Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by NinthMusketeer

  1. Better yet, give us a more powerful vampire on foot AND keep the current one. We used to be able to take hero-level and lord-level vampires (and a lot of others besides) and I miss that. More importantly though is a vampire on steed. Make it a conversion option from the blood knight kit if need be. But it's dumb that we have entire units of mounted vampires yet the lords suddenly forget how to ride horses.
  2. I believe we will see more and more kits meant to be dual-purpose and be used in TOW. Zombies, skeletons, zombie dogs, blood knights? Those are needed for TOW Vampire Counts. While many AoS armies are unique to AoS, I'll be keeping a close eye on what releases for crossover factions look like.
  3. I would like to suggest that the "No Flaming" rule be amended so it specifies that insults delivered in a passive-aggressive or non-specific manner do not violate the rules. It leads to confusion when the rule says all insulting posts are to be avoided when it is actually just where another user is explicitly pointed out. Moderation has repeatedly shown that flaming someone under the cover of something like 'oh people who have X opinion tend to be terrible' or 'I'm sure no one with any intelligence would hold that opinion'. That kind of flaming is tolerated and the site rules should reflect such.
  4. Eh, I find older lore to be dry. They had a fantasy setting with tones of narrative tools they barely touched. My perception of the lore quality is that is has been getting better (on the Fantasy side) bar the section of AoS first edition where stuff was just getting pulled from the backside. But even during that the writing for a characters and factions was surprisingly good, far better than so much of old fantasy where stories were 'look how awesome this character/army is getting crushing victories left and right until some event happens and it all falls apart instantly'. Battletomes add a lot of cultural depth and context to how the faction acts off the battlefield, stuff that was few and far between in tomes. GW has also made excellent use of a slow-advancing narrative to shift tones between editions. By the time of 8th WHFB lore was basically just trying to find a new way to rehash stuff that had never changed. And of course the whole 'dark gritty' nature of the setting was always an urban legend. All it ever amounted to was 'the good guys are doomed to fail, the bad guys are predestined to win, and nothing can be done about it'. Which to me reads among the most boring, cliche themes a setting can have. What makes AoS fluff seem worse than WHFB is people only referencing the best elements. That stuff sticks in the memory while mediocre or disappointing lore is forgotten. Once the whole body of lore from each game is compared WHFB fluff is revealed for the immense tangle of dead-ends, inconsistencies, and simply bad writing that it is. But there were also a lot of good parts and those are what the community remembers, not all the bad that came with it.
  5. Looking at the new meta watch article, I'm happy to see how the last round of nerfs had a positive impact, and I'm also happy to see that GW isn't simply denying that there are issues.
  6. Eliminate it? No, I think pushing it to round 3 is a better alternative for gameplay. But if it is going to result in a bunch of people perfectly happy to sling insults for expressing how their training wheels harm my community then it would be better in the end for it to be gone--along with them. That reality with no double turn? I've lived it. It doesn't look like what the critics are describing. Once the prospect of a come-back double is gone people look for alternate solutions. And find them, in abundance. If you want to see alpha strike lists get utterly wrecked, have a community play without random initiative for a month.
  7. Oh the game without the double 100% works--I have hundreds of games done like that. I know from a wealth of experience the gameplay doesn't break down. That is just hard reality--I have tried it, it works, period. The claim that alpha-strike dominates is objectively false, but that was never really a point in contention because there was never any evidence raised. Only shooting lists billed as alpha strike, which the double empowers as much as solves. But I should have known better than to engage the toxic people, I should have known they don't, won't, understand. What this has done is convince me more than ever that people who support the double do so from a lack of skill in the other ways to win--skills they never needed to develop when the double exists as a crutch. But they are there, alpha strike lists can be easily, crushingly countered with no double involved. The only way to reach a rational conclusion that alpha-strike lists need a double to counter is to be unaware of how to counter them otherwise. When the viewpoint is so based on ignorance it was my mistake to engage it at all. I should have known better.
  8. Ah, this is on me for not communicating clearly. The 40% is not an exact statistic but rather an approximate chance of a 1-2 double occurring (the exact stat being 41.66%). Obviously that chance is not a guarantee that the game is ruined, but then doubles on later turns are also capable of ruining games. But naming a statistic was the wrong choice on my part since it indeed implies a specific occurance when really what I meant was to highlight that while the issue does not hamper the majority of games it is not a small fraction either. That is on me for not communicating properly, my apologies.
  9. I like how the new battletomes introduce counter-play elements. Tools that can be really punishing against skew or gimmick lists like Mirrorshield or the Kruleboyz spell that denies ward saves (totally want to see it used against Gotrek one day).
  10. I realize why my opinion is so different. It's the looks on players faces. I'm at the events, I'm checking in on games in my community. I see the looks on people's faces when double turns happen. You guys support a 'solution' that stasticially unbalanced as many games as it balances, and you don't have to witness players' passion for the game die. Over and over again.
  11. Perhaps you can advise me on how to counteract when that Tzeentch lists goes second and gets a double. What do I do to win that game?
  12. Even a Scinari Cathallar has a veil thicker than the one you put on those insults, Phasteon.
  13. No, because the first turn advantage is not that immense. An extra CP every round is nothing to sneeze at, especially if the general dies. And most scenarios the player going second gets to pull an objective round three, a tremendous advantage. Redeploy, unleash hell, all out defense, and finest hour give more tools to combat alpha strike than the game has ever had. And again, where are these alpha strike builds that are so strong? Why is such a powerful tactic not being widely used? Why is ruining 40% of EVERYONE'S games considered an appropriate price to pay to -theoretically- combat a strategy with sparse evidence it even works? Why do I have to watch players in my community tell me they are quitting because of the double, so that you can have a completely luck based chance of beating a strategy that has a dozen and one other tools to counter? The solution you are defending is analogous combatting the current monster-hero meta by implementing a rule where players roll off at the start of every combat phase and the winner gets to fight with all their non-monster units twice. And I has strengths, but 'stops an alpha strike meta' is most definitely not one of them.
  14. The other player putting important targets in reserve or outside of 36". If the sentinels players wants to choose first they are using low deployment drops, giving the opponent the opportunity to see where they are. Sentinels raw damage output is quite low--their strength is in being able to pick off key pieces. The bodies to hold objectives can be placed in their range to move forward and take them; even after weathering a round of fire all but the most elite factions will have no trouble outnumbering a Lumineth list with 50 sentinels. After that it is down to tools available to the army in question, and oh boy are there a lot of them. Some armies are perfectly happy to move and charge from 30+ inches away, others have anvils that can tank that level of shooting, quite a few have reserves that can teleport in and shoot or have bonuses to charge. A better question is, what do you do when that 50 sentinels player makes you go first then gets two turns to shoot you before you go again?
  15. With all due respect, this simply is not true. I am immersed in AoS play from small scale narrative up to being part of the staff at some of the biggest tournaments in the US and the look of resigned disappointment on players faces as an otherwise close game is aborted from an early double is universal at all levels. It isn't limited to the losing party either. Non-WAAC tourney players in particular WANT to be challenged, they spend a good chunk of time and money to go to an event for some engaging high-level play only for a match to become entirely one-sided. For every game where the underdog gets a comeback from a timely double I see one where an underdog that had a slim but fighting chance get obliterated, and I see three where what would have been a contested game becomes one-sided. I see players who are invested, who have fully assembled and beautifully painted armies, who have set aside their weekend for an event, sitting at the table like it's a morning commute. Something they do to get to the next game which might be better. And quite often it IS better. The majority of games don't have a 1-2 double and the round 3 objective removal makes taking a 2-3 double a meaningful choice in relevant scenarios. AoS is a great game at its core, GHBs have consistently delivered excellent scenarios overall, and the eccentric style of GW rules design lends itself to all sorts of crazy antics and cinematic moments. More often than not early-double matches just end up as a chore players push through so they can play the real game next time.
  16. When the game is over round 2 or 3 because of a double, people don't make battle reports about it. Battle reports are not a random sample; they are specifically tailored such that it isn't a one-sided slaughter (and justifiably so). They are the best-case scenario.
  17. The double turn benefits the lists you are talking about more than it does the opposition. Saying random initiative is needed to combat them is literally arguing that to counter these lists the game needs a tool which makes them stronger. Maybe it's all a meta-comment within the context of the thread...?
  18. It's strange because there are more tools than ever to counter alpha strike, and the nature of current matched scenarios with their battle tactics & grand strategies further disfavor alpha strikes as compared to a long-term approach. I don't think I have seen a single alpha-strike list meet anything near abnormal levels of success since third started. They certainly aren't dominating top tournament brackets. Unless it focuses on shooting and/or magic, that is. Also the lists most favored by double turns existing, and I'm pretty sure there's a correlation there. End of the day, if I design a list with less drops then my opponent I get to roll in knowing I'm one roll off away from having victory given to me--I don't really see it as 'winning the game' because there wasn't even a game to begin with. Better yet, if my opponent doubles me back on round 2-3 I get to remove an objective to further solidify my lead. And again, this isn't something that requires a high skill threshold to pull off.
  19. I have played in tournaments, won tournaments, and now run them regularly. I can remember every game in which I got a 1-2 double then lost, because all four times I made a critical mistake. My dislike of the double comes not from losing to it, my dislike comes from having a ~40% chance to auto-win because I had less deployment drops than my opponent. If there was skill involved it would be one thing, but all I had to do was not mess up. I'm not the greatest player out there and it's absurd how easy a 1-2 double makes it to win against opponents who are legitimately better than me.
  20. Extra unpopular opinion: you have it backwards. It isn't that unskilled players can't beat a double, it is that skilled players don't lose with one. If one loses after a double, then broudly speaking the game was already decided, some crazy luck happened, or they screwed up. The opponent only has a chance to come back from a double if the door was left open for them. I can say from ample experience that taking a round 1-2 double and doing it right, it doesn't matter if the opponent is a newbie or tourney veteran they will not have the tools to win. What's said here in this quote, that's what unskilled players tell themselves after losing with a double. They say 'oh my opponent outplayed me because skilled players can overcome' instead of admitting they were the ones who screwed up to create that opening in the first place.
  21. Move over Slaanesh, your depravity is merely second fiddle.
  22. The double turn is an abomination of rule design that ruins games and keeps out potential players.
  23. Gordrakk? Khorgos? Olynder? Katakros? Radukar?
  • Create New...