Dead Scribe
-
Posts
1,024 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Dead Scribe
-
-
Let me be more constructive since I got moderated and a warning for perhaps a too harsh response.
You have to go into this game knowing your environment. Let me be clear that the current tzeentch competitive build is not something you can take a casual build against and realistically expect to do well against, no matter how good you are.
You have to also take some responsibility for your gameplay by creating an appropriate list. That means if you like armies like the goblins, you are going to have a lot harder time fighting tzeentch (same as fighting triple keepers, etc).
You have to be able to take their synergies down. They are a tanky tanky army that you have to be able to do a lot of damage to to mitigate their free splitting wounds. They have destiny dice which is essentially like having a mini set of loaded dice to guarantee you success for a certain number of rolls (good players will make them their critical rolls).
I found the best way to fight them is to have a competitive powered army with a high degree of damage that it can inflict, and get on the heroes which can't fight very well and take them down. The rest of the army follows suit.
But if you're not taking a competitive list, just like if you are facing competitive triple keepers or flesh eater courts or any of these other competitive lists, you're going to struggle a lot. This is not a game where lists can just do well against other lists because of points. Competitive lists operate at a much higher level than their 2000 points suggest. A 2000 point casual list vs a 2000 point competitive tzeentch or triple keepers build is really a 2000 point vs a 4000 point game for all intents and purposes.
-
4
-
2
-
-
Thats why the RAI vs RAW debates, I don't really try to convince someone based off of RAI. Because we never know what the RAI is, just what we feel it should be.
-
2
-
1
-
-
I'd say don't play armies that can't answer whats in your meta. That seems frustrating AF to try to play.
-
1
-
-
They updated the faq today.
-
4
-
-
If someone sold you the game as a balanced experience, especially based off of armies from Soul Wars box, you should have some words with them. Take that as a lesson learned. You have to do a bit of research in the AOS/40k world on what you should field first, as there are a great many trap units that you should never take (unless you are playing in a for-funsies group that will self regulate what they will take - which is not common).
Very little of the game is viable in the environment you are describing.
-
1
-
-
"in my opinion they are essentially an auto win. If this is the way AoS matched play is going to be. I’m out. sorry for the extreme salt. i hate these kind of rules and will flat out refuse to play them."
Those are the rules that we've been given and they sell extraordinarily well so there's no reason to see why they will change anytime soon. They are not an invincible army, but they do require a hard counter, and if you are not willing to build the hard counter, you will likely lose every time and you need to be ok with that. Or find a different game that does not have something like that present and be ok that there are hardly any players because few people play anything other than GW games in most areas.
-
1
-
-
I play at the top levels of competitive play weekly so I see this happening weekly. Of course the game can have good and bad rolls on either side. But if your army is a lot weaker than mine by the math, you are going to need an awful lot of good rolls and depend on me having a lot of bad rolls for you to win the game.
I can play my triple keeper of secrets against any of the gits lists I have seen over the past six months and I can tell you that they need to roll 10x better than me on average AND play a nearly flawless game with no mistakes for them to even have a good game against me, or I need to do some serious blunders AND roll fairly bad.
20% pure dice luck would only be true if both armies were comparatively in the same power level as each other. This game is at least 50 - 60% listbuilding properly. If you are maxing your list out then the play your cards right and pure dice luck are much less of an impact. If you are fielding a weaker army then those variables become a lot higher and you need to depend on them a lot more.
-
7
-
-
5 hours ago, Phasteon said:
I think its funny that the „viability“ of armies is measured in tournament placements, as those placements alone are not purely dictated by an armies capability.
A bad army will never be able to place in an environment where everyone is taking the most powerful lists. Even an ok army will almost never be able to place in that army. The greatest players in the world also usually always take the strongest lists they can, or if not THE strongest, A strong list (viable) because this is a game of probabilities and if you aren't taking a high probability list you aren't placing. As such that is how one can tell what is viable or not.
Even poor players can do well with strong armies, particularly if they are playing other poor or middling players because the math in this game is very powerful and has a high impact. I've seen tournament placing strong players take middle of the road armies and get beaten by weak players playing very strong armies, pretty much every time that experiment happens down at the store. What you rarely see are big tournament results showing weak armies placing high overall, even with the best players in the world.
-
Its definitely still a viable army.
-
I see the "WAAC" label used regularly to describe people who play in a way someone doesn't like. Usually from someone that doesn't like competitive play or someone that claims to like competitive play but doesn't want to have to keep making sure their armies are as powerful as needed, so trying to shame others into playing down to their army level.
It needs to stop.
-
3
-
-
I wasn't intending on taking shots at anyone. I'm frustrated that we allow competitive players to get hit with "WAAC TFG" comments and "you're bad sports" comments for having opposing viewpoints, and we let those still stand in plain sight for everyone to read.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
We have a guy that uses sportsmanship as a form of pressure to get what he wants.
Meaning if you don't do what he wants you to do or you disagree with one of his rules interpretations, you are making his game unfun, you are that guy for twisting the game to break it, and you are a bad sport.
If you do what he wants and follow his rules interpretations, then you are a fun opponent, great to play, and a great sport.
-
3
-
-
That's not an actual argument. You just had luck when the ruling was in your favour. There is always 50/50 chance that you read the rules intent right. That's the point of critique of RAI - it all depends on a luck that you interpreted the rules right. That's why using an interpretation that doesn't give you advantage is safer - if you were right with your interpretation, you can now play with better rule and don't feel like That Guy. If not - well, you still play the rule like you were already doing.
Basically it means trying to use "RAI" as the basis of an argument is fail because unless you have direct access to the designers input, you have no idea what RAI really is.
The difference often between "that guy" and "not that guy" is how close to you agree with something. If someone is doing something you don't like or disagree with, they are "that guy".
-
1
-
-
T
here is a difference between building a powerful list or bending the rules in a cheesy way.RAII've heard that a LOT, with people arguing in our face that a rule we are interpreting is being bent in our favor and only because its in our favor and CLEARLY wasn't how the designers intended, only for them to eat their shoe half the time when the FAQ rolls down and shows that they were wrong.
In this game, you never know what the faq is going to say.
-
2
-
-
Or... and hear me out.... competing IS fun for some of us. Which in this context means creating the most powerful lists we can so that we are not at a disadvantage against someone else who is doing the same thing.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, michu said:
Simple solution - don't play one-trick pony armies. Mix gunline with melee.
That doesn't work very well in competitive play. Many competitive armies are stacked to one end of the game to take advantage of bad rules or bad balance. Thats just a reality no one here is going to change.
-
Thats great until the first time your group has a fight over how to set up terrain since one way of setting up will greatly advantage a certain play style over another.
-
2
-
-
The first trick in creating a spreadsheet of numbers is realizing that the numbers are not absolute. There is no spreadsheet that will say "this will win you the game every time".
This is always where people start to argue. they will hone in on scores on a spreadsheet and then say "yeah but you say this score is this, but I have seen that unit lose before so your spreadsheet is wrong and math cannot be used". That has nothing to do with what you use a tool like this for.
If you know a units base offense and defense capabilities, and know how to score movement, that gives you a solid baseline to use judgement on the other areas of the game you cannot properly math and determine odds and probabilities and maximize them in your favor.
If you are going into a game with an army that has a big difference in its offense and defense and movement scores vs your opponent, you will be having a very difficult game.
Its also something that nearly every top tournament player already does and is a key component in how they seem to easily know matchups that other people struggle with.
The roster that the OP has provided has a substantially lower overall score than the others he posted, which falls in line with his observation that he is struggling against them as well, because he should be. The spreadsheet indicates he will be having very difficult games.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Kasper said:
Must be some mastermind spreadsheet to determine that. What makes you think the IJ list is weak? The Skaven list doesn't seem "significantly stronger".
Yeah. A mastermind spreadsheet lmao. I'm not remotely getting into a math debate on these forums, some of you and your strict adherence to math not mattering makes it not worth it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Well based off of my spreadsheets, you are significantly weaker than your opponents. So that is why you are going to be struggling.
If you are a casual player that likes to play to have fun but not field whats strong in the meta, I say just keeping doing what you are doing with the knowledge you aren't going to do well in tournaments.
As to your casual games you are going to have to pick up some faster and hard hitting units if you want to have better games (if you care about that, I assume yes or you wouldn't have posted asking for help). The squig knight things are pretty good (for gitz).
-
I think that you should look at what your opponent takes and what you take and math some probabilities out and see where your math is deficient. My guess is that your opponent's lists are many times more powerful than yours, and no strategy in the world will help you.
You would need to post your list and your opponents list to get a really good idea in how mismatched the two are in math.
Anything in this game is fine if you have the properly tuned list for it. The math is heavy in this game, and if you aren't tuning your list you are going to struggle.
Also gitz are not really a list you can tune very high in comparison to skaven. I don't really know what to tell you if you want to be competitive at the tournament level but want to run gitz. Short of loaded dice, you are going to struggle with them.
-
I haven't seen it happen on this forum though I have heard there have been posters in the past that were removed for complaining about balance. I see it a lot on facebook, somewhat on dakka, and somewhat on twitter as well as reddit.
I also dont' really see people supporting it but tired of the same thread because they can't influence GW. The responses are typically "balance is fine" or in that vein or "50/50 balance is impossible" or "balanced games mean that a lot of options get removed and that would be boring and bad".
-
Quote
Actually the whole "make it more balanced" is about the most vocal viewpoint on Dakka in the AoS threads. 40K as well I would argue has that general viewpoint as well.
Eh. Its brought up by the same 2-3 people over and over. They may be vocal about it but its the same people bringing it up over and over. And every time they are ganged up on and slandered off the board for a while lol. And nobody sticks up for them. I would think if more people agreed with them that there would be more support for their stance. There really isn't. If there is its all underground and private messages.
Maybe thats what fuels those guys? They have people that they talk to via private message that encourage them or something. Because I can't see how anyone would have the fortitude to do what they do lol.
I also disagree that GW really cares about balance. I mean Ben Johnson posted pictures of his triple keeper of secrets army before it was released with a caption that said something along the lines of "you'll want three of these". He knew what he was unleashing onto the rest of us lol.
-
Then Overread, where are those people on forums and social media today defending that concept? I don't really hear them and when I do see them pop up they are ridden out of the forum.
Battle report:Warhammer Fantasy campaign "Call of Darkness"
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I agree. WHFB is dead. This isn't the forum for that type of game.