JackStreicher
-
Posts
4,926 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by JackStreicher
-
-
Just now, Kadeton said:
So? Let them be "immortal", for as long as their controlling player can afford to keep pouring all their defensive resources into one model.
Morathi's actually immortal, at least for a few turns. Gotrek has always been essentially immortal, save-stacking or not. If you see a model like that across the table, do you just give up and go home? Do you throw everything into them even though it's pointless, and get your butt handed to you? Or do you figure out a different way to beat them?
rigid thinking.
You need way too few ressources to achieve immortality atm. And no, no model should be immortal as long as you can buff it up a little. We're not talking about complex, accurate movement or well performed plans to make something immortal. You basically spent one CP and chuckle, maybe some magic and maybe an aura. And nothing stops you from repeating this over and over and over again. And suddenly immortl for a turn becomes "immortal whenever I need it". This is plainly stupid.
Morathi dies, after 3 turns. She barely has any defenses.
Gotrek dies to massed 1dmg attacks and he is really slow.-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Kadeton said:
This is literally what I mean by rigid thinking. "If it never dies, it can't lose! If I can't kill it, I can't win!" You don't have to kill anything to score VP.
That's at least true for most scenarios. In some archaon will ping-pong among objectives murdering everthing you have XD
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, stratigo said:
most units in those armies
agreed.
It also has financial consequences which are most likely neglectable: I for one love the look of the new Vanquisers and vigilors. However I won't spent money, or make room in my display case, for miniatures whose rules are just bad. That's ~ 90€-180€ less they've earned, due to being sloppy with rules (warscrolls) once again.@Kadeton There is no such thing is though units. They are beyond tough which is the big part of the issue. In most situation they're immortal unless you can throw one hundret wounding attacks at them.
-
21 hours ago, lare2 said:
Only Knights and Lords.
So no Yndrasta XD
-
2 hours ago, KingBrodd said:
The resin river absolutely fascinated me!! I have those WD at my parents home somewhere, I'd love to dig them up.
I also loved their Amon Hen Gaming Table and in general all of their Lord of the Rings Tables.
Back in the day it inspired my friends and me to build a (very solid) Helms Deep in all its glory!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Dingding123 said:
It wouldn't be a problem if they were to make All-Out Attack, All-Out Defense and Mystic Shield more exclusive. Like if they were to make both commands cost 2 points each instead of 1 and if they made Mystic Shield successfully cast on a 7 or 8+.
Also mass mortals are a thing, but that makes hordes a bit better in comparison (they're abysmal atm) so those might actually be fine as is.
We simply need at least one CA or spell that grants +1 rend
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, KingBrodd said:
I'm loving these posts guys!! Love myself some good terrain, I remember an article in WD from around the launch of The Fellowship of the Ring strategy game that showed a whole board being made and young me poured over those pages for months.
I remember that as well 😍😍
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:
There are bad, good, and better people at all tasks why AoS would be different or somehow made to egalitarian seems impossible to me, but maybe I'm wrong.
You're perspective is too narrow btw. All mechanics segregate: However, mechanics themselves are not complex, in general. The complexity is deciphering what the presence of that mechanic means on the table. Which brings us to...
The skill is discerning the affect of the mechanic's implementation, and the effects of the mechanics existence on what will happen on the game.
The question should be does save stacking or the volume of +x to save abilities create a situation where players are too segregated. A situation where improving via experience or study does not mitigate the existence of the rule.
Perhaps as we try and answer this we can come to a conclusion as to what is a "bad" mechanic. Lots of mechanics are intended to have a restricting or negative affect on players. For example not being able to come within 3", this is a new AoS mechanic, it introduces the possibility of failure at all times. The introduction of a negative affect cannot be the simple definition of a "bad" mechanic. I believe the my question is a much more effective question to ask when addressing these sorts of issues.
Yes. If you build a bad list, you will be constantly frustrated by almost all in-game mechanics. Objective control, Battle Tactics, and yes the combination of +1 save abilities. I have a friend who refuses to bring more Arkos and he consistently can't hold objectives and because he gets behind on the primary score must take increasingly high risk plays to keep the score even. That's bad list building and rightly he loses more than he wins, and he accepts that outcome as a consequence of his choice.
I've watched players lose games because their first movement phase was bad. I've also watched players not consider how they would get to their opponents territory and therefor it is impossible to score Savage Spearhead or Aggressive Expansion. Should the Movement phase remove all restrictions and buffs because the combination of mechanics segregate? I don't think anyone would put that forward. We generally accept that players need to learn to move, and if they don't they will fail more often than they succeed.
Personally I think the theoretical existence of momentarily invulnerable pieces is a good element of the game, and many strategy games include invulnerability abilities. I think really the bigger (and possibly real issue) is how fast hero monsters put wounds back on. Archaon is particularly egregious in this regard, which means he can engage with no long term consequences, mostly because it means there is limited long term risk in using models which concentrate power, being the Hero keyword. As the only risk is explosive destructive power, which still doesn't exist in MWs and while explosive ordinary damage does exist, +save abilities completely negate. Outside of hero monster dmg you put on (even save staked models) sticks, either as wounds or dead models.
The final thing I'll add is that there is definitely a problem with the internet, forums, and streamers who by observing AoS create a meta, which then creates a counter meta, into infinity. In the before time, people had to grind their army to figure out what worked and the forums that did exist were not so heavily populated. Not to say this created more diverse list. But, it did create players who understood their list, and could change it incrementally over time. Addressing the cost and opportunity cost as there was no expectation (consciously or subconsciously) of immediate corrective measures to problems.
My perspective is narrow on purpose btw.
“The complexity is deciphering what the presence of that mechanic means on the table.“
Which isn’t hard. Most decisions are logical consequences to the current situation and what you plan on doing and or avoiding the next turn.
You are thinking way too broad here. You are looking for the very fundamentals of words, definitions etc. However I don‘t think these are required at all. Don’t overcomplicate a circumstance if it isn’t necessary.
-
42 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:
is that save stacking as a mechanic drastically segregates good players from the pack. And, we never have really addressed mechanics which segregate are acceptable or not as a premise, as a community.
I knew it would come to this and I simply disagree. Save stacking is neither complex to apply nor hard to use in a game-mechanical and tactical sense. The whole point of this is that it is too easy and too abundant.
The same goes for when not to attack something and what to do "against" save stacking. First off, there is nothing you can "do" against it, it happens. What you can do is react: Target another unit, run away, screen etc.
however those options rather quickly run out, especially if the oponents simply immortalizes key regions of the board. While his "anvils" hammer your units off said board.
I know claiming that something needs a high skill cap sounds good, it easily it excludes people from the discussion because usually it implies that they're not part of this elite cirlce of high skilled individuals, however this is AoS, so think again.
It's a sad excuse for a bad game mechanic. Sure at some "skill level" anyone can use any bad mechanic and claim that this is only an issue for the peasantry of gaming. It remains absurd however.-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Evantas said:
If GW could one day sit down and rationalise the units for each faction to properly balance them, high rend and MWs can sit next to each other as similar mechanics but still nuanced enough for different counter units.
This won't happen.
I am afraid we're steering into a territory in which AoS becomes increasingly extreme:
You either deal zero damage or you nuke whatever you point at off the board with mortal wounds.
I understand that people want their anvil to actually tank some damage. Yet common, you shouldn't have an Anvil that's also a Hammer and a Sorcerer, and a Monster, and a Hero at once. You also shouldn't be able to have several buffed up anvils.
It's not fine to have several of these anvils, it's toxic to the game. People in my group are on a all time low concerning AoS motivation.In an Ideal game a buffed up Hammer VS a buffed up Anvil should result in the same outcome as these units would have in an unbuffed state. If you have to commit minimal Resources to make your Anvil utterly overperform at its job, yet you have to put in a lot of ressources to make you hammer do anything, but still it can't fulfill its job, then the game is in a bad state imo.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, KK in HK said:
I am curious about if anyone has success on har kuron. It seems that the only dok unit worth to take is morathi. DOK units rely heavily on synergy so I don’t see how har kuron work except the spray combo which can be easily dodged by a smart opponent.
Hat Kuron without Morathi has a survivability issue. The whole army dies way too easily. The damage isn’t great either
-
2 hours ago, pnkdth said:
units a fixed rend in their profile to begin with to represent their role.
I like this.
Most fixes however arc back to mechanics of the old Warhammer Fantasy or The Ninth Age
Basic rend: Strength
To put this in AoS terms would mean you'd need another stat that holds the basic rend of each unit and then you add the weapon rend atop of it. -> This however isn't needed, simply give more rend to the weapon.
I thought another fix might be to add rend to charging units - Ironjaws would win turn one if this was the case XD -
9 minutes ago, Horizons said:
Which turns their 4+ saves to 3+ ignoring rend 1/2(if AoD,Finest Hour). I think that's a reasonable place to be. It requires a lot of resources and generally can be played around. I think that's why Sylvaneth haven't been a problematic army. I think they examplify save stacking done well
It‘s not. The armies that use this have a lot of Tree-Heroes that become immortal (and or Alarielle)
Suddenly you are facing an entire flank (and more) of an army that’s immune to rend with +1 to their saves as well #Fun that’s hurtling a flurry of mortal wound spells and rend -2 attacks with 5-6 damage each your way. Oh and they can teleport. Did I mention that they have quite some healing spells?
You see where I am going with this. It’s the big monsters (And Kurnoth hunters) once again. Alarielle for example is immortal in this build unless you can I start kill her or have a lot of mortal wound potential.
At some point in the game one can’t handle that nonsense anymore.I am also not sure if my 2x6 Ishlean Guard with a 2+ unrendable save holding whatever they charge (for forever) is fine. Sure mortal wounds can kill them and suddenly it’s feel bad for both sides.
-
1 hour ago, Horizons said:
I think the new tomes show that GW knew that save stacking could be problematic and that's why there is access to rend -2, -3 and MW's.
I think there is a balance that needs to be achieved. It's just as frustrating to place your 800-1000 pts model and have it dissapear, then it is to have it be an unkillable menace. The fact only Archaon is problematic (competitively that is) shows that there currently is a pretty good balance.
An interesting exercise could be to try and see what tools new books/armies would need to combat this trend.
I disagree with the idea that mass +save auras are problematic, in the armies they currently appear in I think they're pretty essential. Fyreslayers, Sylvaneth, Daughters, OBR and Idoneth all have access to bubbles of + save and aren't problematic.
One Aura is fine, however it‘s not if you can telegraph it to a strung out unit with 50mm bases And add in a Hiveswarm and And And.
Aura Aura is okay, multiples of it Are not.
@Doko Soulblight can‘t heal Vampires including Knights. Their invocation abilities only work on summonable units: Bats, wolves, zombies, all kinds of Skeletons.
-
1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I think it would be good for this thread to lay down the reasoning as to how save stacking devalues combat and why this is bad for the game, so that we don't have to go around in circles all the time accusing each other of not understanding how to play AoS.
I'll start with a thesis statement: Units in AoS cannot break through a 3+ save without rend -1. They cannot break through a 2+ save without rend -2.
Before I argue for that in detail, I'll talk a little bit about how I originally came to believe this. In the days of AoS 2nd edition, the main list I ran was Legions of Nagash Death March. That is a list without a lot of access to rend, since it's almost exclusively composed of Skeleton Warriors, Black Knights and Grave Guard. If you remember, though, Skeleton Warriors and Grave Guard had ridiculous buff potential in AoS 2. There were ways to give a unit of 40 skeletons 200 attacks and fight twice. Black Knights had three attacks, 3/3/-/2 on the charge and could easily get buffed further with extra attacks or reroll 1s to hit and wound. Basically, the list dealt mostly no-rend damage, but huge amounts of it. One of my calculation targets at the time was a Tempest's Eye Steam Tank, which is on a 2+ save turn 1. It turns out that even in the best case scenario, with all attack buffs active and all models attacking, my no-rend units could not muscle past a 2+ or even 3+ save reliably and effectively. That just seems to be a property of the rules of AoS: Units without rend cannot effectively be buffed to deal with 2+ saves, 3+ being borderline. Even if they have otherwise good quality attack profiles or huge weight of dice. I want to make it clear how good Legions of Nagash buffs were at the time: You basically had double damage on tap mutliple times, because you could easily give +2 attacks to units with base 2 attacks, and you could make them pile in twice on top of that. But it was still not enough to outpace the extra defense of a 2+ save.
Now on to the math. First, I want to define what I consider "breaking through a save". For me, a good bench mark is 10 damage. Most units come at around 10 wounds per size increment, e.g. 10 one wound models, 2 two wound models, 3 three or 4 wound models... If you can deal 10 damage against that unit's save characteristic, you will most likely wipe it out. It's basically the old heuristic of "Can this beat a unit on a 4+ save?", but generalized to any save. For monster heroes, the number to beat seems to be 14. For foot heroes, 6.
Here's how that works out on a few common damage profiles:
Damage of certain representative unit types:
Save Chaff (2 4/4/-/1) Elite (2 3/3/-1/1) Brute (3 3/3/-2/2) 2+ 0.88 4.59 7.11 3+ 1.75 6.89 9.48 4+ 2.63 9.19 11.85 5+ 3.5 11.48 14.22 6+ 4.38 13.78 14.22 - 5.25 13.78 14.22 Here, I have calculated the damage of a unit of 10 chaff, 10 elites and 5 brutes (all with +1 attack from the champion). I think those are fairly representative unit stat lines for AoS. As you can see, chaff does not break through any saves efficiently without buffs at 10 models, but they if you can somehow buff their damage. 10 elites can threaten units of equal size up to a 4+ save, effectively. Brutes can even threaten 3+ without buffs.
Now, let's look at how the same stat lines fare against a target with two save buffs. I think two is a fair number to assume: Basically any hero has +2 saves on tap at least once per game from Finest Hour and All-Out Defense, there is always a chance to get there from Mystic Shield and AOD and many armies have other ways to get an extra +1 to saves beyond those basic options.
Damage against a target with 2+ to saves:
Save Chaff (2 4/4/-/1) Elite (2 3/3/-1/1) Brute (3 3/3/-2/2) 2+ 0.88 2.3 2.37 3+ 0.88 2.3 4.74 4+ 0.88 4.59 7.11 5+ 1.75 6.89 9.48 6+ 2.63 9.19 11.85 - 3.5 11.48 14.22 As expected, chaff stops dealing meaningful damage to anything with a 2+ save. Even a unit that starts as low as a 5+ takes basically no damage anymore. Elite units now have problems threatening anything above a 6+ save. Even our rend -2 brutes don't wipe 4+ units anymore. So far, I think this is in line with my statement from the top: If you lose your rend completely, you lose the ability to deal with saves of 3+ or higher.
You might say that this is a bad comparison, since in this scenario the target gets +2 to saves, but the attacker doesn't get any buffs. This is fair enough. To make things even, we can try putting two buffs of our choice into the attacker as well. But here's the thing: Even doubling the damage of the attacking units would not be enough to cross the 10 damage threshold in the relevant cases. Elites still can't break through 2+ or 3+ and brutes just barely gain the ability to deal with 3+. Both as I predicted up top.
Let's take a look at some interesting numbers in the case of heroes, which is what is generally considered most relevant. All the most threatening monster-heroes sit on a 3+ save, 14 wounds. What unit can hope to break through that using regular combat-phase damage? Units on the elite profile can basically never hope to do it, even if reinforced to 30 and buffed to double damage. They still deal just shy of 14 damage, with 13.8. And that is a dream scenario, where you get to completely surround an enemy monster-hero with 30 25mm base size dudes. Brutes get through if you can fit in 10 models and buff their damage by *1.5. Until you add a ward save into the mix, that is:
Target 5+ ward, +2 to saves:
Save Chaff (2 4/4/-/1) Elite (2 3/3/-1/1) Brute (3 3/3/-2/2) 2+ 0.58 1.53 1.58 3+ 0.58 1.53 3.16 4+ 0.58 3.06 4.74 5+ 1.17 4.59 6.32 6+ 1.75 6.12 7.9 - 2.33 7.65 9.48 If your hero-monster has a built in ward or can take the amulet of destiny, it can basically become impervious to melee combat damage on demand. I'll leave calculating the numbers including buffs and reinforcement to you. But consider how realistic it is to get more than 10 models on a brute profile into combat with the same hero-monster at all. These kinds of models are usually either slow and on large bases, or kinda fast and on cavalry bases. Plus, it's actually fairly rare that you can get them to double damage, since they benefit less from +1 attacks, +1 damage or +1 to hit and wound than models on worse attack profiles. Remember, a bravery 10 hero that lives can heal about 3 damage per battle round from heroic recovery. Many can heal more or have better wards or other defensive abilities.
It's also worth noting that, given these numbers, even dumb 6 wound foot heroes become very hard to kill. Even the average 4+ save wizard will be hard to beat in melee combat because you won't be able to get enough attacks into them. And let's not forget that apart from the ward save, regular troops can also stack saves in this way.
What should you take away from this as a player? Basically, you should not hope to be able to deal significant damage to hero-monsters with regular melee combat troops. Even rend -2 troops are iffy. You need to have rend -3 or mortal wounds to get through even the most basic save stacking. However, in most cases, rend -3 is confined to big attack profiles like bites on monsters, where you usually get one swing which makes it super unreliable and, let's be honest, not really enough to deal significant damage. So in reality, the actual answer for most armies will be mortal wounds.
Why is this a problem?
It is a problem because the design of AoS has reached a point where a unit is basically not a good hammer anymore if it does not have mortal wounds output. A unit even with good damage or rend cannot be expected to beat marginally tanky (3+ save) stuff anymore if your opponent decides to stack saves even once. For better or worse, save stacking devalues regular wounds to such an extent that I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that mortal wounds are now the main way of dealing damage in AoS. It highly devalues what should be the default way of delivering damage. This is a value judgment, different from the question "Can most armies participate in this meta/manage save stacking/access mortal wounds?". I am saying that, even if most armies can still function, something has gone wrong with the basic design of the game.
I believe that this is just a bad trajectory for the game to take. If the fix is to further increase access to mortals, that's not really a fix. It's just furthering the problem of the devaluation of regular damage. Especially since changing the core rules relating to save stacking would just be so much easier than to slowly update all the individual battletomes. Just apply rend after the save bonus is calculated. Or even introduce a universal command that improves rend by 1. Both of those would easily bring things back into balance again. Given that the most unpopular things in 2nd edition were mortal wound spam and shooting, it is honestly kinda baffling that GW created an environment in 3rd edition where mortal wounds and mortal wound shooting are more valuable than ever. And, it seems to me, for no reason: I highly doubt anyone would be clamouring for the ability to stack save bonuses if it was not in the game already.
Nice (scientific) approach. We should forward this to GW.
-
1 hour ago, Scurvydog said:
Nah it is much more likely you well get some kind of allegiance update you never asked for and a nerf to battle mages so they do not get +1 cast from the realm they are in.
You might then get cool battle tactics like "Heads of the beasts" where 2 Hydras need to kill a unit each in the same combat phase, or "cloak and dagger" where 1 assassin needs to kill 1 unit and another assassin needs to capture an objective on the same turn!
Grand strategy might be "Glorious death" where you need to ally Gotrek and he dies to a monster.
Look forward to this and more, including hobby tips to give your freeguild women sidecuts and some kind of rating between cutest Darkling Covens warbeasts.
It’s funny 'cause it’s true
-
1
-
-
All they need to add is to add the following simple sentence:
“a save can never be improved to be lower than 3+„
or remove the ability of rend being cancelled by bonus saves. You can only get +1 save, period.
And all the feel bad situations are gone, while monsters and heroes remain tanky.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:
I do like the current save stacking, yet it isn’t perfect.
maybe a limit set on the save stacking would help.
like something that says, a save cannot be better then a 3+ yet, the ignoring certain amount of rend stackable effect would stay.
Sounds good to me!
-
14 hours ago, Kadeton said:
For those armies that are currently viable in the new edition, save stacking really separates players with an adaptable tactical approach from those with a more rigid, inflexible mindset.
Too much generalization. I know people like to think (or to put) things (are) simple, however there’s a lot more to it than that.
You are basing your argument on a single example: Point and kill the highest priority target, which save-stacking stops. That’s not what it is about though.
The issue comes up when armies are able to stack saves on multiple units, making it mathematically impossible to do anything (scoring/killing etc.) about it. No screen, no tactics are going to be any good if your opponent can hit the „nah, you‘re not doing anything in your turn“ over and over again.
One example: I had a game in which I was unlucky enough to not get rid of an endless spell and a mystic shield twice in a row which resulted in half his army having +3 to their save (so ignoring any rend and having +1 save) and he started to mob up my units which were slower and couldn’t deal any damage.
I would not care about save stacking if it was the way you think it is. It‘s not. It can easily reach dimensions that stop the game from being a game.
BTW.: I was playing vs Sylvaneth and he simply projected his save bubble through kurnoth hunters, making them, a Treehero, Alarielle and more trees basically immortal for two turns in a row. While dealing absurd amounts of mortal wound and normal damage. He basically rofl-stomped across my army. What a good game.
This isn’t limited to cheesy Sylvaneth lists however. Other armies can pull of equally braindead combos that stop any game from happening. (S2D comes to mind, though that army has other issues)
Save stacking would be fine IF you could not pull Mass Save buffs off at all.
-
2
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Well @JackStreicher does have some good points, factions lime nighthaunt, gloomspite and beasts of chaos are currently struggling a lot when it comes down to putting out damage or having the possibility to keep themself alive with save stacking (since they are pretty much already starting the game with a literally bad or not so great save characteristics)
And it is not like these mentioned armies have a ton of stuff, that can go around the save stacking abilities of other faction.
Nighthaunt for example don’t have much rend on their army roster, and while there are some units that are able to do mortal wounds, they output is currently more laughable then anything else.
yet I do believe that a small rule change to the most taken artifact of the current third edition could make at least some different in the game, and keeps it fresh, since the meta would chance.
as for nighthaunt, I really have a feeling that the only saving grace for this faction would be a new tome or a points decrease so generous that one would be able to field up to 300models and/or more (yet not even that would be a grace considering their current price)
I agree that NH might be better if the points of their non heroes would drop by ~ 40%
-
48 minutes ago, JangutzKhan said:
I wish they never made the Warcry bands under Std.
StD really need a rewrite in order to:
- Get their theme right (Knights and Warriors need to be menacing, not pathetic | Tzeentch Demon Princes should be wizards etc.)
- Cleaning the bloat and outdated abilities
- Massive Warscroll rewrites for all Warcry warbands (combine them to a single cultist horde with unified rules)
- Nerfing of Archaon
- Be creative
-
10
-
-
12 minutes ago, Phasteon said:
I know your opinion on the matter, and I already showed in the Stormcast 3.0 discussion why you are objectively wrong, so please avoid comments like „its not thought through“ when really all you do is denying that almost* every army got tools to either stack saves or deny saves via MWs.
Also, if you did 40 games this edition and STILL haven‘t figured out how to use and play around save stacking you should really just ask your opponents to go easy on you and/or play narrative games - you are obviously not made for competitive games.
Yes, I remember you showing nothing and I remember you claiming that your (faulty) opinion suddenly is objective instead of subjective. About that and the way you wrote in my quote:
I highly dislike vain people, it’s the most useless and paltry and more often than not unwarranted personality trait that exists. We are talking about a toy game here. So if you want a discussion and people listening to you, you should stop that behavior. And realize that your behavior is based on pushing little plastic toys around.
one army? Nighthaunt. Why? Apparently you know all about the game, so you get the reasons yourself.
Back to topic:
You are also confusing comp. Play with regular play. comp. play is but a fraction - usually comp. Players don’t mind anything because comp. Play is about rules abuse, min-maxing and finding ways to beat the meta. Spoiler alert: Regular games don’t care about this, they’re about fun. So if the fun is impaired for the majority of players the game is in trouble.
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 9/16/2021 at 11:56 PM, Gailon said:
But man, I do not miss everything dying to a stiff breeze, being completely unable to do anything to protect a unit of knights in combat.
This still happens (yet I don’t feel like this was an issue in 2.0), now however you either survive due to stacking, or you die to a gazillion mortal wounds. There’s really little left inbetween.
@Phasteon imo it is the worst tool due to the way it is accessible to factions. Some have auras in different phases stacking up +3 save for half of the army, others can only get +1 save due to mystic shield etc.
The whole „just screen and it is fine“ argument is simply the worst and not thought through: There’s a battle going on, at some point there’s nothing left to screen.
Also thinking savestacking is fine because, you know, one army can still shoot you to bits and another army has a lot of mortal wounds is quite a weak argument in a game with 16? armies.
Save stacking has simply been the worst experience I‘ve had since the old Slaanesh. It’s unevenly distributed, has no counterplay and most armies have no tools to deal with it.
It‘s an all around feel bad to the point, that after 40 AoS games in this Edition I don’t feel like playing anymore.
How to fix it?
1. Add a +1 rend Spell and Command ability for all factions
Or
Limit the amount of +1 save a unit can receive to a Max of +2 and add a -1 rend command ability
-
On 9/16/2021 at 7:21 AM, Sharklone said:
This might sound dramatic, but save stacking has dramtically reduced my enjoyment of the game. Noone likes running into immortal monsters. The combo with heroic recovery and the amulet of destiny is awful
Same.
Cities of Sigmar in AoS 3
in Cities of Sigmar
Posted
Sad but true. ^^