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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

198 Celestant-Prime

About Mephisto

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

182 profile views
  1. To be fair making someone else go last is the same thing as going first. They just made it sound more leisurely and hedonistic (which I give them props for). As though their heroes are luring other enemies into a daze so they can enjoy killing you slowly. It also gives the air of interactivity by having a dice roll your opponent is waiting to watch you fail along with positioning requirements. I just wish that last sentence wasn't there as it is basically foreshadowing that GW intends to nerf Itchy Nuisance and Wildfire Taurus. They just couldn't let their be a straight up combat counter to ASF. It reminds me of when the Blades of Khorne FAQ buffed Gristlegore to stop intelligent players using clever pile-ins to deny the mindlessness of a GKoTG.
  2. Why indeed. We have three factors here that make this so contentious. Obviously FEC is an issue but we can chalk that up to being the outlier if folks concede that other instances of ASF are "fine." A big issue is outdated armies; some armies simply do not have the tools to compete with the new technology. The third and most speculative though potentially significant is an issue is rules bloat. AOS has a delicate back and forth and this mechanic as implemented along with the trend toward it removes meaningful choice in play and elements of interaction. From a game design stance I don't understand why it gets put on offensive units as spartan-esque phalanxes and pikemen seem the far more logical targets for such a rule. Despite my obvious cynical tone, I've really not made up my mind 100% on this one (hence starting the topic). FEC, again, obvious problem, outlier, etc, etc. But the meta will shift and progress so eventually we'll remember hating them the way we remember hating KO Clown Car. What I am certain about is this is a mechanic that's tripping my spidey-sense. The red flag is raised and I'd caution GW moving forward with it. We've seen the worst case scenario already in 40K.
  3. If everyone has it. Nobody has it.
  4. Hey y'all! It seems GW is REALLY excited about the Always Fights First or "Fights at the Start of Combat" mechanic these days. Seems each new army or new tease for an army needs it without any off-set for existing armies. If you're an old melee army, per IJ, you just gotta pray for an update or die in the meantime effortlessly to these new armies (guess what their massive update to IJ will be in the future? A bunch of AFF stuff I bet!) Isn't it great they're introducing this mechanic? How do you feel about it?
  5. Yeah, not a Brony. I won't exactly be showing up to adepticon with a unicorn baseball cap and a rainbow colored pony tail tucked into my back pocket. My 2 and 6 year old children do watch it though so I can name 3 ponies and tell you it's a show about magic and friendship or some such. There's actually this black humor underlying my idea. Look at Tzeentch, they're all freakin' My Little Pony colors already. I make fun of that often. Idiot bird men and wiggly limb pink and blue blobs of stupidity. But what if goat and bull men were in the Tzeentch colors? Well now you're basically making My Little Ponies (or my little Goaties I suppose). It wouldn't be too hard to just... lean into that theme a bit and then add a sort of sardonic, brutal undertone. The end result: Apocalypse Ponies. Combine some humor and whimsy with heavy metal. Dio had a band named Rainbow once upon a time. Boom. Army theme.
  6. What started out as a joke to my friends has become a thought I'm seriously considering. I often make fun of Tzeentch for looking glittery and having a silly pastel color palette. I'm finally about to start collecting BoC as my second AoS army (after months of deliberation and despite some protest). Phantasmagoria of Fate Battalion is where a lot of my theorycraft lists gravitate. I've still not ruled out a couple other options but assuming my theorycrafting is backed up by playtesting and I stick with Phantasmagoria and Tzeentch Beasts, I'm having a thought for the visual direction... My Little Pony. Beasts of Chaos. Good idea or best idea? Got any photos for inspiration? Bonus: My Little Pony Beastfolk might also work for the Slaanesh Battalion but would be... weirder.
  7. On paper I think this is a viable strategy. So viable I've been experimenting with 120 of them w/ phantasmagoria in a Tzeentch list. Some armies just struggle with 120 (or 200) bodies clogging the arteries of play. And as you point out you still have 1000+ points for your hammers and tricks and such. I'll let you know my findings.
  8. I like that you lay out your logic. Some people might disagree with it but I think we can all understand it. And understanding is key.
  9. There are a lot of great responses here and I'm proud of the discussion going on here. I've half a mind to respond individually to each person but I'm out of town (at a Tournament, of all things) and typing that much with my thumbs is simply not something I have the foritude for. I'll share the sort of eureka moment I just had though. Reading through I saw something crystalize. I think it's healthy to pursue being better. Lamenting that you're not the best or not perfect is a bad trap to fall into though. Isn't that the goal? To just... Be better? Better players. Better painters. Better people. We have the power to look at the people further along the path of improvement than us and use their examples as short cuts in our own journey. We may never catch them but as long as we're always moving forward, I think that's worthy. Be awesome to each other, everyone. Keep the discussion up. I'll have a proper keyboard back soon.
  10. Going to a different Doubles event this weekend but I'm REALLY excited to play. Despite being a pretty avid competitive player myself, I'm actually more excited for the Doubles than the solo event the next two days. I think Doubles by Nature is a more fluffy experience. There is probably a lot of room for abuse if you put the time and care into you and your partner having the EXACT TWO ARMIES that destroy people... And then there's me and my friend turning off our need to win and turning up our need to be awesome. This is WWE tag team champions of the world. We come to drink dark beer and smash things. Team Heavy Magic (BCR+Death) is coming for you, Illinois! We may not win but we will rip and tear and cast huge magic and when you stare at the wake the necrofrost tornado has left behind, you'll know that we were there!
  11. At the beginning of the week I stumbled upon a New York Times opinion piece from September called, "In Praise of Mediocrity" written by Tim Wu (sauce: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/in-praise-of-mediocrity.html). This article is NOT about Age of Sigmar or even War Gaming in general so I don't expect anyone to read it but the strapline is, "The pursuit of excellence has infiltrated and corrupted the world of leisure." It's a premise that hits close to home for me as I often associate success with my hobbies, whether streaming, writing, or gaming, with the worthiness of that hobby. Simply, I MUST be good at the thing and receive validation to know that the thing I just wasted my precious time on was the best possible use of my time. "Success with hobbies." It''s a foolish, paradoxical notion but one that I can't help but notice as a factor for me. In Age of Sigmar we actually see it in a multitude of ways. Paint scores are a part of tournaments often as soft scores, sometimes as a separate award or competition. They nudge the "hobby" toward excellence. Even casuals are sneered at for bringing their gray tides to battle at the LGS. Maybe not by me or you, dear reader, but certainly by the AOS community at large. This is where I say that "it's me, not Age of Sigmar." It's also where I need to say that I'm not WAC or a complete must-win, must-win tryhard. Just that through all my struggles with my own personal demons, I only pursue hobbies that "I'm good at" or can become good at. The problem comes in with validation. How does one truly measure if they've achieved excellence in what should be a leisure activity? Isn't that you have a hobby good enough? You shouldn't have to be good if it makes you feel good, right? I have a few short stories published on digital platforms, if those don't get enough thumbs up, did I waste my time? Should I be discouraged by all the rejection letters that have piled up for the rest of my writing over the... decade? What if my paint score holds me back from placing top ten at a tournament, should I go back to Magic the Gathering where how cool my card sleeves are doesn't affect the outcome? Age of Sigmar straddles an interesting place in my life. It's sort of the playground where all the voices in my head can come together and hang out. My creative vices are tapped, my competitive side comes out, my love of GMing interrupts occasionally, and then there's the simple enjoyment of a community. Still, 'it's a hobby.' GW sells it as a hobby. Models their business of it as a hobby. Hobby's by nature should be leisure activities... and yet they have the audacity to give me win conditions. A cheap way to validate if I'm good at my free time. Time is precious. I apologize if I've wasted yours with my pontification but now we get to my question(s) and reason for writing: How do you balance the hobby that we play? How do you keep the burden of excellence from creeping in? Do you strive to be great or are you just happy to spend your time doing something you enjoy free from the expectations of self or others? I think being happy with mediocrity and grateful for the simple zen of a leisure activity are great things to aspire to and I envy people that keep their personal vanity out of their hobbies unlike me.
  12. Cool trophies are those provided by GW or is it a specific store? I have one from Gen Con just like them. I was planning on running a small tournament in Milwaukee in February and was just going to buy or make something myself but if GW has em that would make my life easier.
  13. I got into AOS before the LoN tome came out. Briefly I considered FEC (dat lore, nuff sed) but eventually settled on "mixed Death" because necromancers+skeletons. I felt like GW was personally rewarding me for 'choosing correctly' when we got a proper battletome. Still, I feel beholden to FEC. They're like a little brother to me really. I always want them to do go and succeed. I was a bit aghast to see FEC take sixth at NOVA but also really proud. So seriously, major props, @Bill_S. Now there is some benevolence in my desire for FEC to be good. As an accomplished necromancer and lich, I quickly murder that benelovence and raise it as a skeleton to do my bidding and am left with two other, more selfish reasons: 1. I want the Death GA to be the best because muwahahahahahaha. 2. If more Death armies are better, then the Nagash saturation will subside some. The Nagash haters can go back to not seeing him as often and I can go back to enjoying a less crowded mirror match meta because Grand Host players don't like losing to coinflip, HODs either. Like, I will actually defend Hand of Dust. It's an unreliable trump card of a sort. You have to resolve a spell portal and then resolve the HoD. Both of these tilt toward Nagash's casting bonus but there are some armies out there that guarantee an unbind X times per game. Next, you flip the coin (or hide the dice). Now that you can only cast one spell through that portal, the Nagash player MUST make a tactical decision. Debuff a priority unit, or go for the 50/50? Imagine now, that you play against another Nagash. Your bonuses are meaningless because you equally unbind and cast so it's like you're straight rolling (your investment in being the best caster completely absorbed in the mirror) and it really is just... who gets the better hand. You're annoyed as an FEC player, imagine how annoyed I am. Like, don't you want me to HoD Morathi on average after 2 turns to keep DOK players honest? I know you do. As for priority? Well, that's just bad beats. GW doubled-down on the double turn with 2.0. Their strives to mitigate it with some of the objectives that score better if you go second and Endless Spells was NOT enough in my mind to continue to keep it around. I like the randomness of HoD and dice in general. Actually completely having games turned on their head because of lucky priority rolls doesn't feel good for either player, imo. Like... I don't feel good when I win because I got the double because I expect more of myself and I certainly don't feel good losing because the double. It's just a straight feelbad mechanic or NPE. I have to wonder if Bill could've weathered either the priority roles or the lucky multiples of HoD and just not both. I suspect he could've weathered the HoDs if it weren't for three straight priority wins for Nagash. Man, that's real close though. And with such a flavorful list... Once again, great showing, FEC. Every Death player is proud of you. At least they should be. PS: really DO NOT want to hijack this discussion with HoD talk or debate Double Turns. I was just being silly and humorous.
  14. That's the thing, Dead Scribe, *life doesn't have rules. Games do. *Asterisk Explainer: Obviously there are laws, physics, and even societal decorum and such. What I'm talking about is the philosophical sense of the word, "life." The whole "life's not fair" defense people go to is what I'm calling out. The point of games, whether the non-competitive D&D or Street Fighter V or MTG, is to have a rubric of commonality that favors no one. Amysrevenge highlight at the onset of this discussion, what is the objective of a sports score? Is it to deter cheating, is it to encourage people be sporting, and so on. The system as it stands is inadequate for even its objective and furthermore lacks in consistency as it is enforced and utilized across all tournaments - some of them using it for tiebreakers, others weighting it more heavily than actually playing the game, and so on. It is a game. We have the power to mitigate the human element. And I say literally all of this (here and above) as someone who values the social aspect of the game. That social aspect is a reason I love this game over a lot of my other competitive vices. Being social during this game is a necessity of it. You don't need some scale of varying relevance to force people to be social and disproportionately favor people that took speech class or happen to know the difference between "I statements" and "you statements" or when it's appropriate to phrase your reprimand as a question rather than a statement. I am an amiable, fun individual with social prowess (verbose as I may seem here) but there's no reason I should score higher than anyone else by virtue of that fact alone. And there's certainly no reason I should score lower because one of my opponents, who was having loads of fun when he was winning "suddenly" lost and he wants to make sure he punishes me when I move onto the higher table.
  • Create New...