Dead Scribe

There is some interview with Jervis and Sam Pearson that people are talking about where they said there is no limitation on summoning in meeting engagement because shorter game length means not as much opportunity to summon.

The other side of the coin is that I think the player base wants this level of summoning to exist, and they are giving the player base what they want.

I would be highly surprised if they limited summoning in any way. And you're right, in 2000 points getting a 500 point advantage over someone that isn't summoning can be big... in a 1000 point game getting a 500 point advantage is huge.

Yeah I have a feeling they will be strong, but not as easy to use as they are now. I have a few people interested in buying my DoK army. I'm going to hold out until end of July or so and see how they are still panning out before I hawk them for whatever slides in their place on that chart.

We need more data before we can say Slaanesh is in the broken tier. I would say they are a solid army, but not broken. And the GHB coming out saturday is going to change things up as well. We won't have a good idea of the new tiers until about october or so when we get more data.

I think tiers are very useful, and I find the graphic above to be fairly accurate in terms of difficulty level for armies. Thats what tiers are. The difficulty level you can expect to face if you and your opponent are both playing as hard of armies as you can construct with the rules. I'd definitely say Daughters (my army), FEC, and Skaven are super easy mode. Thats why I play them. Because they give me the best shot at winning tournaments. I'd definitely say the trash tier that they have identified is indeed a non playable tier of forces that players should avoid at all costs unless they are hobbyists that like painting those models. If they like the game at all, they need to avoid the trash tier, and I'd say the "D" tier as well unless they just really like a hard challenge. Some people do so thats good on them, but people caught unaware that find models in the trash or D tier are usually angry a month or so into starting because they find out that their armies are grossly outmatched. Matched play they say is about balanced games, but I haven't found that to be true, and I have accepted that and embraced that and collect whatever they have decided to make super powerful so that I can enjoy my tournament experience. I think matched play is really more about a structure to build powerful forces within, and I think thats why the initial AOS failed so hard, it had no points to build forces within. Balance I think in this game is a pipe dream and I think the sooner people accept that and learn to love that, the better off they will be.

Then there is an abject failure happening in the communication between the playtesters and the gw design team. Or the playtesters they have are not very good at playtesting the game as a whole.

I think they playtest. But they playtest with their small inner circle that enjoys the game a certain way that the wider public does not engage with.

That is why most competitive armies are the armies that have hammers that are ideally not just priced right, but underpriced.

It takes us about 90 min to two hours to do a 2000 point game. But our games we are both on point the whole time, there is little socialization with others outside of the table, no smoke breaks etc.

THere is a guy in our meta that branched off to do narrative and he organizes everything for the narrative players. I have found over the past couple of years that where I was once rigid on houserules, I can see that a lot of people like them and that the narrative and open formats allow for the people that love houserules to have fun, so I'm ok with that. The event organizer in question loves to houserule things, and the narrative stuff they do seems to keep enough people interested that he must be doing something right.

I think that formats like Path to Glory are meant for narrative players who aren't as concerned about points and whom are also open to houseruling the game anyway, and therefore it is acceptable in its current state since they aren't as worried about the point costs behind it and will houserule out or in allegiance abilities to fit the needs of the group they are in.

Well I have to say I do notice a lot of players shoving terrain into the corner and forgetting about it lol.

Yeah I got nothing. They are pretty broken in our opinion as well, but because of that about 1/2 of our area runs them so I have to face them often every week.

I can't answer that question really. Its up to each person. For me I realize the balance is bad, and for me to enjoy myself I make sure I have an A list that means I don't get beat just because I showed up with the wrong list. I think my patience has worn a little thin with the current batch of balance, because I am getting fatigued from facing the same lists over and over, but the GHB 19 should fix that for another year. That means I know I will be selling off my daughters of khaine likely and picking up a new army and having to have it sent off to get painted and hopefully get it back by August, which wears a lot of other people out having to do that all the time, particularly the guys that paint their own stuff, because its a lot of effort to have to do regularly but again thats something that they have to reconcile with themselves. I don't really see much list diversity at our competitive level locally, or even regionally. Adepticon had a bit more diversity but was still corner stoned by the same type of lists. At least from what I saw this year and last year. Thats a breaking point for a lot of people. A lot of people locally express frustration at having to constantly sell and buy new armies every year because no one wants to be beaten because their list has bad rules and what has good rules today has bad rules tomorrow while a new crop of units is now optimal. Now some people don't care about balance and just play to have a good time and hats off to them. To those people, GW doesn't have to produce a balanced game because thats not a concern for them. For competitive people I've noticed its also not really a concern so long as they can stay on top with an A level list so they aren't being beaten by army list disparities. But that does produce burn out over a few years of churn and burn.

We have that here as well. A lot of our community is negative on the balance, because well... the balance is not that great. You have to either accept the balance is bad and enjoy it anyway or find a game that you enjoy more that puts more effort into balance.

That was a wishlist post. There hasn't been anything released officially that curbs summoning and houseruling for a lot of people is never going to be allowed.

I don't see how they are going to restrict summoning without needing to rewrite a bunch of things.

What you have to be careful here is that this would create an MSU meta. Where you want to have as many min sized units as you can get.

Keep in mind that the previous version of warhammer also had 1000 point games and 3000 point games as well. The reason everyone had to build up 2.5k points for events was not because there was no format, it was because the community enforced that standard.

It is another way of playing, but one that people think will be a new tournament standard. I am dubious on that. If it does become a new tournament standard, it is pretty easy for me to see what type of armies are going to do really well based on the restrictions posed to us.

They aren't that good anyway in my opinion to warrant taking in a competitive army.

A lot of the comments are pretty good. I will point out that running on square bases is not technically cheating as the rules allow people to run whatever bases they want with suggestions for matched play. Tournaments of course will 99% of the time force rounds (and in our group squares are not allowed simply because we are running tournament rules only), but if you aren't playing in a tournament, the player in question running square based models is by itself not bad behavior. The rest of what was posed should have corrective action applied.

When I buy an army it is bundled and sent to a couple of pro paint specialists that paint my stuff for me, so ... I don't ever have unpainted models.

It is true that they keep on producing them, and thats fascinating to me because they are also the only things that I consistently see rarely get sold. But I guess I'm glad they are keeping on keeping on.