Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

acadmo

Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Judicator

About acadmo

  • Rank
    Liberator

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What do you imply with this? I dislike new Marvel because of the way most of their new retcons are(complete lack of respect for the old characters, calling old fans hateful bigots(in comic), turning usually deep and rich storylines into cartoonnetwork type sitcoms and just making them generally shallow). I am not really vocal about that but yes I hate their new comic books because of these reasons. If GW were to turn into something similar to Marvel anytime soon we should be very very worried. Thankfully I think they care too much about the profit to go down the "hating their own customers" route.
  2. I don't remember friends deck exactly but he is taking all aggresive in faction ploys and all neutral "must have" ploys like trap, great concussion, ready for action, my turn and quick thinker which is just broken with Farstriders(you move away from a guy making his activation useless and then proceed to murder him with your ranged attacks). Also one key ploy is Shardgale. It helps immensly with your killing power and auto scores Multiple Fronts. ^Because of ploys he can really dish out a lot of damage. His upgrades are similarly aggresive - shadeglass weapons, gun that gives cleave, helpful whispers, counterattack thingy. He also runs A Destiny to meet as some form of lategame points and obviously Army of one which similarly to Quick thinker is too strong with them(they can make use of additional attack dice multiple times in a turn). These are his objectives: behead the beast(e) punishing volleys(e) advancing strike(i) alone in the darkness(e) master of war(e) masterstroke(i) ploymaster(e) multiple fronts(i) precise use of force(i) superior tactician(3e) the bigger they are (i) victory after victory (e). As you can see it is an all out offence deck with no regard for objective holding. I think going hybrid with them is a trap. The main problems when playing against this deck: 1. You can't effectively engage - if you run with your warriors head on there is a good chance one of them will die or two will be severly wounded while farstriders will keep their distance. You will get 0 - 1 charges first turn if he doesn't want you to engage. 2. Can't effectively play defensive/objective game - the farstriders have exact same threat ranges as skaven. They are the fastest warband in the game when it comes down just to charges. They will easily interrupt your score obj plan. 3. Even when he engages you and you have some good rolls and put some hurt on them it does not reduce their damage output the same way it does to the other warbands - due to them not being required to charge in order to deal damage. You eliminating two of them may paradoxically make game harder for you, as you enable an army of one guy who is sitting in the middle of your board to wreck havoc with 4 dices on ranged attacks dealing 1 - 2 dmg with each, while your warriors are stuck because they have already charged or can't really engage him(if you charge him and fail(3 dice defence sometimes with a reroll) you are in melee range of 2 - 3 dmg attack and can't move, if you fail and push him back you are still in range of his gun and cannot move).
  3. I mostly agree with what you want to convey with the post but this sentence is flat out wrong, at least when it comes to W40K. It's not just Sisters of Battle - although yes they are one 90% female army. Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Tau, Deamons of Chaos all include both male and female sculpts(so there are at least 6 choices for armies with #represent) and that is not even touching on the fact that a lot of armies are gender nonconforming(aka Necrons, Tyranids, Adeptus Mechanicus, Orks if you look into the lore really hard). There are like 2 armies that don't have females for lore reasons - space marines and imperial guard. The oversaturation of the game with space marine chapters is a separate topic. I think the sentiment is much more justified when it comes to AOS. W40k is pretty diverse as it is.
  4. Being passive - aggresive doesn't help either. This is a good thread, we shouldn't drag it down with personal arguments. Let us stay on point.
  5. @Enoby Wait but sisters of battle are exactly female space marines! I mean not exactly(if you read into lore) but for 11 - 15 year old kids just looking at models it shouldn't make a difference I think... Now the army being bad is another story I have always found the W40k to be one of the most inclusive game ip's ever, much more so than AOS anyway. I mean they have an all female army! And it was there super long ago, long before the whole talk about inclusivity started. Many gender neutral armies - Necrons, Tyranids, Tau(i would say orcs but they are kind of stereotypically male) and many armies which field both male and female troops(at least in the newer model ranges) like Eldar and Dark Eldar. They even have an all black Space Marine chamber or whatever these are called. The only culprits when it comes to using both gender sculpts are Space Marines and Imperial Guard but the first one could be justified due to lore reasons and second one kinda due to realism. We don't have many female soldiers on the frontlines in regular army either. Regardless, AOS is not so bad off in this department. We've just had Daughters of Khaine released and I feel they will be in the spotlight for years to come
  6. I have had a moderate success with aggresive skellies build splashing Supremacy and A Destiny to meet + Spectral key + one normal key as finishers. Last tournament I did my best against 2x Magores matchup, won the first one and lost the second one. Both best of 3s were very close. I feel the Magores are favored in the matchup. The main problem is that you have very hard time against the Orcs and you basically fold against aggresive Farstriders, especially if they have Shardgale. I do not see skellies becoming very strong in any meta that favors Farstriders(which is right now - they are hella strong). I mean we have up to 3 cleaves but at 2 move and 2 - 3 hp on everything it is just not possible to win unless the guy plays poorly.
  7. Yeah it can be used in the other factions but it is a loooot less consistent(so usually not worth putting in). Yep the 3/4 hex range is the reason, If you put an Army of One on any of the Steelhearts, he will charge once, get a bonus die on attack and thats it. Farstriders don't need to charge so they will get bonus attack die every activation while having 3 dice on defence. You can't run away and you can't kill them. If the last guy is the Eagle Eye/Swiftblade(don't remeber his name) with furious blow you literally can't kill him(I mean you can but in the meantime he will kill your whole warband). To be honest I am hoping for some voltron counters. Maybe a ploy/upgrade that destroys an upgrade under certain conditions(like one model having 3 of them) for example. I don't think Army of One is that strong other than Farstriders. I can live with it against Steelheart's.
  8. It's not broken in the "op" sort of way. It's broken because only 2 out of 8 factions, arguably the ones that need it/deserve it the least(2 shield defence) can use it. In itself it is worth more than two cards(it's like better acrobatic + better light armour). It is conditional but Farstriders can usually complete its condition fairly easily.
  9. My thoughts exactly. My wake up call was when I played against my friend after brainstorming counters for few weeks with him and getting demolished by them day by day(I guess I have won with Magores a few times but I dont want to play them ;_;). At the end of it I asked him what is it that he fears the most when going to the tournament. "A mirror match". I am more and more inclined to think that Army of One is a problem card. It shouldn't be touched I think but is not very well designed either(and Farstriders make use of this broken design much better than Steelhearts).
  10. @Sleboda I am usually of the same mindset however "the best defence is offence" rule is not really true while going against farstriders.Whenever you kill a model in another warband you limit their options and number of attacks due to how charges and threat ranges work(essentialy each model can make one attack unless in base to base). Farstriders however do not need to charge to deal damage, and it doesnt matter if they have 3 or one fighter left alive. Also their damage is more consistent since if they fail their attack they can just continue attacking with the same fighter. Thats why I feel that healing effects are one of the few ways to lower their dps even more so due to incremental nature of their attacks. It might not work, we will see. What about magores, do you find them problematic? Also keeping the border narrow is a good idea. Didnt do that a lot since we play on a small table but it could help a great deal in keeping them from flipping and making their placement less in my face.
  11. Hello fellow dwarf players, what do you guys think about the state of our little dudes right now? On one hand they seem to be much better off now with some of the new ploys like My Turn and obviously Inspiration Strikes, on the other hand there are new matchups I am not entirely sure about. I will be attending a local tournament. The meta is very Magores heavy but I don't know the matchup that well, since my friends rarely play them. Also what I am really worried about is the aggresive farstriders list. The problem is not what i first anticipated - them being too far back and hard to reach with move two but actually how much in your face they are, the damage they can dish out, and huge point advantage they can generate woth the combo of one immediately ploy, two easy ones, victory after victory and supreme tactician in lategame. The deck is very consistent and scary with longer threat ranges than skaven, toughness of stormcast and huge point gains just from one kill. What do you guys do against them? I will try adding healing potion and ur gold boon as as a start since they could help against incremental damagebut im not sure they will make that much of a difference. Also what do you think about magores MU?
  12. @Karol You are right, Katophrane decks are solitaire decks, they shouldn't however be called control decks for the reasons I have posted above. Also don't know where you get "control decks are uninteractive" meme from. This might be true for few degenerate decks like Lantern Control but most of them are the epitome of reactiveness and interactivity. Whole early game of control deck, mid game too, is searching for right answers and reacting to threats accordingly. In general I am opposed to using Mtg terms when talking about Shadespire decks, since due to how the game is structured, we are tempted to call the decks that like to fight aggro and less keen on it control. This does not work at all though. Control decks in Magic are revered for the amount of decisions one needs to make and make well in order to win with them. Aggro on the other hand is often scoffed at for apparent mindlessnes in which it executes its gameplan. In Shadespire, a skirmish game, however, most of the decisions made are made during the combat. Thus it is aggresive decks that have most to lose for playing wrong, and most to gain for playing right. The passive decks remove almost all decision making and as you said are playing solitaire. It is completly opposite of what is expected of controll in mtg sense of the word. I can't force anyone not to use these terms but I think it would be best if we would stick to aggresive - passive - objective based as the definitions in order not to confuse ourselves with the implicit meanings mtg terms have.
  13. @PlasticCraic Great to see new people come and enjoy the game. There is no problem with defensive decks per se, there is only a problem with their consistency. Base stormcast hit the critical mass of passive objectives which lets them hit upwards of 5, 6, 7 points each game for not doing anything. If they can use this to generate further 16 glory it is just unfair. Without kato though they are not as oppresive and i am hopeful that holding obj decks can still outscore them. There are still two concerns with the game that only become apparent when playing against them tho. 1. Inadequate cardpool. There are ploys to make you faster but thats it. There are vast amounts of cards that can directly stop aggresive based objectives and hold based objectives - great concussion, earthquake, mischevious spirits all of which say "you do not score this round". Last Stand, healing potiond, Indomitable, my turn are their aggresive equivalents. There are no cards that say "you do not score passive objectives". The closest we have is Hidden paths and a number of things can go wrong with it, mainly you not hitting the target and even if you did getting instagibbed by 3 stormcast. I think introducing a few cards that interact with opponents movement if they are on edge hexes like reverse hidden paths or just making them do a normal move withoit adding the token would go a long way. 2. Unfair card advantage. Due to the fact that the passive decks do not need to move they can generate huge hands and thus overwhelm their opponents with options. It doesn't help that they can draw any ploy they want and you can just hope to topdeck spectral wings or hidden paths. None of this problems appear when playing against holding objectives deck as they still need to move to score and can be countered with cards or even the combat, dreaded by some. That is why they are such well designed element of the game as opposed to poorly thought out base stormcast and neutral passive objectives.
  14. You are not though. You are only interfering with his plan before playing the actual game - at the deckbuilding stage. During the game you hardly do anything to interact with your opponent. So you might have outsmarted their deck but not outplayed them during the game. You winning just doesn't feel right, since we usually want to be awarded for good play and punished for bad. In the case of playing against kato/passive stormcast this doesn't work - since the game rewards it for staying as far from any interaction as possible, it "does not have to do anything" and wins. At the same time it cuts away any decisions for your opponent and makes the game boring. For most people deckbuilding aspect of this game is minor and the gameplay takes precedence over it. If a deck completly removes out the latter it soaks the fun out of the game. I understand you like the TCG aspect of it but there is plenty of room for deckbuilding - decks based on aggression, decks based on holding objectives, hybrids, all of which reward skill both in deckbuilding and during the gameplay. There is no room however(or at least there shouldn't be any if we want this game to survive) for the decks that go directly against the idea of what this game is about - interaction. And from my experience no one finds this type of gameplay fun, even the players using the deck themselves.
  15. Well at least it pushes objective decks back into the meta, ever so slightly, as one Great Concussion is not enough to stop them, but free 16 power in last turn was. The defensive stormcast cannot sit back while obj deck scores upwards of 5 points per turn. They have Great Concussion? Okay, just score Supremacy next turn. Also, can we stop calling passive, "sitting in the corner decks" control decks? I very much respect control players from the days of Magic, however playing passive stormcast is anything but. Control, in an aggro matchup was under great pressure since turn one, and often the game could end after one crucial decision that went wrong. You also needed to smartly conserve your rescources, knowing when not to counter or kill creatures while waiting for bigger threats. Playing control required a great deal of decision making. Passive Stormcast is not pressured at all, it actually puts the pressure on your opponent, and not by smart decisions but by setting fighters as far as possible, without thinking. People playing against it are not losing to ""being controlled", they are losing to the strategy of mindlessly pushing the draw button. In it's gameplan, the deck is much more similar to Burn deck or some aggro deck like 8Whack Goblins. It executes the same moves over and over, with little regard for what opponent is doing and no interaction other than dealing more damage(getting glory points). Calling it "control" unnecessairly dignifies it. Skaven, Fyreslayers and obviously Guard are all much more similar in their playstyle to what could be called control, at least in Shadespire.
×
×
  • Create New...