JackStreicher
-
Posts
4,977 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by JackStreicher
-
-
Just now, Kasper said:
It sounds like neither of you play with the DT in mind and are super aggressive or reckless. This can pay off, but its a strategy you bank on that also can heavily backfire. Im not really surprised you hate the DT if you dont respect it and play around it.
Play some games without it if you hate it so much and post your findings. Mine has been that the game turns ****** under the current rules.
You didn’t read my post, did you? XD
The „play around the DT“ is nothing but empty words used to justify a random element that makes no sense. Read my post I was very clear how the DT plays out.
tldr: There‘s no such as playing around it. You either try to abuse it by being aggressive or you don’t. If you don‘t you should already be in a defensive position - there‘s nothing more you can do.
It‘s fine if you like the DT. I don‘t for the reasons I mentioned in the other post.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Ferban said:
Again, if you're talking about the hottest meta list (oops, all dragons!)
Makes me question everything you've just said XD
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:
There is a distinction between a game where a double turn doesn't appear and a game without a double turn. In this fun and balanced game with largely no ranged damage, the possibility of a double turn still existed. And so you likely made decision with that in mind which led to by your own admission a fun and balanced game.
What you have to ask yourself is if even the possibility didn't exist would the player who went first have just won because they got to choose the first engagements.
That's not right. Everything I did I had to do anyways, double turn or not. I had to screen to survive his turn. Usually my opponent gets his turn after mine (or vise versa), so I have to screen to survive his damage. I shall not overextend or expose my charakters. This I have to do anyways. If my opponent received a double turn I would've run out of screens and he could have simply smashed my defences and finally would've tabled me. There's not really a difference. The only differences are the following:
- One Player could take the risk of trying to get the double turn, playing super aggressively. If this is rewarded the game is pretty much over for his opponent. If he does not get the DT he'll be in trouble. It's a feel bad in both cases since as I said: the double turn (to me) is a mechanic that gives an unfair advantage to one player (not neccessarily the one taking it).
- The possibility to turn a game around. Usually this means that grave mistakes were made (in the turns before / Listbuilding) so this mechaic is required. It's still not fair at all. If you make such horrendeous mistakes, you deserve to lose.- The Easy DT: You don't need to place your important pieces aggressively because you either have great shooting, awesome magic or another trick up your sleeve to hurt your opponent from afar. Awesome, the biggest NPE gets to go twice in a row, so much player interaction, amazing.
So why exactly do we need the DT? That's right, we do not. It's not a good game mechanic it's simply a trademark of AoS for the sake of it.-
1
-
-
I had a League game yesterday in which we never got a single double turn due to our rolls. It was enjoyable and tense, a really good game!
If he ever had a double turn I would've lost (tabled) due to his insane damage capabilities. If I had a doubleturn he would have lost.
This way it was tactical and fun without throwing a wrench at us and forcing the game to go a certain way.
Planning ahead in this case was: Screening like crazy, which would've been in vain if he spiked his dice or got a double turn.
It's one of the examples of why a DT is actually pretty bad. It's an unfair advantage for one player, period. You can argue as much as you want, this however doesn't change. (It isn'T made fair by giving the other player the chance to also get a DT. If one player gets a DT he's at an unfair advantage from that point onwards)
If you are interested:
I played an experimental SBGL list with 2x 20 and 3x 10 Grave Guard, 60 Zombies, 2 Vamps, 10 Wolves, a Nekro and a Wight King in Legion of Blood
HE played a Knights of the Empty Throne list with: 6 Varanguard (Tzeentch, General)), 3 Varanguard, Bela'Kor, 2x5 Knights, 1x Iron Golems, 1 Sorcerer Lord and a Warshrine.
By the end of the game his Varanguard had slaughtered 85 Grave Guards, 30 Zombies, 10 Wolves, a Vamp Lord and almost my Wight King. In the end the Zombies won me the game combined with my arcane Vampire buffing them.-
3
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Freejack02 said:
Without the double turn, controlling the first turn becomes too powerful. Shooting/ranged becomes even stronger because you know the enemy can't pull the 1-2 (or 2-3) to come back from taking early losses, so they are always playing from behind.
Aha. So the dt is fine because shooting can go twice in a row?
the only reason the double turn exists is to set AoS apart from 40K.
-
1
-
-
I‘d like the double to be gone as well. It makes no sense and ruins more games than it helps.
-
6
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, DocKeule said:
That does not make any sense.
We can only judge the profiles in the light of A ruleset and the the only one we have is the one we currently operate with. You cannot judge stats in a vakuum (which was pretty much one of your main arguments so far) or what we fantasize what the new rules might look like.
Everybody will surely reevaluate the assessments once the new battletome drops just as we did when the new core rules were released and here and there Reavers all of a sudden got some playtime after being virtually unused for well over three years.
It is entirely possible that the new book will show us a completely different picture but as long as we are playing with the old book and in AoS 3 the sharks got pretty clearly worse and Reavers are a wash at best.
Nothing with substance. March had been thrown around since before the battle box was announced. But that is only based on some reddit rumors as far as I know.
Thx!
-
Is there any speculated date on the IDK Battletome release?
-
24 minutes ago, The Red King said:
Discarding every bad warscroll from the book still leaves you with more viable units than some armies have available in the first place so I do find it hard to muster my sympathy...
That’s no argument though. So it’s fine if he can‘t use his units in any effective way since his collection might consist mostly of the bad 50%? But who cares, your army needs new models, right?
🤣C‘mon-
2
-
-
Might be easier to use chaos warriors and switch weapons/heads
-
My armies are lead by the hand in the sky
My Vampire Counts were usually led by Ephilia von Kreysz. An aspiring Sylvanian Baroness. She also survived the end times along with her loyal Wight Commander, her husband wasn’t so lucky though. Her Necromancer also survived (sadly). His name is Scum the Useless - Since he always managed to be sucked into the realm of chaos whenever he tried to cast his first spell (the amount of dice didn’t matter). He really did it every time - it even became a plot meme that another Necromancer had to plug him from the realm of chaos after every battle. He survived since he was in the realm of chaos when the world blew up.
ever since the Von Kreysz have lost their importance, however, they have plans in order to return to their former power and to carve out a kingdom.-
2
-
-
40 minutes ago, boyadventurer said:
IIRC the units in Dominion were costed a lot higher in the box and the points dropped a bit with the tome. Since it doesn't look like our book is imminent either, we might see a similar circumstance here.
Used to be the same with Daughters iirc
-
11 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:
I honestly would've preferred them just not acknowledging the change narratively, for both cases. Primaris exist as a narrative concept pretty much exclusively to avoid any blowback from replacing the old marines that people already owned, which is insane to me but I guess people actually do get upset when they release updated models? Maybe people would've been upset at needing to rebase their marines?
I view thunderstrike in the same vein, I would've much preferred them marketed as just updated liberators/judicators (maybe with a different weapon profile), and it probably would've been good for the SCE battletome to have a couple less warscrolls. Maybe that would've sold less boxes though.
Liberators in Stormstrike armour would look sick though! I might start a conversion 😍
-
Overall the changes seem fine. I am not sure about the Reaver costs, seems like they would fit right in at 150-160 pts.
The Sharks are fine as well. They could drop another 10-15 points and they'd be perfect imo.
I am looking forward to our new rules!
-
1 hour ago, Ragest said:
I'm happpy with the absence of AoS until probably april, because I play Craftworlds and Tau
Same
minus the Tau
@Overread Idk about you, however since Corona my life has been : Work, sleep, repeat. I am trying to keep myself afloat with anytjing that could cause hype. In the past GW managed to do so most of the time. As of late, the lack of releases has put most us on a hard withdrawal....and I really need my fix X_x
Maybe the eldar model today will be a mild remedy-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Battlefury said:
I would like to know you opinion about the state of acceptance due to specific points:
1. Prices increasing with each new release.
2. Rules bloated. It sometimes takes more than 4 ooks / releases to have all of the rules together.
3. Power level increasing with new releases, leaving older armies behind.
4. GW basically neglecting certain factions, wich just don't get anything new and up to date.
5. Models being locked behind paywalls, or big box sets, for a long period of time.
6. FAQ debacle.
7. Massive FOMO
Why do you accept this mess? Looking for individual opinions here.
cheers///
First off: You are asking very valid questions despite some people being rude towards you for doing so. (lough and confused smilies)
In fact I think most of us don't think about it in the way of issues the game has but the fun it can offer. So to speak most of us rather look at the side of the games' potential instead of it's weaknesses. Which sometimes makes us blind to issues we create by ourselves for our hobby.
In this case we should perhaps seperate the product from the producer. The product is fine-ish. However I personally would describe my relationship with the producer and the way they handle their product as a toxic relationship: You stick around because you remember the good times you've had, however they demand way more than they are giving back, growing bolder and bolder every quarter.
I am going to answer as truthfully as I can:
1. Prices increasing with each new release.
- I am in a position where a friend of mine owns an independent Store and offers me quite a big discount. Without it my purchases would have been reduced massively. I've already reduced my consumption due to €/Model reaching ridiculous levels even if you cut the price by 30-40%.
2. Rules bloated. It sometimes takes more than 4 ooks / releases to have all of the rules together.
- This one hit me hard. I am rather unhappy with the 3 editions despite my enthusiasm at the beginning. I've stopped buying books altogether (40K and AoS). One point is the bloat, it's excruciating to me. I don't want to have to put up with it. Another point is the rate of which books become obsolete combined with the (imo) absurd price of it.
3. Power level increasing with new releases, leaving older armies behind.- I don't think this is the case tbh. It seems more or less random: Some new releases are really good, others are bad, depending on how well the designers handled a faction. Strangely enough this is more of an issue with 40K. However imo 40K drives this way because the devs are trying to make every book and entry cool and useful, sometimes they miss the mark by a siginifcant margin (Orks, both AoS and 40K).
4. GW basically neglecting certain factions, wich just don't get anything new and up to date.- This is nothing but upsetting. Simply out of masochism: I waited 3 Editions for Bretonnia to get a remake. That's what... 8-10 years? Guess what: They were removed from the game
The way factions and releases are handled is a horrible mess. They should at least give us a crude estimation about when factions might be updated. Waiting years for an update is quite frankly inacceptable since we're all mortal beings.
5. Models being locked behind paywalls, or big box sets, for a long period of time.
- This is a mild annoyance since eBay sorts that kind of issue out rather quickly
6. FAQ debacle.
- A shameful display: They have the money, they have the staff (or get new stuff with money if they need more people), they had the time they simply didn't botgher. I haven't played a single game since that FAQ it utterly destroyed my motivation to play or paint AoS. It was too little, too late and it was also too badly executed. Sure it's a start, however we should expect more than that and they should deliver way more than that.
7. Massive FOMO
- It feels to me like this has decreased as of late, so not much of an issue.TLDR: As long as you have fun it's fine. Once you lose the fun it's time for a break or to stop.
I am personally keeping myself happy about the hobby by taking a break from AoS and buying way less, working on my old 40K backlog.-
3
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Boingrot Bouncer said:
Since the Gitz-comic story on Warhammer Community have Storm Gitz left and then is finished I hope that there will be some kind of reveal after this.
Highly unlikely. Don’t set yourself up for disappointment ^^
-
2
-
1
-
-
Strong abilities and interesting abilities should be seperate checkboxes.
-
I actually like the new FS Priests ability tbh. (I also like the model)
-
4
-
1
-
-
I don’t see a use for the Thrallmaster. He is a support piece that’s supposed to fix a disfunctional unit. So one basically pays double to get use out of Namarti Thralls.
You‘d basically have him running around locked in at the -1 Aura. 🤷🏼♂️
unless they‘ve also changed Namarti I don’t see how the addiction of this Model helps the army. -
Mhm. Just to ignite the fuse and watch the explosion:
imo dragons are fine.
deal with it
-
2
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:
Why is everyone seemingly so obsessed with named characters having to have a Ward or they’re considered trash?
why isn’t the conversation instead that mortal wounds are a problem (there’s too much of them flying around these days) that needs to be addressed?
Because MWs aren‘t going away anytime soon, so a ward is the only remedy.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Jaskier said:
I'm not sure about Stormcast lists but he seems like a decent shout in Cities, particularly for Tempest's Eye (I feel like Karazai is a better fit for Living City) if you really wanted to get the most out of them.
That is until GW utterly destroys the coalition rules for cities as well.
Employee: “Uhm, no one is playing the dragons in Stormcast lists…“
Competent Rules Guy: “Well, let‘s force them to! Make dragons utter dirt in all other cases. Be quick with it, I don’t feel like fixing anything, that’s time better used on drinking coffee and building Gauß Canon Tanks.“
— The underlying issue of overpriced, squishy Dragon Princes wasn’t resolved, however, they easily destroyed a lot of fun that could’ve been had.
-
Reading this thread I have new trigger words: Silent people.
They are just not happening, they are a Story side note like the Cathrophranes or whatever they were called. Let those silent people also stay silent in this thread please 😵💫
-
12
-
7
-
3
-
minus the Tau
Double Turn begone! AoS should get rid of the double-turn
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
First off: Awful does not mean gamebreaking. I know simplification is fun, but let‘s keep a logical separation.
Believe it or not: When you listen to top Players they drop comments like „the last DT cost me my 5-0“ and the likes.
Also important: Top players might handle the DT mostly fine, however this is utterly irrelevant since the vast majority does not consist of top players. It‘s like saying „oh the distribution of money seems to be fine, I mean look at those three people, they‘re doing exceptionally well and they are rich“, while ignoring one thousand people living on the streets.