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

whispersofblood

Members
  • Content Count

    302
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

whispersofblood last won the day on July 11

whispersofblood had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

155 Celestant-Prime

About whispersofblood

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And yet, as far as I can see or hear it's not been taken advantage of considering you don't have to do anything besides have a bel'akor.
  2. Waiting for GM to reveal points costs so I can start figuring out what to take. But I fully expect Daemon Prince, Archaon, and Marauders to probably cost a bomb now.
  3. I sounds like it is very locked away behind a very elite army build. I doubt it shows up very often unless varangaurd get big buffs.
  4. Question. What is a while now, and what is the scale of loss?
  5. Apologies, I am perhaps too used to football forums where we all take the ****** out of each other. That aside, I know at times I can make really strong statement that run counter narrative. It's mostly a methodology flowing from my history in competitive athletics where data analysis, and strategy are considered at a much deeper and broad manner than currently displayed in wargaming. I wonder if there is really a demographic that would be interested in any of that. Or at least enough to start a thread on it at least. Anyway pm me if you are interest and if there is enough interest I'll do a thread with some basic outline info.
  6. I agree to some extent well to start I haven't played in a GW in some time probably something like a decade, and if you have been around AoS since the start its probably the perfect test case for the problem of OP armies. I've seen casual players complain about the OP nature of Nurgle Maggotkin, the problem is like in most things the better person is just better, and without long form assistance the attrition rate of the less talented member is going to be high regardless of the balance between factions. Because, of how direct and stark the discrepency in results will show themself as. There generally aren't that many oppressively powerful factions at any given time. So the odds that casual basement players are going to accidentally on esthetics alone pick factions with huge power descrepencies is I feel overstated. I would even go on to say that some of the most powerful armies are actually quite difficult to understand why and how they are very good and result in poor performances. Personally I think the game could literallty be better written, but I think think the game is quite healthy taken as a whole. My only issue with LLV and THW stats is the snap shot nature of the stats and the persistance of the feelings they create at this point. There is no way anyone can say that adding 6 new factions between the summer and Christmas and the rumour is 3 or 4 more by spring does not represent a completely different game to the one HoS dominated over the summer. Like measuring the perfomance of stocks, passed performance is not an indictor of future performance, merely a measure of what has happened. Anyway to make this about OB, I think they are very strong from the high level strategic position, but less strong on the in game tactical perspective. IF you can successfully interupt an OB army from implementing their strategy or bypass their strategy I don't think the builds people are talking about in this thread will be that good from a results perspective. That too me actually seems pretty fluffy for the faction. For me they mirror Bonesplitters and Big Waagh well, who are a mess strategically, but a cunning player will include enough tools that on the game board they can manufator tactical solutions to strategic problems.
  7. No I've stated previously that they were dominant in a lot of ways that other armies weren't at the time. And, that the way that the next several books are pretty good at. Mostly at how dominant a speced KoS could be over about a 26" radius. Orruks, CoS, OB all deal with it differently but they all address that. And, without that dominance the primary driver of depravity in the HoS army is effectively neutered. The Keeper gave the HoS army a lot of freedom to get around the board and forced the opponent into a shell, and in match ups that a Keeper wasn't dominant such as against Fyreslayers, the sheer difference in speed between the armies was so severe it was irrelevant. The limits of HoS are really going to be exposed if these factions take up a larger meta percentage as they really aren't that good in any of the phases besides movement.
  8. The HoS point is just not true though and that's my point. Most of the things people consider op are strategic problems, they have developed because most people don't play the game, they just unpack their selected layers of rules and abide by the results. You don't deal with strategic problems by changing unit A for slightly more effecient Unit B. Strategic problems mostly have to be dealt with tactically in the moment. Which means at a tournament you need the tools in your list to then use when you need them. What exactly those tools will be is determined by the faction at the operational stage. Let's take Big Waagh for example. The problem isn't killing models, killing models is just one method of getting to objectives the most straight forward. The problem is getting where the OB player is stopping you from going with his models. Big Waagh don't have alternative deployment or really very much fly. But they do have high quality casters which unlocks Bridge and Purple Sun. The key is finding the thing that least negatively impacts your high level strategy.
  9. That's not really an accurate depiction though is it? In casual play you tailor to your opponent, and in my experience from my own life and as a red shirt. Casual play is about the race in experience and translating that experience into choosing the right units to buy in the model arms race. So I would say in casual gaming the opponent that learns the fastest usually quickly dominates in their group. So much so that can end up with completely mediocre factions dominating inside play groups. Groups usually die when the players stop learning how to play the game and try to learn how to beat that guy. Which is obviously doomed to failure. In tournament play if you aren't going to properly address your own structural weaknesses and respect that each faction presents a DIFFERENT problem for every match up in every scenerio then your aren't playing competitively really. The competitive mindset is about the process not the result. Which is why I didn't and still don't think HoS are a problem, the reasons they dominated were mostly meta-selection reasons not technical reasons like say DoK, or Grimghast spam. While OB durability might feel different, as in a "negative play experience" then say extreme msu builds, the objective is the same deny your opponent the freedom of the board.
  10. Highlights the importance of maneuver, and the power of fly and alternative deployment. Such an army is designed to dominate the board by making putting a line you can't move through. One of the interesting affects of having so many factions is that sometimes people's armies are just good at certain operational schemes accidentally. In this case OB dominate the board such an oppressive manner accidentally that even the strongest factions have to take account of it. 2 months ago no one would have thought that a properly constructed Keeper would struggle to dominate the board (spacing wise) against at least 5 factions. Got to say I love this game.
×
×
  • Create New...