Kadeton
-
Posts
707 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Kadeton
-
-
22 hours ago, Jaskier said:
Sons of Behemat would like a word
I haven't been monitoring Beastclaw Raiders much since 3.0 dropped but they're still doing fine too, aren't they? I dunno, I think Destruction is doing alright overall.
Beastclaw Raiders are doing great, came through the update unscathed, and gained the option of taking Kragnos to unlock 3d6 charges. They basically do exactly what Sons of Behemat do, with the added bonus of absolutely smashing any SoB lists you might run into. Gitz and Gutbusters are certainly struggling, but Destruction as a whole has plenty of strong options.
For "the weakest set of factions in the game", have a look at Death. Three out of four tomes are borderline unplayable at the competitive level, though allowing wider access to Nagash might keep them holding out a little longer.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, PJetski said:
Why did you suggest adding special rules? We are not trying to reduce complexity. We are trying to solve other perceived problems while keeping complexity minimized.
Making units "more different and unique" is adding complexity. If your intent is to add complexity, you shouldn't be trying to keep it minimized - you'll just end up shooting yourself in the foot. You should instead look at doing something which actually achieves your primary goal, and then determine whether you are prepared to accept the additional complexity that the adequate solution requires.
In this case, I would regard S/T as an inadequate solution to the "perceived problem" of insufficient unit variety. Those numbers don't add sufficient interest or gameplay to make units genuinely feel different and unique. (Simply playing 40K for a bit will make this deficiency pretty obvious.) You need a better solution - varied special abilities are one possibility in that space, so I used it as an example.
If there are other perceived problems that S/T is intended to address, they're not stated in the original post.
-
46 minutes ago, Beliman said:
That's a really good question. I was one of the dudes that didn't want anything to do with SvsT, but after 3.0 and reading Orruks and SCE warscrolls, I'm thinking again and again about exactly the same thing:
Dual-wielding Liberators.
Why someone want to use them over sword+board? Not sure, but maybe S vs T (and maybe some profile tweaks) could be the answer.
Having a 110 p battleline unite that can threaten 20 Goblins, Zombies or even Orruks will change the persepctive of just having a "hammer" unit to do all the work. I don't know how this could be accomplished, but it could help other similar units like Prosecutors.Ah, that's probably the sort of thing where we're just coming at from totally different perspectives that probably won't find common ground. I don't think any unit warscroll should have weapon profiles or stats that change based on the way the models are built. The Deathrattle Skeletons' Ancient Blade or Spear is a great example of this being done right, IMO - do what you want with your models, they all get the same in-game profile regardless.
The above goes double for Stormcast; if I ruled the world, they would have multiple warscrolls combined into single units with a single weapon profile, let alone any distinction between weapons on any given unit. Liberators with paired weapons? More like delete Liberators, Vindictors, Vanquishers, and Sequitors entirely, and use any of those models to make a unit of Redeemers, who all wield heavens-wrought weapons with the same profile.
Anyway, I'll leave you to the discussion - this probably isn't the topic for me.
-
1
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, PJetski said:
I would argue that it is much easier to understand and remember how stats work than it is to remember more abilities. Special rules are more interesting but more complex.
If we are looking to reduce complexity, stats are better than special rules.
If we want to reduce complexity, why would we add more stats?
There are two directions the game could go in with any given change to the core rules: more varied (an increase in complexity) or more streamlined (a decrease in complexity). You can't have it both ways. Adding Strength and Toughness is going for the "more varied" option, but in a way that's extremely limited and dull compared to other forms of complexity that could be added instead.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Beliman said:
The utility of this mechanic is clear, make all units a bit more different and unique just using their own stats/profiles.
I don't understand why this is a desirable goal. Variation in stats is not what makes a game interesting. If the aim is to have differentiation between units, give those units different special abilities which reflect their lore and let them do things that other units can't.
-
2
-
1
-
-
One thing to consider is that the generic Strategies and Tactics aren't permanent, they're part of a specific Battlepack (e.g. Pitched Battles 2021). Next year's GHB could have completely different ones that are more on par with the ones in the new Battletomes - in fact, I'd say that's the most likely direction.
So yeah - currently there's no reason to pick the army-specific ones because they're all more difficult to achieve than the dead-easy universals. The key word there is currently.
-
Ward saves and armour saves work at different stages of the damage process, and can thus be combined for additional protection.
When your model suffers a wounding hit you roll your armour save to negate it. If your armour roll succeeds, it blocks all of the damage that the hit inflicts.
If your armour roll fails, the weapon's damage has to be allocated to your model as wounds. This is where the ward save comes in - each wound that is allocated gets a separate ward save roll.
So if your unit has a 4+ save and a 5+ ward save, and your opponent's unit has hit and wounded with one attack that does 4 damage:
- Roll your armour save (4+, plus any modifiers). If it succeeds, the hit is negated and the process is done. If not, move on to the next step.
- The hit causes 4 damage, so 4 wounds must be allocated to your unit.
- Roll 4 ward saves (5+). Any that succeed negate one of the wounds. Any wounds not negated are allocated to your unit.
Hope that helps!
-
1
-
35 minutes ago, Maogrim said:
I'm honestly suprised about the immense popularity of Soulblight Gravelords. They're an awesome army, but apart from a few new characters they're just Vampire Counts without the ghosty stuff. Nothing about them is particularly AOS, apart from Lauka Vai and the Vengorian Lords maybe. Is it the balancing or the nostalgia that peoole here are so fimd of them?
Good balance and nostalgia definitely helps, but for me it's that they give off such a strong sense of personality. Models like Annika, Kritza, Anasta, Lauka Vai, Belladamma, Duvalle and his Court, and the Cursed City villains hit just the right balance of sinister, haughty, horrifying and flamboyantly extra that makes vampires so captivating, while all being highly individualistic and distinct from each other. Pretty much every new sculpt has been stunning.
The Vyrkos and Avengorii bloodlines are the 'AoSified' vampires, I'd say. The others are still very traditional Warhammer Fantasy. But honestly, I think that's great - that serves both the players who want a new AoS take on vampires and the players who want to dust off their old collections out of the same battletome.
-
2
-
-
Another vote for the Vampires here. They're the complete package - a well-balanced army with multiple viable builds, strong theme, and tons of great sculpts.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, KrrNiGit said:
When looking at our hobby most people simply react to it on a personal or emotional level. When something gets released that makes us happy it is “good”, when makes us mad it is “bad”. Something we don’t enjoy can easily become “NPE” and “bad for the game” instead of just being something we don’t like. Using this type of emotionally laden language when we talk about our hobby is dangerous. If word of mouth is the most powerful form of advertising then we should be careful what our mouths say to advertise our hobby. Who would want to spend hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours building and painting to join a hobby that is “bad” and full of “NPE”? Talking this way is a fine way to express your enjoyment of a thing, what it fails to do is serve as a way to evaluate the thing itself. This talk can be fun but not always helpful.
While I can get behind what you're driving at in terms of a formal review structure when trying to "evaluate" a unit or an army, I'm not convinced that stodgy, formal reviews of this nature are interesting, or even particularly helpful. Trying to avoid or remove "emotional language" is an anti-goal for engagement - the emotional content of a post is what makes it interesting and sparks further discussion.
A case in point: your review of Prosecutors is very well-rounded but not very interesting. I didn't care about Prosecutors before, and I still don't care about Prosecutors having read it. There's nothing in it which grabs my attention and makes me want to know more about them, and I have no response to it other than "Yeah, okay."
If I instead saw a post talking about how the poster loves Prosecutors because they're so much fun to play, or loathes them because they're so overpowered, that would be a much stronger draw to read about that person's experiences and discuss them. I didn't care about Prosecutors before, but they're clearly capable of stirring some strong emotions - now I'm intrigued and want to find out why!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Schauer said:
Yup 800 Pts for a ward save and counts as 20 on objectives. Makes him even harder to include into a list due to his points BUT if the gluttons part can get a balance pass too then maybe there is the potential to let him due the heavy lifting while the rest of your army plays the objective game.
Yeah, maybe! It's tough to imagine he'll do as much heavy lifting as a Frostlord and a lesser Stonehorn combined, but the ward save should at least help him stick around long enough to have a decent impact.
Fingers crossed we get some (positive) attention in the balance pass - would be nice to see some of the really awful units like Yhetees and Gorgers get a look-in. I wouldn't be surprised if Frostlords took another hit though, they're still by far the best value unit in the book.
-
Sounds like three brutal rounds against strong lists, and the games were decided on pivotal moments - winning priority against Archaon and avoiding/resisting Hand of Dust would have led to very different outcomes. Luck went against you at the worst possible times, so it's quite right to feel disappointed!
I've heard rumours of Kragnos getting some changes in the balance pass, so he might become a bit more of a competitive choice. In the meantime, he's a great painting project.
-
6 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Normal casters are just really kind of awful. Getting out a spell of any casting level through an unbind at one cast per turn with no bonuses is at best a coin flip. If spells straight up said "on a 4+...", I doubt people would be putting up with paying 130 points for their wizards, but the math hides how low your odds to cast successfully really are.
Also, most spell effects are pretty naff. The only spell I really care about casting is Mystic Shield, most of the time - my casters know other spells, but they're really just a way to try to bait out the opponent's dispels before I cast Mystic Shield.
-
1
-
-
Yeah, I agree that (sadly) Kragnos doesn't perform well in competitive lists. He's simply too expensive, squishy and variable - sometimes he'll go off, but in most games his impact is about the same as a Frostlord at almost twice the price.
That said, at 3000 points you've got heaps of room for taking sub-optimal units just for the fun of it. If you like Kragnos, take him.
If you want to really optimise a Boulderhead list, you want it to be as top-heavy as possible. Frostlords on Stonehorns are your workhorses, and everyone else is just there to back them up. Bringing a Wizard is a good idea to mind the mawpot and give some magic/anti-magic support, and a Huskard on Thundertusk for healing. Something like:
Frostlord on Stonehorn (430)
Frostlord on Stonehorn (430)
Frostlord on Stonehorn (430)
Huskard on Thundertusk (335)
Firebelly (125)
Stonehorn Beastriders (320)
Stonehorn Beastriders (320)
Stonehorn Beastriders (320)
Thundertusk Beastriders (285)Replace Stonehorn Beastriders with Mournfang packs according to taste and/or model availability.
Or... take the optimisation to its logical extreme: four Frostlords on Stonehorns, and four Stonehorn Beastriders. 3000 points on the nose, and it would be very effective.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Kasper said:
I guess he wasnt in Tzeentch?
Slaves, also with Be'lakor. There were lists with Archaon in Tzeentch (with Fateweaver) at the same tournament, but I didn't end up facing them; that would have been quite a different game.
3 hours ago, Kasper said:Having a hero last for that long vs Archaon is certainly not how my matchups typically go.. Especially with him fighting twice and rerolling all his hits and wounds.
Save stacking cuts both ways! If your opponent only brings one big threat, you know where to use all your defensive tech. I mainly had to avoid getting insta-killed, which fortunately went my way. I do agree with the general sentiment that Archaon is over-tuned and could use some adjustment (or just not being able to fight twice, that's crazy), but it did make for an exciting game.
-
15 hours ago, stratigo said:
You absolutely have to kill things to score vps. You get vps for killing things. There's more than just primaries.
No, you can (sometimes) kill things to score VPs. You can always score VPs without killing things.
15 hours ago, stratigo said:And, again, a hero monster dominates the field. It makes careful movement impossible. I don't know what games you are playing where you manage to win by ignoring a hero monster. I don't think they exist.
Ooh, ya got me. I'm actually a paid actor, just out here shillin' for the shadowy conspirators of Big Save.
That nonsense aside, "ignoring" and "not killing" are two completely different things. The last game I played, I sacrificed two of my own monster heroes (a FLoSH and HoTT) over four turns to keep Archaon tied up and away from my scoring units and my forces that were trashing the rest of his army. I knew they couldn't hurt him with his buffs up (but having them in combat forced him to keep those buffs up, denying them to everyone else), so they just attacked whatever other units they could reach and tanked as best they could. When all his buffs finally came down (the Warshrine dead, Finest Hour spent, Mystic Shield failed - this was the cue to charge and Roar to deny All-Out Defence) he died in one combat phase, having killed only those two monsters.
Would that work every time? No, of course not. It's a dice game, and Archaon can spike the dice harder than almost anyone. He could have gotten lucky and auto-killed one of my monsters each combat, and I would have lost - that's the way it goes sometimes. But if I'd just charged everything into him while he was fully buffed I can pretty much guarantee I would have lost on the spot.
-
2
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
@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.
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?
-
3
-
2
-
-
20 minutes ago, stratigo said:
Like, just because GW keeps stepping on this rake and smacking themselves in the face doesn't mean this is a good thing. GW should strive to make all armies viable, and most units in those armies. And they clearly don't even try. It's no mistake that threads complaining about balance are pretty much perennial. AoS balance is always trash, and players always want it to be better (Unless they are the archaon player and just like ruining their friends). So, keep complaining. GW isn't deaf, they get motivated to fix things by player sentiment.
Who's saying it's a good thing? I've said multiple times that GW's slow release schedule is a huge problem every time there's an edition change, because it means players wait for far too long for updates to their armies.
But - and this is a really big but, as far as I'm concerned - making improvements to the basic systems of the game should still be done, even if it throws the balance completely out of whack for a while. 3rd Ed's core rules are an improvement on 2nd Ed's, in my opinion. In several important ways, but including allowing units that are meant to be tough really feel tough for the first time ever.
Yes, the edition change has ruined the balance of the old battletomes and invalidated some armies at the competitive level... temporarily. Now comes the work of balancing all the armies to work with the new, improved rules.
20 minutes ago, stratigo said:And I'd argue strongly that it is much worse now then it was in 2nd. There are fewer viable models, and they are mostly heroes riding monsters.
Worse than which bit of 2nd? The era where Triple Keepers dominated every tournament with a 70% winrate? The Age of Gristlegore? The times when everyone was crying about the Petrifex Elite? Or Skinks? Sentinel Spam?
Or was it that period when all the Beasts of Chaos and Gloomspite Gitz players got their time in the sun, and played at the top tables? Oh wait.
Don't view last edition with rose-tinted glasses, just because it was relatively stable towards the end.
20 minutes ago, stratigo said:The haves absolutely can still hit archaon with their hammer and kill him (or archaeon lists would literally never lose).
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.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Kasper said:
I just find it naive that the underlying solution from you is "just play better" instead of realizing that there might be something wrong. When Archaon has performed THAT well for so long, it should speak for itself? Archaon isnt the end-all-be-all but he is one of those models that exacerbate the issue with save stacking.
There may well be a problem with Archaon, yes.
If Archaon is a problem, fix Archaon. There's no need to throw out the entire concept of tough units just because one God-level hero isn't costed appropriately.
-
2 hours ago, stratigo said:
Which renders a bunch of armies, and like 80 percent of all models completely useless. Like utterly and completely not worth bothering. Game's mighty boring with the same 5 armies using only the same 5 units of their books.
Yeah - that happens every time there's a major change in the rules. Lots of stuff gets (competitively) invalidated, it's just how edition changes work by nature. Put pressure on GW to change their release model, because it sucks for most players to have to wait around for months to years before their favourite army gets updated.
Or, just play friendly games against other friendly lists. Play 2nd Ed games, if you prefer!
46 minutes ago, Kasper said:I somewhat get where you are coming from with this but I still find your logic flawed. Your point seems to be there is no issue at all because the whole save-stacking thing is a "skill", but for it to be a skill debate everyone needs to have the same tools or access to those same tools or access to ways to deal with it. Thats simply not the case. It has created a "have" and "have not" situation with many armies. I would also argue it isnt difficult to play S2D, point at your Archaon and click and he gets all those amazing buffs for free without your opponent really being able to do jack about it.
Lotta people misinterpreting things I've said around here.
The "skill" (though I'm pretty sure I put it in terms of rigid vs flexible thinking, rather than skill) is in figuring out how to respond to the fact the rules have changed and the tactics that worked last edition don't always work any more. And it's not about the player making a save stack (that's just using the basic mechanics), it's about their opponent who has to overcome their own habitual behaviour.
2nd Ed, everyone: "Playing against Archaon. I know, I'll hit him with my hammer units - done! I win!"
3rd Ed, everyone at first: "Playing against Archaon. I know, I'll hit him with my hammer units... oh no, he's still alive!"
3rd Ed, rigid approach: "Ugh, Archaon again. Right, hit him with the hammers... WTF that still didn't work? Every time, I throw everything at him and it hasn't worked once! Why is the game broken?"
3rd Ed, flexible approach: "Archaon again. Pretty sure I can't kill him, at least not when he's buffed like that. Can I win some other way?"
And yes, absolutely - for some armies, the answer to "Can I win some other way?" is pretty much "No". Those armies shouldn't be playing against top-tier tournament lists. That's never going to be a fun time for either player. Soft lists getting curb-stomped by tournament lists is not new to 3rd Ed.
People trying to "fix" save stacking are really just trying to go back to the 2nd Ed approach. Which is fine, as a preference, but then why not just continue to play 2nd Ed? I prefer the 3rd Ed game, where some problems can't easily be solved by brute force.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, stratigo said:
Because KO lose when they don't kill Archaon.
Okay. You know from the outset, from the moment you finish writing your KO list even, that you don't have the damage to kill Archaon as long as your opponent has a basic understanding of the game mechanics. So your entire gameplan for that matchup is just "Step 1: Lose"?
8 hours ago, stratigo said:Your mindscape doesn't match the reality of the game man. Archaon moves too fast, KO are too combo heavy. The second Archaon hits the ironclad, game's over. And he'll hit it in the first few turns. There's no way to both avoid archaon and score objectives for KO. Archaon by himself, without literally any other models, has the damage output to table a KO army. He's fast, the board is small, and objectives are close.
You're right, KO are a heavily-skewed faction that aren't very competitive in this edition. None of their core mechanics or unit profiles are geared for contesting objectives, so their only real strategy is to table the opponent, which this edition seems designed to avoid. Their body count is low (extremely low when most infantry are embarked), they have very little sustain, lack wizard or priest support, and are fragile. (Notably, they are fragile mainly because they have very few ways to stack save bonuses where they're needed!). They're a poorly-designed, one-dimensional mess of an army.
You could try a few things: look at ways to compensate for those weaknesses (e.g. allied/coalition units), start collecting a new army that's more competitive in the current ruleset, or take a break from competitive games until your army gets its 3rd Ed update.
8 hours ago, stratigo said:Your anvils aren't anvils. They're battleships. They survive everything and kill everything and if your army doesn't have one, or the equivalent of torpedoes (MW spam) you are going to lose. Every. Single. Time
Some anvils can also function as hammers, yes. They tend to pay a lot of points for that, and in some cases should probably pay more.
You've identified that your list has a huge strategic weakness that your opponents can easily exploit, and you've immediately identified two potential solutions, just in what you posted above: get some "battleship" units of your own, or find ways to increase your mortal wound output. Or do both!
-
11 hours ago, Adammck66 said:
So whats the best way to run a frostlord on stonehorn?
They don't really have many options, lol. The only real choice is mount trait, and Metalcruncher is by far the best choice there. Everything else is determined by your faction - I'd recommend Bloodgullet, and give the Splatter-cleaver to the Frostlord so he can distribute healing to everyone nearby (this faction also buffs your wizards, benefits Gluttons a bit, etc).
11 hours ago, Adammck66 said:And if I was to put in an allied Mega Gargant instead, is there a general view on which is best? Personally I think the Warstomper is coolest, maybe Gatebreaker next.
They're all pretty comparable, really. The Gatebreaker is probably best in the current meta (highest damage output against Monsters, which are very popular) but go with your heart.
11 hours ago, Adammck66 said:Also forgot to ask, are the Huskarls an alternative option that work for lower points? Maybe the one that increases the damage of mournfang pack attacks?
Huskards are a great option if your friends start to complain that Frostlords are too strong. The points you save are definitely not worth the downgrade - always take a Frostlord instead if you can afford to, unless you're intentionally building a softer list for friendly games.
Your average Mournfang pack probably benefits more from All-Out Attack than from Linebreakers. However, if you're already using All-Out Attack on another unit (e.g. Ironguts) then Linebreakers can be nice to have. I wouldn't take a Huskard specifically for it, though - think of it more like a nice bonus, or a consolation prize for not having a Frostlord.
-
9 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I definitely recognize the problem of big centerpieces just getting nuked off the board without a player getting use out of them. But I think the current state of having them be fairly unkillable in a lot of builds is also not really ideal. Especially given the fact that it's not just 1000 point Nagash and 800 point Archaon who can become unkillable. Unkillability is currently within reach for any 3+ save monster that can take an artefact. A 280 point Vengorian Lord can get there no problem. Even a dumb 230 point Steam Tank gets there. Maybe that's just my bias, but I feel that if you get your melee hammer in range of a target (which is most often the actual challenge) and get all your buffs off, you should be able to delete it (assuming points parity). Otherwise, why even have a melee hammer?
That's the outcome that I like - hard units actually being hard. Those units are anvils, a role that previously didn't exist in the game because everything died so easily regardless of how "tough" it was meant to be. Having the ability to buff up an anvil to the point where it can resist a hammer unit is what creates all the new tactical possibilities of 3rd Ed. Previously the only thing players could do against a hammer was screen - now they can also block. That means, as the hammer-wielder, you need to put actual thought into what you hit with your hammer, instead of just smashing everything you can reach.
9 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:God models have always had a problem striking the right balance. Having them do nothing is a feel bad for the player bringing one, having them do too much (and live through too much) is a feel bad for the opponent. Plus, competitively it's also not really clear what is more desirable: God models being unplayable, or god models being guaranteed to have a valid tournament list.
For what it's worth, I think you could give god models rules that buff their survivability directly instead of taking a detour through save stacking. Morathi is an example of how that can look. I think she is actually quite well designed, her points are just too low. But I like that she plays a very different game from the mere mortals that she faces when it comes to combat: She will last at least three rounds, and her opponent has to work to make sure she does not stick around for even longer.
I honestly couldn't care less if god models weren't playable (or even represented in the game), though I do recognise that they're a drawcard for a lot of people. Even if they weren't a thing, I'd still want anvil units that offer some counter-play to hammers.
Morathi's design, to me, represents the worst possible solution for the survivability problem - a bespoke rule that breaks the fundamental mechanics. She represents what happens when the designers have backed themselves into a corner, and can't see a way to get the outcome they want within the existing rules framework, so they just make a special case. I don't want special cases: I want the basic mechanics to allow for units to be tough enough to survive.
9 hours ago, Horizons said:@Kadeton I think @Neil Arthur Hotep idea that any defenses should be breachable is wrong but also the idea that making something immortal is also wrong.
Basically I think insane save stacking can be good if it's either limited/can be played around, or the target had relatively low saves to start.
+4 to save once a game is fine, it's the fact that it's always present that is problematic.
Yeah, I hope I've been very clear through this whole discussion that I never want to see the possibility for a player to make most of their army "unkillable" most of the time. Those defensive resources need to be strictly limited, counterable, and/or require foresight to use effectively. I think the current generic options are well structured in this regard: Finest Hour has to be used before your opponent commits their attack, allowing them to select weaker targets; Mystic Shield can be counter-spelled; All-Out Defense can be Roared away, and draws from a limited pool of CP. And all of them are single-target buffs, so using them on one unit denies them to every other unit. That should be the gold standard, IMO.
Where I do think there's a potential for problems is in a lot of the army-specific special abilities. Anything that buffs multiple units, has no chance of failure or counter, uses "alternative" mechanics (e.g. re-rolling saves), or can be used without consuming limited resources should be treated with the utmost care. I'm hoping to see fewer abilities like those in future battletomes.
8 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:No matter how you feel about this, I think it's worth recognizing that this goes against what the mechanics seem to be trying to do at a basic level. If you look at the basic phases of the game, it's quite difficult to get this kind of attack lined up. You need to pay attention in your movement phase to avoid screens, in your hero phase to make sure all your buffs go off, in charge phase to make sure you get into combat and in your combat phase to make sure you can actually follow through. The reward for this should be huge, given the difficulty of pulling it off. It's where a lot of the tactical decision making and player skill in the game lies. Instead, if your opponent is competent, they get to shrug off attacks that should be devestating by buffing a unit once as a set up, and buffing it again on reaction.
It's also worth recognising that your opponent cannot stop your attack - all they're doing is blunting its effectiveness against one specific target unit. You've done the setup work, you can hit them really hard anywhere you want... if you choose to hit them in their hardest, most defended point and break your fist, instead of hitting them in any of their softer areas, that's on you. You know what their defensive capabilities are, what buffs are already deployed and what can be done reactively, so it's up to you to figure out how to direct your attack accordingly to get the maximum impact.
8 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:Plus, you get to circumvent the whole set up if you just deal mortal wounds from range in the hero or shooting phase.
Personally, I think it's a bit of a design failure. The game mechanics right now just kinda conspire to make regular old damage not very good. Too much effort for too little payoff. The system with the highest amount of mechanical intricacy (damage, rend, hit, wound, attacks), which the game is arguably build around is just not worth using. If you want to actually be able to hammer down a tanky unit, you best ignore it entirely and just deal mortal wounds at range.
Mortal wound spam is a design failure, I totally agree. Almost all sources of mortal wounds should be removed, so that anvil units can do what they're supposed to do.
-
2
-
-
I agree that the "arms race" doesn't lead to any good outcomes for the game overall, and especially adding more sources of mortal wounds is a lazy and harmful design choice.
@Neil Arthur Hotep's analysis is well written, but I feel like its conclusions are predicated on an unstated opinion that "cracking" a unit's defences is something that should always be possible, or to put it another way, anything can be killed if you try hard enough.
I think that's essentially the fundamental point of difference. I like the fact that some units can become more or less immune to normal damage if you pour enough defensive resources into them. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I haven't been monitoring Beastclaw Raiders much since 3.0 dropped but they're still doing fine too, aren't they? I dunno, I think Destruction is doing alright overall.
AoS 3.0 - Ogor Mawtribes Discussion
in Destruction
Posted
@Lord Krungharr Rough game! Losing the Frostlord so early is tough - that's why I always bring a second one as backup, and try to screen them from first-turn charges.
Thanks for the report. Keen to see how you get on with the Kragnos list!