Jump to content

Orbei

Members
  • Posts

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Orbei

  1. I don't think this update is lazy, but I think it is very short sighted. A bandaid 'fix' that creates the potential for new problems and likely doesn't accomplish it's goal. Even if this somehow balanced the meta today (doubtful) this creates another mechanic that they need to consider as the game evolves. How often will they update targets and hunters? Probably at a slower pace than needed. What happens if thralls stampede over the meta in a few weeks - do they update this immediately? Whatever the new hotnesses is gets an even bigger advantage than normal because it gets extra VPs for killing the old hotness. In a game based around points the simplest thing to do is just update the points. Why are they afraid to pull that lever? Crank the prime targets points up by 10% and decrease the hunters points by 10% across the board. Evaluate in a month and adjust further. Was anyone asking for this sort of patch?
  2. You're not really understanding the complaint here. A warscroll and points is the sum of all it parts. Movement, damage, defense, etc. At the time they increased the wounds and ranged output of the shark while increasing the points by 35%. The damage output is essentially a wash per point. The change to 10 wounds was disappointing at the time because they were less wounds per point than before and no longer benefited from the the turtle aura. Some people didn't think it was a good trade for the increased cost. A bad deal for what we were paying. Now with the reversion it is exactly as survivable as when it cost 125 points. So now the unit is less survivable per point than the old version and we are paying the extra points only for the champion and the increased ranged output. However you shake it this is a downgrade.
  3. Namarti. The answer is namarti. They are so much better it's crazy. We knew they would be good with the box set but the tome cranks them up a notch further. Their ceiling is much higher than any pre-tome options, IMHO. I mean, combined arms builds or shark lists could be solid 3/5 lists with the potential for a lucky 4/5 or unlucky 2/5. But I think the Namarti list has serious gas and will win tournaments. It isn't comparable at all to anything we had before. This is a whole new beast. You can't beat it with shooting, it buffs like crazy, is pretty hard to crack, and can do ironjawz buzzsaw level carnage. I think it has some counters but boy does it look strong.
  4. The frost phoenix idea is interesting and very tempting. Phoenix gard are potent as well. But the problem is that any ally is going to get shot to hell as the enemy shooting will be so limited by our allegiance ability and may not have any other targets available turn 1. I'm not sure if Ionrach is a way around this, but heck with them regardless. Dhom-haim is too powerful to drop for the sake of a Phoenix. Also, we have our very own faction board now! We've finally made it!
  5. Watched Rob's video. Dhom-hain is crazy. Just wow. The rituals are also incredible. Namarti spam appears to be the way forward. There isn't much to say about this because it's so obviously strong. Almost every rule in the book has synergy with namarti. Its like every page in the book is yelling "take thralls!" I kind of like the new aspect of the sea. Seems better than before at least, but I don't know if the improvements will justify it being picked, especially since the tidecaster is almost certainly going in my lists. I think there is still a place for the aspect of the storm when using thralls. Lotann can't be everywhere at once. The eidolonn is a little more fighty than before and will buff those thralls. Don't take him with eel builds. But on that note just don't take eels. They look pretty bad. Sharks back to 8 wounds at 165 points is a cruel joke. So now they are just 35% easier to kill than old sharks. Still not monsters. low model count on objectives. The shark output no longer benefits from several abilities which don't effect mounts. Being at 8 wounds it can get the save bonus from the turtle but not the +1 to hit bonus reserved for namarti, so poor synergy. This has been beaten to death already but new sharks really break my heart. I don't understand the turtle points. It went up 120 points. The sharks which each have 1 harpoon went up 40, and the harpoon is what you're paying for. Turtles have 2 harpoons so I could see an 80 point increase to match, even though I think it's a bad deal and would much rather have the old turtle. But what justifies the extra 40? Its hard to look at this thing and justify 500 points. 3 of them is a joke list and will get crunched. I mean... If you put down 3 turtles and your opponent puts down 3 mega gargants do you just concede? I think the thrall build is going to be very strong, but I don't see many other options being viable here. The akhelian units seem outclassed both internally and externally, and points for almost everything other than thralls seem to be too high.
  6. The turn structure absolutely does not have to be considered a reason why AoS is popular. With that mindset you could point at any aspect of the game and apply the same logic. Was the old battalion system a component of why the game was popular in 2nd? There are a wide variety of contributing factors as to the popularity of a game. Its entirely possible that the game is popular in spite of the turn structure, not partly because of it. People play AoS for a variety of reasons. Its the most widely played fantasy themed miniatures wargame, for starters, and the easiest to find games for. I might prefer other rule sets but good luck finding games for them. There's also the lovely models and very good lore surrounding the game that people get invested in. The double turn is also just one aspect of the game - an impactful part of the game, sure, but still just one component of it. People can easily not like that rule but still generally enjoy the game and hobby. Questioning why someone plays a game when they dislike one this core rule isn't really fair. This thread alone shows that the community is pretty split on the double turn, but all of the people posting here enjoy AoS. Do you enjoy every aspect of the game, and all your hobbies? Can nothing be improved? Personally I've played Warhammer for 20 years and thought I go you go was terrible game design for about 19 of them.
  7. Perhaps they will do something interesting with the isharaen rituals mechanic in the new book. Its easy to forget it's even a thing as is.
  8. I'd love the Storm to be a bit more killy even if it meant a slight point bump but it's a pretty good pick as is. I'd really like for the Sea to get +1 or 2 to cast spells. The Sea's healing mechanic also needs to be changed from the anti-synergy it currently has with the casting rerolls. The Storm heals reliably by doing what it wants to do, while the Sea is punished for using its own reroll mechanic. It would also be cool if these could start off the board and then deep strike in dealing mortal wounds to things. I imagine them crashing into the battle as a torrent of power channeled through the ethersea. Would like to see these guys get a better melee profile. I wouldn't mind if the whole bringing back models idea is scrapped entirely in favor of something else. Right now 2x thrallmasters has a certain appeal if going namarti heavy; would prefer if soulreavers and thrallmasters could be a namarti buffing tag team instead.
  9. If sharks get a battleline option I think starting with a small shark-centric force will be a good idea. Namarti are much more appealing with all of the pieces to buff and support them and I'm not sure how effective they will be in smaller engagements with limited resources. Sharks, on the other hand, just do their thing and don't really care about support. So going with sharks for an easy to get on the table starter force could be great, and allow you to add namarti/eels/turtles/heroes as you expand.
  10. That's a double edged sword and really depends. Monsters can also score extra victory points and only die once to give up points. I'd say if you're only bringing 1 or 2 it would be easy to either come out ahead or have it be a wash, but taken in mass yeah you're better with them not being monsters. Monsters also get to rampage which is pure bonus power. But it's a moot point sadly. The turtle has to rampage all alone.
  11. Yeah, not a bad idea. Or maybe drop 10 reavers and the tidecaster for 3 soulrenders. So 2x 20 thralls, 30 reavers, turtle, Lotann, 2x thrallmasters, 3x soulreavers. That's a crazy amount of namarti coming back each turn. The remaining 30 reavers could either hang out as a big block of death or split up with 10 garrisoning a boat. The issue is... Soulrenders sure do stink at fighting and this is now 270 points of soulrenders. The whole thing might be silly. I also wish an eidolon could fit but it's hard to see how. Sharks not being monsters always makes me sad. Why are dragons monsters but sharks aren't? If they were monsters at the new points value I'd be much more intrigued. The lonely turtle needs monster buddies.
  12. Yeah, Lotann really does need to join the Namarti Party. How to squeeze him in though! My proposed list comes to 1980 points so there's no room. Could swap a thrallmaster out for him but those guys look so great. And if I drop a soulrender morphan becomes a waste. Hm. Well, 2x 20 thralls, 2x20 reavers, 2 thrallmasters, Lotann, a tidecaster and a turtle is 2000 points on the nose. Goodbye morphan dream. Run them as.. uh.. nautilar? Sure why not nautilar, they have the coolest lore anyway. Thralls who need to charge away from Lotann still reroll hits this way and the tidecaster gets an easy to cast on a 4+ ignore 1 rend spell for one of the thrall blocks or the turtle. One of the thrallmasters gets a tome and mystic shields the other thrall block or turtle.
  13. I'm stuck in a morphan mindset at the moment as it is so different from anything I've tried in the past. Just imagine a block of 30 reavers with soulrender support. The soulrender is returning at least 68 points of reavers a turn. With rally and soulrenders you could restore a whole lot of firepower each turn, and with a turtle + thrallmaster's combat wound debuff they could be surprisingly hard to clear out. Ultimately though I think 30 reavers is probably overkill for a single unit. Maybe two 20 blocks of reavers behind a 30 man unit of thralls? Or 2x 20 man units of each. The turtle and thrallmaster(s) buff everyone. Soulrenders can bring bodies back where needed. 40 thralls, 40 reavers, a turtle, 2x thrallmasters and 2x soulrenders seems interesting. Double thrallmaster in a namarti heavy list has strong appeal to me as both the exploding 6s and -1 to wound are such strong buffs. Maybe the soulrenders will still end up being a trap vs simply starting with more bodies and a different enclave. While that could be the case I'd love to tune a morphan list to be viable. The turtle is coming regardless. That thing is consistently MVP.. in addition to dealing solid damage and being tough, it buffs and does Monster things.
  14. The double turn is a hugely important mechanic to AoS because the priority roll is the single most impactful element of chance in the game. A single roll off determines which player gets to use their entire army, potentially for the second time in a row. Nothing is more powerful or important than that roll. RNG by its nature is a great equalizer and levels the playing field. The more that is left to chance the more likely it is that either player might win. In my opinion AoS is generally a very poorly balanced game - looking at various factions and warscrolls makes this pretty clear. As it currently stands some factions have competitive winrates far above what should be tolerable and others are left in the dust, and this is with the benefit of a double turn mechanic pulling all winrates towards 50%. The potential double turn, being the greatest slot machine mechanic in the game, gives lists a fighting chance and covers up for the poor rules balance. Taking away this mechanic in a vacuum would be a disaster. Let's say two friends want to play Lumineth against BoC. Well, LRL are way better than BoC. They're probably going to win most of the games all else being equal. The right timing of a double turn might let Lumineth win some games easier but they were going to win those games anyway. Alternatively, a very fortunate double turn could give the BoC player a puncher's chance. Win the slot machine roll, maybe win the game. Imagine if the game had a new mechanic where at the end of each turn you rolled for a volcano, and on a 3-6 you could remove half of your oponents remaining force. Suddenly rolling for the volcano is as important as anything you might do with your models and will likely decide who wins each game. Everyone's winrates is going to hover around 50% regardless of the warscrolls or points because of the almighty volcano. The double turn is a toned down version of this. Huge power swings determined via RNG. It is a bad mechanic, sure, and creates it's share of unfun moments. But not having it would also result in bad experiences in a game without alternating activations and questionable balance.
  15. The problem is that people keep tossing around the word objectively while making subjective statements. Condescending tone never helps.
  16. Its entirely reasonable to look at the known changes and apply the other current rules in evaluating their potential impact. In your own initial take on the changes you show math which includes current buffs. Yet when people discuss a current buff that no longer benefits the new sharks you finger wag at them. Obviously no one other than playtesters or GW know what the end result will be so all we can do is consider what we know. For example, when considering the thrallmaster is it reasonable to assume that he might benefit from forgotten nightmares? That rule might be removed from the next battletome. But we don't know that and it is how the army currently plays. When considering the value of this hero it only makes sense to consider him in the context of how the army currently functions, which includes all current rules. If the rules change people can adjust their opinion. This is just unreasonable. Your initial take is hype and excitement for the changes. Which is completely cool, it's nice that you're enthusiastic. But other people can look at the changes and draw different conclusions. You don't get to say that pointing out how things become worse, like how sharks are worse wounds per point than before, is premature bellyaching while simultaneously being excited for the improved shooting profile. Either all judgements are premature or people can form opinions based on what is known. Right now I'm in the camp that they look like a downgrade due to the reduced wounds per point and less efficient overall damage output (which includes fighting on your opponent's turn). YMMV. This could be interesting and potentially alleviate my current concerns. But.. eh. I have 4 currently and really like using a pair of them. They are nice independent operators. I hope they remain viable as a smaller component of an army and don't need to be spammed to really shine. Dragon spam is already dumb and IDK don't need shark spam as a counter.
  17. Not saying that this is bad feedback, but isn't it kind of weird to draw any conclusions from playtesters playtesting a unit? Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing? I hope playtesters are using sharks, thrallmasters, reavers, etc..
  18. Thats a good point. The problem is when it's not your turn. They're much worse at fighting in the opponent's combat phase because the shooting isn't doing anything. The output on your turn including shooting is the same as the old output, which is pretty decent. There isn't a need for this is there? Honestly, I do understand it and it doesn't look good. Your math still doesn't explain your earlier statements does it? Anyway, I like your enthusiasm for the sharks and do appreciate your general IDK positivity. You haven't sold me on them by a longshot though. They are less survivable than before, worse in combat, have less ranged output than reavers, way less damage per point output than thralls, and are less efficient than some mix of the two. If I could pick old sharks or new sharks I'd happily keep the 125 point ones.
  19. Its challenging to read your posts with the formatting you use, which may cause people to skip or gloss over what you write. The mix of white highlighting, bold, and caps in this latest post is pretty off-putting. I think you're missing what Kitsumy is saying and should go back and re-read both of our posts. They are worse off as compared to before. Consider: the base melee profile did not change but the points increased by 32%, so they are less that much efficient in melee. Does the champion alone make up for this? The net did not change but the points increased by 32%, so the net is functionally 32% worse. If you want a net you have to pay for how much better the harpoons now are. The wounds did not increase proportionately to the points increase, so they are less survivable. The only improvement is that they are now a more efficient shooting unit, but everything else suffers as a result. Also, consider the scenarios when your shark doesn't get to shoot because it's stuck in combat at the start of a turn. This is obviously not what you want or plan for but this will happen over the course of games. In these situations all of the points you're paying for better shooting are doing diddly squat. The problem is that the shooting was always a bonus, a nice little complement to the more important melee damage. Now they're nearly equal in terms of potential output and the price you're paying for that output. To get value from this unit it needs to shoot and then charge, and it's pretty likely to get stuck in combat. You were the one saying sharks do more damage than reavers at range, which your numbers above show to be wrong. You also said they have the best output per point in the book, yet we seem to agree that's not true either. Thralls have significantly higher output. Thanks for providing your math again, that is genuinely helpful when looking at the options. Sharks just don't look appealing to me anymore when I consider these numbers. I'm hoping the book has some additional synergy in store for them because I love my sharks.
  20. Its fine that you like sharks for your style of play. I like them currently too. However, stating that they do more damage than reavers at range or have the highest damage output in close combat in the army does not seem to be true. They have worse damage per points than thralls, reavers or morrsarr with the known changes, assuming everything else stays the same. The only thing they have going for them is that they don't degrade as they lose wounds as you've said, but you sure are paying an up front premium for that. They have also gone down in terms of survivability, not up. They received a 25% increase in wounds and a 32% increase in points. Also, there is really no need for all the bold and caps. When someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean they are missing what you are writing. They are just looking at the information and drawing a different conclusion. If sharks continue to work for you, awesome. I'm glad you're excited for them. I'm looking forward to thralls.
  21. Good thoughts. This would be very different from anything I've played prior and would take some messing around with. I'm also wondering if Mor'phann and Soulrenders might receive buffs and become interesting with the rise of thralls. While I am not sold on the new reavers in a vacuum, a Mor'phann list where your 90 point soulrender brings back 4-7 reavers a turn is also pretty appealing. A big block of reavers in Mor'phann might be fun...
  22. If the points stay as is I'd lean towards trying MSU namarti with all the buff pieces. Something like: Eidlon of the storm Lotann Thrallmaster Soulscryer Tidecaster (General) Turtle 2x10 Reavers (deploy with soulscryer) 4x10 Thralls
  23. I don't understand this. A single shark and unit of reavers are virtually the same points. A shark gets 4 shots that do an average of 2 damage each if they hit and wound. The reavers get 20 shots that do 1 damage each. They both have the same to hit/wound/rend so none of those are a factor. Reavers do more than twice as much damage as sharks at range. What am I missing here? I also don't understand why you're saying they have the best melee output in the book. They look to be squarely behind thralls and morrsarr. A 165 point shark assuming 4 bites does 3.26 damage against a 3+ save. This is really poor output. 10 thralls for 130 points do 6.67 damage assuming 1 wound targets or 8.89 damage against 3+ wound targets. Double the output for less points. Of course thralls are less survivable, slower, and have no ranged attack but in combat they are superior. Morrsarr also have higher output.. 2 morrsarr for 132 points will do 3.85 damage on the charge not counting their mortal wounds. I used a 3+ save to help out the sharks and make the most of their rend, and they still come out poorly. To make matters worse, sharks have almost no synergy now. No turtle buff, and you can alternatively buff namarti in multiple ways including the new thrallmaster. Sharks were really nice as a hybrid of ranged and melee output and efficient for their points. Now they are middling at everything. We're now paying a huge premium for increased ranged damage at big nerf to survivability per point and melee damage. Instead of your first 2 sharks why would you ever not just take 2 SDG? What am I missing?
  24. Isn't sin/bin just a fun community meme? I've never taken the sin and bin thing as there literally being two guys who write things. I don't know anything about GW's internal process but that seems pretty crazy to me. I'd imagine there's a rules team that collaborates and what comes out is a group effort. The sin and bin thing is amusing because reading the various warscrolls/allegiance abilities it really seems as though they're written by two people on completely different wavelengths and it's amazing that they make it past the same quality control. So we just blame bad rules on the imaginary bin guy as a coping mechanism and joke. But... If there really is some guy who writes half of the rules, and keeps seeing people refer to the rules he specifically writes as coming from the bin guy? Wow! That guy should feel bad because he is bad at his job and makes the hobby worse for everyone. Do better please.
  25. The shark and reaver changes are tough at first glance. Both units work pretty good currently and these are huge increases to points. Reavers are a completely different unit from the role they currently fill. Compared to blood stalkers they pretty bad... 10 points cheaper, less range, no MWs on 6s, no hero phase shooting. Sharks look particularly bad; given the points the natural comparison seems to be SDG. They are only 5 points less than SDG which are hilariously better when looking at the warscrolls. Thralls look like big winners here. I'll keep an open mind and hope there's some good synergies in the book.
×
×
  • Create New...