testament to the point above.

Well, there is one army that wasn’t that great back in second edition and is currently doing more then well.

Sons of behemat are saying hello

[JackStreicher]

Imo:

1. Double turns need to be removed, finally. No matter the argument of planning for it or not: It remains a gamble that utterly destroys casual games more often than not. Make it part of a battlepack for tournaments or sth. of the likes but please spare normale matched play games from this nonsense.
2. Magic needs a rework. Atm it is the psy-phase of 40K (which already is a bad design).
3. GW has to arrive in the 21st century and ACTIVELY answer to community questions and wishes instead of ignoring them and burping out marketing nonsense instead.

4. Motal wounds need to be massively reduced and instead be replaced by hits with -4 rend.
5. They really need to think about what they want to achieve with path to glory. The scenarios are horrendously one-sided and uncreative, yet this is supposed to be the format featuring crazy creative battles, sieges, ambushes, treasure hunts etc. Instead it's 6 flavours of "kill the enemy quick".
6. Rewrite bad Warscrolls every 6 months and release them in a white dwarf.

7. Stop half-baked nonsensical White Dwarf Updates (latest example: Cities of Sigmar)

8. Save-Stacking should really be reconsidered.
9. All-out-Defense on a charge should be reconsidered. Make such Command abilities dependent on whether one charged or not.

10. I politely ask to finally nerf sentinels: Even the sewers in front of GW couldn't take it anymore and exploded.

[Kasper]

46 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

1. The current meta is "Monster & Hero Hammer" playstyle. That was intended by GW before releasing AoS 3.0, so people would change their lists and buy into new models / entire armies. ( It would be fine ok, if the game rules where better and the prices where adequate )

2. A rules of thumb can be use to increase the chance of winning:

"If a model is new and expensive tu buy, then the chance of winning increases."

3. The fact, that people won't try to win an uphill battle by figuring the opponent's weakness has nothing to do with the players themselves, but with the army designs, made by GW. There are armies, that have no weak point to be exploited, since they might have none, ot that point is amssively outnumbered by the armie's strength.

4. Also the fact, that the same 5 armies dominate the meta ebfore, and also after A0S 3.0 is a testament to the point above.
 

I dont think I could disagree more all around.

1. You could argue ANY involvement from Games Workshop = They want to make money. Doing any kind of balance changes keeps the game going which means they sell models, and make more money. I dont think they intentionally made a "monster and hero meta" so people tossed their armies in the bin and had to buy new monsters. People complained that monsters bracketed too fast and generally werent worthwhile to bring in AoS2. It also contradicts your last point. 

2. I think we have seen a number of cases where this just isnt true and the new beautiful model is simply worthless competitive. On the flip side do you think it would be a good idea for them to create new Stormcast models, only for the best models to be those people bought back in AoS1 pre points? The new models have to be strong to inject new life into a faction and keep things from becoming stale.

3. If armies had zero weakness then you would see their win % being absurdly high (like 75%), which is generally not the case. Theres a case with Sons of Behemat where its almost impossible to not go 3-2 in a tournament and thats really because their only weakness is their amount of wounds. If an army can bring enough damage early on they lose, otherwise they win pretty much by default. There is no other army with such stats that indicate they are neigh unbeatable. 

And yes it has absolutely to do with the players themselves. A lot of people simply cant/hate to admit being wrong (they played bad) or they simply cant face the facts and realize the truth and would rather complain/whine endlessly about a unit or army than trying to figure out a way to win. Its a loser mentality. I have fought people where I asked if they were sure on their deployment because they just threw the game and they said yes and didnt want to make any changes. We played 1 turn and they lost, then backtracked and they were allowed to deploy differently and could right away see the mistake. Blaming this on GW is absolutely INSANE. 

4. The armies in the top are actually incredibly varied and the meta has never been as healthy as it currently is. AoS2 was much more dominated by a couple of armies in the top, but these days you almost see any army going 5-0 which was unheard of in earlier versions of AoS.

[Kasper]

2 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

1. Double turns need to be removed, finally. No matter the argument of planning for it or not: It remains a gamble that utterly destroys casual games more often than not. Make it part of a battlepack for tournaments or sth. of the likes but please spare normale matched play games from this nonsense.

Why cant you just houserule the double turn? If its so bad for casual games then I dont get why people simply just dont agree to not play with it.

[JackStreicher]

7 minutes ago, Kasper said:

Why cant you just houserule the double turn? If its so bad for casual games then I dont get why people simply just dont agree to not play with it.

Because people rate the matched play rules as "laws given by God and the universe". So they refuse to adapt, because they want to play the "real" game, though they hate the DT.

Edited November 25, 2021 by JackStreicher

[JackStreicher]

11 minutes ago, Kasper said:

A lot of people simply cant/hate to admit being wrong

That's a general trade of humanity I'm afraid

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

14 hours ago, Andrew G said:

No shooting unit should have more than 12" range unless it's artillery. Adjust points down to compensate. 

I don't know about no shooting unit, but I generally agree for big blocks of ranged infantry. I think mid-range shooting is really what those units should mainly be capable of. Somewhere between 12" and 18". Enough range so that you can actually have the chance to outrange an opponent, but still need to worry about positioning.

But what I really want is artillery to be better. I can't off the top of my head think of any artillery units that are actually good right now. The closest I can come up with are the Mortek Crawler last edition and maybe Celestar Ballistas before that. Artillery models are really disadvantaged by the rules right now compared to non-artillery shooting units, because they can't be reinforced and can't self-buff, so they don't benefit well from command abilities.

I think the game would be more interesting if artillery units, with all their disadvantages, were the most common way to get dependable long range shooting. Slow moving, minimum range requirements, can't capture for beans, decently expensive... Put the average artillery battery at the price point and strength of a unit of Stormcast Longstrikes and I'd be pretty happy.

[AdamR]

The ridiculous amount of negativity on this forum is actually putting me off playing AoS far more than anything GW ever does.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

13 minutes ago, AdamR said:

The ridiculous amount of negativity on this forum is actually putting me off playing AoS far more than anything GW ever does.

Oh boy, better not go to other Warhammer forums then.

[AdamR]

8 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Oh boy, better not go to other Warhammer forums then.

Oddly enough I have been on other forums. That's why I started coming here. It would be a shame to see TGA go full warseer.

EDIT: or Dakka/Reddit/whatever for those with shorter memories!🤣

Edited November 25, 2021 by AdamR

[Battlefury]

Ever thought about the circumstances, the "negativity" took over certain aspects of the hobby?

Spoiler: It is not, because those people are only haters.

[Aeryenn]

2 hours ago, Kasper said:

Why cant you just houserule the double turn? If its so bad for casual games then I dont get why people simply just dont agree to not play with it.

 

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Because people rate the matched play rules as "laws given by God and the universe". So they refuse to adapt, because they want to play the "real" game, though they hate the DT.

I did and it encourage everyone to do same unless you play tournaments.

The game is now waaay more acceptable and even. One double turn can easily break a game completely.

To be hones, I think GW is afraid to admit that the Double Turn is a total miss and  want to keep it as long as possible but eventually they will remove it.

[Gaz Taylor]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Because people rate the matched play rules as "laws given by God and the universe". So they refuse to adapt, because they want to play the "real" game, though they hate the DT.

This!

I think it’s very easy to fall into the trap of “it’s matched play or nothing” but with the Generals Handbook and I suspect the upcoming update, the game will have a official tournament mode and then you use what you want to play locally. So if your group hates the double turn - house rule it! 

[Battlefury]

What evens the field even more, is alternating activations via unit per unit. That in combination with no DT makes the game certainly more balanced ( as far as I call it balanced ).

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Aeryenn said:

To be hones, I think GW is afraid to admit that the Double Turn is a total miss and  want to keep it as long as possible but eventually they will remove it.

Without the Double Turn tournaments would be no More fun! 
You Need this without that stratgems from 40k! Without the Double Turn Good Players would just win like 80% + Games of they Go First!

Edited November 25, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Overread]

45 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Without the Double Turn tournaments would be no More fun! 
You Need this without that stratgems from 40k! Without the Double Turn Good Players would just win like 80% + Games of they Go First!

Good players winning is kind of how competitive games are supposed to work

Asides the doubleturn does NOTHING to help weaker players. It is quite literally a roll at the start of the turn with dice. There's no thinking, no tactics, no planning, no preparation, no link to the games state - it just happens or doesn't happen on the whim of the dice roll.

Now in a random dice rolling game that's to be expected to some extent, however the doubleturn typically results in whoever gets it tends to get a landslide win. Either reinforcing their winning state or perhaps just stealing a win from a loss. However just as a good player might lose to it they might get it and just win faster. 

3.0 edition has introduced some new features that let the opposing player do more in their turn; and the alternate activate style of close combat masks some of the imbalance the doubleturn introduces; however shooting heavy armies love it. If they get a doubleturn that means two full turns shooting without having to worry about being countercharged.

 

Again there's no tactics that the doubleturn introduces. About the only one is to not move forward during your turn so that you're further away so if your opponent gets a doubleturn they have to sacrifice one full turn getting into range to hurt you. Which is a null tactic in a game that only has 5-6 turns and where objectives and killing the enemy all rely on board control and projection of board control which means you can't just sit back for the entire game. 

[Kasper]

5 hours ago, Overread said:

Again there's no tactics that the doubleturn introduces. About the only one is to not move forward during your turn so that you're further away so if your opponent gets a doubleturn they have to sacrifice one full turn getting into range to hurt you. Which is a null tactic in a game that only has 5-6 turns and where objectives and killing the enemy all rely on board control and projection of board control which means you can't just sit back for the entire game. 

This is just false. As has been discussed countless times, also here on TGA. Theres a lot of planning and strategy to the whole priority mechanic. Play around it or bank etc.

If the "double turn" was as black and white as you make it out to be, explain how its always the same good players winning tournaments over and over? Are they just.. More lucky? 

Yes the mechanic is probably problematic for "bad players" because they simply dont know how to deal with it, play around with it or plan for it and hence it feels like it "ruins games". But guess what, they can opt out of it where as its pretty much needed for tournament play.

Edited November 25, 2021 by Kasper

[Battlefury]

1 hour ago, Kasper said:

This is just false. [...]

Certainly not false. If people come to the conclusion, that they want something to be different, you can't just dismiss it like that. Their opinion is valid, but maybe it differs from your own experience / expectations.

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Kasper said:

Yes the mechanic is probably problematic for "bad players" because they simply dont know how to deal with it, play around with it or plan for it and hence it feels like it "ruins games". But guess what, they can opt out of it where as its pretty much needed for tournament play.

Reeding this took me ages since my eyes couldn’t stop rolling. 🙄

[Skreech Verminking]

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)

Edited November 25, 2021 by Skreech Verminking