Kasper
-
Posts
956 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Kasper
-
-
6 hours ago, swarmofseals said:
So the rumor based on the Chumphammer twitter pics is that we'll see the following:
- Salamanders +30
- Oldblood on Carno -20
- Skink Chief Stegadon -20
- Oracle on Trogolodon -40
If this is accurate then Kroak is still going to be solid and one might even consider taking an oracle in Kroak lists. I think you still probably take astrolith + balewind in Starborne lists but if you were to run Kroak in Coalesced then oracle might be an attractive option as a way of extending Kroak's range without forcing Kroak to sit in one spot.
Oldblood on Carnosaur and Skink Chief on Stegadon changes are both nifty. They might be pretty meaningful or not depending on if they are allowing for a new combination of units to fit into 2k. I haven't looked at Thunderquake or Koatl's Claw lists in a while so I'm not really sure what this might enable.
Salamanders to 110 is a beating. They're still good enough to consider using but no longer an auto-include. I'd bet Dracothion's Tail lists will still want at least 3 but fitting more than that could be hard. I'd still probably take them over Kroxigors in the behemoth battalion too.
Simply based on some of the other point changes in that "leak" I dont think it is legit, but we shall see. +30 points per Salamander will hurt quite a bit. I run 2x3 in my DT list which means I need to find 180 points somewhere. In my list I run two "fluff" choices - An extra Slann and a Knight-Incantor with Everblaze Comet. I feel like I might have to cut either to meet the point requirements, or drop some Skink screens and a couple of endless spells.
It seems odd the normal Stegadon or Dread Saurian didnt drop if the "leak" is true.
-
Im so disappointed in the AoS community - How come the 40k guys can have massive leaks but we got nothing in regards to the GHB20? I need them pooooints dude! 😄😄
-
1
-
1
-
6
-
-
17 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:
Most of my posts in regard to your opinon are analysis, to which you've not engaged at all creating a strawman argument that they were proving to be oppressive. You've waded in and neither made a point or provided some reason you disagree with my assessment, so I'm a bit confused. The full tournament reports I can get my hands on show that HoS weren't actually beating factions without a sweat, and frequently weren't scoring that many points destroyed after the 3rd round, and the spread on actual scores wasn't insane. I will of course accept that HoS savagely beat, really bad factions but that seems like a useless piece of metadata we know some of those factions would lose to a random collection of Destruction models. The point is you can't render anything down to one or two data points and make a proclimation.
The long run of the argument is that new factions do exactly what HoS did, just later, in different ways and that the community has already adapted. Armies are no longer heavily skewed towards alpha strikes and similar strategies, and therefore the dominance HoS showed early on would have regressed to a more tolerable percentage with no changes. I believe they still would have done well as the core of the faction is actually quite fast so good on the objective game, but that is not relevent at the moment.
The reality is GW made the changes some parts of the community demanded, the game kept advancing and HoS are essentially unplayable in any serious manner. So clearly it was the wrong decision and the right one was patience, which was already paying off by the time the winter faq arrived. I apologize there is a list, multiple Epitome, Daemon Princes and Chaos Marauders.We have so little data in this Warhammer community and yet the little data we have, that LVO spends a ton of time compiling, you are just gonna hand wave away because it doesnt fit your agenda? Okay dude. Slaanesh was recorded as having one of the highest win % ever.
Slaanesh was a problem. Everyone knew that, even competent Slaanesh players realized their faction was bonkers. There were multiple posts on the FB groups of people feeling terrible about playing Slaanesh because games were so one-sided (they won hard) and they had to comp themselves by shelving their army. Myself included - People at my club refused to play against tripple Keeper because games werent fun. This forum was filled with so many threads of rage about Slaanesh.
Anyways, it is quite clear you have a hard-on for Slaanesh and blinded/oblivious to how reality was. I have no desire to keep this going since it is clearly just a waste of time.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, whispersofblood said:
You've kind of failed to grapple with what I said.
My argument isn't that the HoS win ration would drop permanently because of new armies. At first that would be the case, but as players adapt to the new challenge in an attempt to not be punished against new armies, they will need to make changes. The extreme builds that were letting them beat armies to the degree you mentioned are the exact reasons they lose against the new armies. To address them they need to pull back from those extremes which give the factions which struggled against them before more breathing space. Its not actually a rock/paper/scissors affect in the long term, the existence of the r/p/s puts pressure on builds to not spec to any point of the trilateral arrangement. This is only true so long as there is enough diversity on the arrangement, but the meta HoS were released into specifically did not have this diversity. If HoS were a form of Rock, then the whole meta was built to be scissors attacking each others remaining paper elements, and the worst performing factions were the ones who couldn't shed enough of their paper components (The Khornes, and the Nurgles of AoS 1.5.)
The HWG datasets aren't really deep enough for people to make the sorts of judgements they are, its why factions are falling off performance cliffs, similarly its why DoK were unnerfable basically they were simply exceptionally adapted to the actual game, and didn't need to play the metagame.So what exactly isnt your point then? Because it isnt very clear.
You believe it was a bad move to nerf Slaanesh after over half a year of complete domination in both casual and competitive games because the newly introduced armies would have forced Slaanesh into a different list, that would be less oppressive against the current armies that Slaanesh beat without a sweat?
-
1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:
That isn't my assumption... If I have any assumptions its the following.
Using HoS as an example, I've already detailed that the specific list that people took issue with is functionally dead against at least 9 factions, which leaves 15? factions that it works against lets say. That the whole HoS faction is now dead, and that is not a desirable outcome. That by the time GW could do anything about them, they already were reverting to the mean.
You misunderstand how HoS worked if you think they hard countered every melee army in the game. HoS worked by making alpha strikes a non-functional strategy in that specific match up, and people refused to accept it. They were also an extremely easy army to start requiring building and painting about 20 models, and were released into a game that was dominated by the alpha strike at the time. Of course they were going to do well, its like releasing a Killer whale into a seal pen.
I'm not suggesting that the game should or can be balanced around 2 day events. However with the number of factions available assuming we want these factions to be legitimately different, and not just re-skins of some dominant combat strategy, then I suspect that if a closed community has less than 5 players you will see huge amounts of imbalance. The game just can't be balanced on that scale and the factors which most predicates success at that level are intellectual ability, money, time and effort. Rules are a distant 5th, we can suppose this because there are many examples of players reaching out to the internet about their friends supposedly "unbeatable" Maggotkin of Nurgle army. In that environment players are going to be rank order by some combination of those factors again we can suppose this because new players aren't generally buying models they like. Its the same with a faction like KO with can dominate a local group or be at the bottom of a local group. But is actually pretty decent in the competitive environment.
You feel very strongly about this I can see. But your feelings aren't born by facts, by the time HoS got nerfed in that errata they were already losing games to Orruks and needed to make changes to their list to deal with the pressure if they wanted to remain capable. Those changes included taking a lot more models, and fewer heroes specifically the KoS because of their fragility in the face of a competent melee unit like Ard Boyz.HoS actually weren't crushing non-alpha based combat armies, but you would need meta-data (such as actual scores) to know that. They didn't just run over Khorne if they Khorne player didn't try and alpha, and Khorne has never been a big player in the game. The reaction and continued opinion on HoS is in lockstep with normal reactions about confrontational facts. People were used to the game as it was, and couldn't come to grips that a faction any faction could or should change the norm. Personally I think the alpha meta was a boring game, and not really interesting or intellectually stimulating. Interestingly basically every army since HoS (discounting CoS) have been strongly anti-alpha in their own way and the game is better for it.
I played Slaanesh from day 1 and I had to shelf the army (it is still resting in my drawers, slowly trying to sell it off) because it was borderline insane and it completely ruined pretty much every single game between combat armies. Yes, it didnt dominate EVERY melee army (Fyreslayers comes to mind) but it ruined many. Slaanesh was very dominant from day 1 and all the way until the FAQ with the summoning point nerfs, even in the bigger tournaments. From what I remember Slaanesh had a general win % of around 75 when factoring for mirror matches. You cant tell me THAT much of the meta was pure alpha-strike lists.
In my opinion this is a very clear indicator that Slaanesh was borderline insane and broken vs the current armies you saw. To me it is completely irrelevant if new shooting armies (that hardcounter Slaanesh I agree) are introduced down the line to keep Slaanesh "in check", because it still keeps this hard rock-paper-scissors thing going which isnt healthy for the game. I dont care if Slaanesh would fall down to 50% due to Tzeentch, Seraphon, Lumineth etc. being introduced - It would just further create super polarized games where Slaanesh won by default against MANY armies but would also lose by default against many armies due to magic/shooting output. That isnt a cool system.
This is also why I find straight up looking if X army has 50% win ratio as a stupid indicator if X army is "ok". If you had 3 armies where army A beat army B 100% of the time, army B beat army C 100% of the time and army C beat army A 100% of the time (rock-paper-scissor) each one would have a balanced win ratio, but terrible game experience. This is how it felt like playing Slaanesh for me.
-
3
-
-
21 hours ago, whispersofblood said:
The problem is that the vast majority of players have no idea what is coming, and only an even as far I can tell only a small minority have any idea of how the interactions between forces and strategies impact each other. The list that was tormenting the world doesn't work against, OBR, doesn't work again DoT, doesn't work again Seraphon and doesn't work against LRL, and already didn't work against DoK, was struggling against Hallowheart, and was an iffy prospect against Orruks. So we have no idea what HoS would have become in the face of those pressures, but we do know two things, that they are terrible right now. And, that they would have been unbearable for about what at the most 7 months? Its plain short sighted thinking, and had we all just collectively not lost our cool, the whole game would be in a different place right now as we prepare for GHB and I think better. This isn't WHFB AoS is in a constant state of becoming, meta-states are much smaller than the HWG stats provide for, and at best show what the game was not what it is.
I don't generally like reacting to people getting the "feel bads", because as humans we actually tend to a) overreact, and then b) either institutionalize our feelings, meaning that they will just be a deeply held belief (not opinion) regardless of their basis in fact, or move the hell on pretty quickly. I'm still pretty sure most the the noise about HoS came from people who never played a single game against them. All this to say that in a lot of situations doing nothing is the right thing to do. Having 2 Faqs a year has lured people into the idea that they don't have the intellectual power to come up with solutions or to copy + paste another persons ideas or that there should be an expectation to update your army build as new things come out.
I don't think HoS summoning was in effect that bad, it was quite easy to kill or zone the heroes in the places you don't want people to summon into and if you can't it is probably a result of being outplayed. More often then not by turn 3 summoning more heroes wasn't a winning strategy anyway. The only change that HoS needed was taking the KoS locus of diversion bonus down to +1 instead of +2 and seeing how that played out. Now I understand many people just play the game to kill the opponents army, but frankly that's maladaptive and if that is the case you're playing the game poorly from the onset and we as a community should not be encouraging that mindset generally speaking because it doesn't allow for a diverse strategic approach among factions.
If we have real diversity some strategies will just be easier to play, easier to collect, cheaper to play, have models that are more appealing to more people, or strategies that are more appealing to certain personalities. The combination of these attributes is probably more impactful than the power of a factions rules or points generally speaking, and over reacting because the loudest faction of players want to line up their models and duke it out I feel diminishes the quality of the game and the depth of the AoS world.Your assumption seems to be that it is OK for X army to run wild and smash a majority of armies into the ground without a fight because certain other armies hardcounter army X. I dont believe in this idea that armies should be balanced around a 2 dayer 5 game tournament event. Rock paper scissors is somewhat OK if it is done in a soft way, but when Slaanesh hardcountered pretty much every single melee army and only lost to armies that shot them off the board before they could do anything, it is a ****** design that needed to be reeled in. It effectively created a situation where the game was decided right there and then when you saw what you were up against.
-
2
-
-
33 minutes ago, valenswift said:
To be honest it’s exactly what I expected. I’ve always felt that they’d run out of new ideas for the General’s Handbook and this year they finally have. Can the points value booklet be bought separately?
If all you care about is points I probably wouldnt buy it and just rely on warscroll builder, or wait for the points to be leaked shortly after. To me the new updated realm rules and updated/new battleplans are very much worth it though.
I dont feel like they are "running out of ideas". They are fleshing out a system (realm rules) that largely were ignored outside of tournaments, and to my experience some tournaments started excluding them too. Streamlining it is only a win in my eyes, not a failure at all.
There is also the whole narrative/open play stuff with sky battles and ways to play with multiple players. It isnt something for me, but Im glad it is there because not everybody is dead set on playing 2.000 pts matched play like me.
-
6
-
-
6 hours ago, Sleboda said:
And that would be a crime, now wouldn't it? /s
Aren't we always, by default, playing for the fun of it? I'll never get the argument that there is fun and then there is winning in Warhammer. It's a game. Practically by definition we play it for fun. Or, to put it another way, if you find you do not enjoy a given activity, such as Warhammer, it's a little bit crazy to keep doing it.
I get that when you play at tournaments it makes sense to take the list that you believe gives you the greatest chance to take the trophy, but that's really such a narrow part of the hobby overall. I think there is plenty of room to include the other units when not in the tournament environment.
People get enjoyment out of different things. Some get enjoyment out of winning. It is really no different than any sport where someone's goal is to win, even if it isnt a super important tournament they participate in.
For me I play Warhammer to socialize with my mates and to roll some dice, but ultimately whenever I write a list the goal is to win, not just to ****** about. That doesnt mean we have to net-list off "pros" or tournaments, but purposely bringing a bad list would just feel wrong to me and I would hate every second of it.
Even if you arent participating in a tournament, you might be wanting to practice your new army or whatever and try to finetune a list in preparation for a tournament.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, valenswift said:
Am I the only thinking the GHB looks a bit disappointing? Apart from the new points values I’m not really interested in any of it looking at that contents page.
Just curious, but what did you expect out of the GHB? To me it is just point updates, updated alligiance abilities (think they all got a battletome now), new/changed battleplans and a bunch of fluffy stuff I will never play around with. Im super happy that they are updating the realm rules, might actually use them now.
-
On 6/27/2020 at 6:16 AM, Lord Krungharr said:
Can the new Seraphon take Stormcast or a Frostheart Phoenix as allies? I’m new to Order, been in the Living City for a bit but am thinking of moving. Maybe to the jungle, but possibly to Azyr. I want my pets to come with me though.
Seraphon can only ally with Stormcast Eternals or Sylvaneth
-
13 hours ago, Icegoat said:
The reality of the situation is there is power creep I play maggotkin and have never won against ossiarchs in 4 matches I've played. They dont die and when they do they get up and they run around like a sprinting cheetah. It's not so much they kill my unitss they just park themselves in front of them and the combat never ends. Its depressing.
But that is just not true. By your logic every single new book would default to tear up every tournament if there was a true power creep happening and that is just not what we are seeing. Keep in mind that a new book generally has an advantage for a short while simply because the player behind the new book knows your army, but you dont know his or where the weaknesses are. Prior to COVID the podium results across the world were actually very diverse - Sure some armies appeared more than others, but it was still very diverse and it wasnt just the latest book winning.
The whole mentality of "oh I play X army and I cant win vs Y army, so Y army/unit must be broken" is so unhealthy. Every book has some form of issues with internal balance, so you cant just randomly stuff things into your list and expect it to be the best your battletome has to offer. Maybe your friend is just way better at the game than you? Maybe his list is just a little more finetuned? I find it so funny so many people see themselves as this divine being that always play flawless and perfect and never make a single mistake or got room to improve at all, and base statements in regards to balance or whatever off that.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Maddpainting said:
Thats what i was hitting at in my other comments, If you are playing smash face armies and all you do is smash face with no utility units, and no taught as to how ot win other than kill more stuff, then the stronger smash face army will always win.
Yeah I understand that there are some people that just line all their stuff up and just go head first into a giant brawl in the middle of the table, but you cant really expect to experience a fair and balanced game through that way of playing. It is a tactical boardgame no matter how you look at it.
-
22 hours ago, Brakh said:
From my perspective main problem is. We set-up, shake hands, first turn, half of my/oponents army dead without any chance for any reaction, we can pack up.
To be frank this just sounds like bad play, because it is nothing like the games I experience at my club or with my mates at all, and we do try to finetune lists and multiple people I know just copypaste a list from a recent tournament etc. What kind of armies/lists do you play with and against? Alpha strikes are strong, but thats where you need to learn about threat ranges and deploy accordingly or use screens of cheap units to prevent your good stuff from being killed. There are very few armies that just flat out annihilate you with little you can do in return.
I feel like the described problem is where two inviduals just line up all their stuff and then max move everything forward without any thought or care. Of course stuff will be blown up, since it will just be a matter of whoever has the strongest units in combat.
-
1
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, DrDoom said:
Here's the 1k list I'm going to smash against my friend's Stormcast or Nagash army:
- Mortal Realm: Hysh
- Constellation: Koatl's Claw
LEADERS
Saurus Scar-Veteran on Carnosaur (210)
- War Spear
Skink Starpriest (120)
- General
- Command Trait : Master of Star Rituals
- Artefact : Aetherquartz Brooch
- Spell : Tide of Serpents
Skink Starpriest (120)
- Spell : Hand of Glory
UNITS
10 x Saurus Knights (200)
- Lances
10 x Skinks (60)
- Boltspitters Celestite Daggers & Star Bucklers
BEHEMOTHS
Bastiladon (220)
- Weapon : Solar Engine
ENDLESS SPELLS / TERRAIN / COMMAND POINTS
Bound Geminids of Uhl-Gysh (70)1000pts; 60wnd
+3 to cast after constellation will allow me to cast successfully with the general pretty often I'm thinking. As they fumble avoiding the Geminids or after being debuffed best by them, I find the best time to smash the Scar-Vet and Knights into their line. When the enemy battleline finally gets to mine Tide of Serpents will continue dropping mortal wound bombs.
My other list I'm looking at drops the Carnosaur for Cold One and adds Bound Swords and some stuff at 50wnd. I'm nervous it'll just get blitzed before the double spells can do work. But dispelling both in one turn is tough; and it seems like an avg swords attack with bastiladon fire should own minor heroes.
Does the list seem any good? Is a double bound spell build in 1k armies too greedy and not enough wounds?
Im pretty sure you are forced to take the Koatls specific artefact.
-
15 hours ago, DrDoom said:
I was about to write a bit about how that reads like it would be mandatory to allocate the wound to the protector; but I suppose the Slann has to choose to use that ability? If an ability can trigger in combat must it do so? Could I choose not to trample skeletons with my carnosaur even though there's no conceivable reason for me not to?
I would wager if there is no “you can” in the sentence, then it is an ability that is forced to trigger. Seems odd you cant opt not to use it, although the situations would be rare.
-
On 5/24/2020 at 1:48 AM, TALegion said:
Nerfing them wouldn't stop people from taking them, it would just hurt the whole army because you would still take the same amount but have fewer points left over.
Isnt that the whole point of adjusting unit points though? Bringing stuff in line according to their power, not outright removing said unit from matched play.
If Warchanters went up 30 points, you would still take Warchanters, but your overall army is nerfed since you might have to give up a screen of 5 Ardboyz or whatever to fit everything else within the 2.000 pts. mark.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Verminlord said:
Plague monks come to mind but I wouldn't bet on warscroll changes until the next battletome update comes along unfortunately.
That was a case of rolling dice with Plague Monks being a pain, rather than a balancing act really.
I would predict a minor Warchanter/Ardboyz/Gore Gruntas increase, while Brutes/Weirdnob/Megaboss on foot get a minor decrease.
-
@AaronWilson Well done at the TTS! I feel like the Starstrike battleplan kinda turned against you. Feel like the game would have been much different if the two objectives werent ontop of each other.
I read your tweet about Seraphon producing non-fun games for your opponent. Would really like to hear your reasoning and figured an answer would be easier here without a letter cap.
Is Kroak simply too oppressive? Is it the bound Endless spells? Is it the 50/50 with the Fangs command ability?
When I started theorycrafting especially heavy magic/Skinks lists, this is the exact outcome I was fearing. It is important to me that my opponent is also having fun. On the other hand, almost every army has a degree of “not fun” interactions, so would like to hear how bad it actually is on the table. -
7 hours ago, Vasshpit said:
So I was scrolling through warscrolls yesterday and had a peek at SE Evocators.
Now seeing that they can be equipped in any combination of their weapon options (one being 1" and the other 2") I pondered the potential of this being the case for Brutes as they have similar load out options just as two weapon loadouts.
Would this maybe be a slight fix, boost to their current warscroll and the fact that most consider Ardboyz the better choice or not?
Brutes are better at dealing damage than Ardboyz, so getting the ability to have 2" reach on some of them would only increase this advantage. They still fail at numbers, bravery, charge bonus etc. compared to Ardboyz, which is generally why people opt for Ardboyz. If all you wanted was damage output, you would already pick Brutes tbh.
-
@Calebexnihilo Why not include an Oldblood for an extra +1 to hit? More hits for the Starpriest venom etc.
@swarmofseals Yeah I agree. I think Coalesced players have to consider some movement tricks. Saurus just seem too slow and predictable otherwise.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Infernalslayer said:
As cool as they usually look, i very much dislike miniatures with long spears/pikes, especially when they all hold them facing forward.
It is a nightmare when playing with or against them, trying to rank them up without breaking bits off or damaging the paint.
Yeah imagine trying to "honey comb" them to get what looks like 3 ranks into combat.
In general, models where a part of them got overhang is a pain. So annoying when parts are sticking out of the base area. Slaanesh Exalted Chariot comes to mind - So ****** annoying when trying to play!
-
6 hours ago, Obeisance said:
Hey, what is considered a competitive list for Seraphon?
Just looking for some ideas. There's no events and in thinking about picking them up.
Well as you said there are no events, so it is kinda hard to figure out what a "competitive" list looks like in the new tome. Some people are playing online on tabletop stimulator, where Starborne has been doing well - Largely Skinks, Chameleon Skinks and Salamanders.
If you go into the Seraphon section here, there are 2 threads with lists from Jack and Paul (playtesters).
In general you need to decide between going Skinks, Saurus Warriors/Knights or big dinos. From what I have seen, the "most competitive" list currently is fielding multiple Salamanders/80ish Skinks.
-
4 hours ago, AaronWilson said:
I tend to find that 3d3 per turn is enough, by turn 2 you generally have enough to summon 2x 10 skinks which another tier of screening, which is just fantastic.
If you roll perfectly average, yeah. I like some leeway in case RNG doesnt favor me that specific game.
-
1 hour ago, SoSoCho said:
Would you run kroak or reg. Slann as general ?
You lose out on a command trait if Kroak is the general, zero gains.
The forced trait in Dracothion’s Tail is pretty decent, otherwise Im a fan of Arcane Might which lets you reroll a cast/unbind in case you roll poorly.
With both of them the Slann is kinda of a support piece, so I would grab the Celestial Equilibrium spell that gives every other Seraphon caster +1. With Arcane Might and +2 to cast on him (Astrolith) you should pretty reliably buff Kroak up to be +4 to cast.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I mean each to their own, but Im curious as to why you find it annoying. The "leaks" are really just 1 week in advance. Typically man-who-reads-book would have spoiled everything the moment things went up on pre-order anyways, but this time he wasnt sent a copy (he received 40k stuff though).
When Im following a series or about to watch a movie, I dont want the plot and ending spoiled for me, but rules in a tactical board game is something completely different. With the leaks nothing is spoiled - To me it is all about taking it all the rules, understand them and learn them.