Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

148 Celestant-Prime

About Battlefury

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I guess you're right. I am the only one playing the army in my city, therefore some of the players just smile at me, when I say, that I won't play on tournaments since I will not have a chance. That's very frustrating, and in fact it is discouraging to play at all. That's where my point comes from, that I concider AoS to be very unbalanced, since I experience the extreme in an extreme environment, which is tournaments. That's, what shouldn't be in any game.
  2. Completely agree. The entire balance issue is, that the outcome of a game is massively controllabe and predictable via the choice of faction. I would like to define, what balance means for me, so all of you see my point. A game I concider balanced, is a system, that provides a variation of outcomes. Meaning, no matter what I play against, then win rate is DYNAMIC. As long as it stays dynamic in any way, where no clear faction choice leads into more or less LINEAR results, I concider the game to be ok. I see what you mean. In fact I think, the combination of data is the
  3. Good advice, will try that. Unfortunately I am the local TO The problem really is, that I can only play casualy, since I will not have a chance versus other armies, if it comes to a competition.
  4. So am I one of those Sorry I maybe got the intention wrong, didn't want to offend you.
  5. If you can pay for that, wich a lot of people can#t and don't want. Also, some armies won't get the power. We never know what GW designes and why. Ther is no certain foresight of an army being powerful.
  6. My community is in the spot, where competetive players claim they are casual, but the lists they bring, are absolutely nasty. I understand, that people don't want to talk about it. But the clubbing of everyone, who went up and told, what he / she is experiencing, is not the way to go. Most of the players here just brand those as idiots, who should shut the **** up and get good. Tried that list, with no sucess. As far as I remember, that lists got stomped by MW output a la couleur. Skarbrand is mostly done in turn 2, since my local meta is completely dominated by shooting and mag
  7. Today there was a situation at our local community chat. A player, who is a long term player for like 5 years now, complained about balance issues he is seeing. He brought out some data from honest wargamer, to show what he is meaning ( Seraphon win rate for example ). What happened is, that people came with comments like: "Gonna take another beer and stay silent." "We don't need to discusss, that there are better armies, but throwing numbers in the room...?" "So you mean, that players who wanna win should play Seraphon, because the rest is kind of not that successfull?" "That yo
  8. Don't worry, they will not perform good, just because the game edition brings changes By the way I play BoK, welcome to the pleasure dome.
  9. I am happy to see, that you're looking forward to this secondary objective mechanic, and I can totally understand, why you do so. Personally, it raises more concern for me, than it raises optimism. It really depends on how thos secondaries are being released. If every army can have the same, then it is fine. But if Battle Tomes come out, where those objectives are written, then it is already screwed. Because, what will happen is, armies having secondaries, and others don't. I would not suggest, that GW would be so stupid to do this, but I was often disappointed. Also, we do have se
  10. I see your point. Maybe it could compare several stats ( would be do define, wich that would be ) and translate it into a rating from 0 to 10 maybe, where 10 is the absolute best existing at this moment.
  11. @pnkdthGood questions, I'd like to talk about my opinion a little bit. I think that it ws a mistake to bring all those Soup possibilities. Allies was the first, that gave people significant potential to create broken combos. Mercenaries came in later, but seemed to not make a vast difference. The Sub factions themselves within the Battle Tomes are ok. But to be honest, most of those factions are not interesting to play. I see that most books have that one sub factions in combination with one Battalion and use certain units for that. So I'd suspect it is restricting choice more, than it
  12. Could you link the source of your information? I would like to have a look at it too
  13. Hopefully, we will get some content, we need it desperately.
  14. AFAIK it is literally 2 guys writing the books. It is more like this, since the pure warscrolls / stats favor certain play styles and are often very different from army to army. Often I look into a book and see the scrolls and wonder, how they even calculated the point cost. Certainly they use a formula, that will calculate the point cost. But I would really like to see, wich factors are taken into account by this calculation.
  15. That might well be, and it is good to hear that the players are apparently on the same level in your community. I would like that too, but unfortunately it isn't like this over here. Almost 2/3 armies are from Tier a or straight up Tier S here. That's why I claim, that there is a problem within the design of mid tier armies. I's suggest if all armies where somewhere from Tier S to Tier B, it would be much better. But the armies stretch from S Tier to E Tier.
  • Create New...