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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

257 Celestant-Prime

About Marcvs

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. if it's for fun, why not? just remember that you still need to have an enemy unit within 12" to be able to declare a charge
  2. thinking of @Nizrah list, I am kind of curious of trying this The idea being to have all your hammers in the sky (ballistas and evos) and to be able to clear the screens with the ballistas/gunhauler to let the evocats get to the juicy targets. The only thing is that I would really like to have a battalion for the +9 to charge
  3. Don't forget also the interaction with battleplans: Mawcrusha also gets you a monster (for focal points) and a fighty/tough leader (for places of arcane power and, to a lesser extent, scorched earth)
  4. From my experience with the skyborne slayers list, this seems a bit extreme, unless you only count going 4-1 or 5-0 as "success". For that, I still have to see any SCE list other than the 1-drop vanguard. Sure, some armies will just obliterate 120 wounds very quickly, but with some smart placing (tagging the corner of units) even just blocking them in their deployment, a situation like: your turn 1 -> their turn 1 -> their turn 2 (your 120 wounds are dead) -> your turn 2 -> your turn 3 can lead to victory (after going through those 120 wounds there's still 60-80 more holding objectives). More importantly, and this is the reason why I wanted to try this style, armies based on shooting and magic will only have their own turns to do damage so, for instance, I had a lot of success against lumineth: those 30 mortal wounds per turn would have been a disaster for an elite build (and they outrange even raptors), but with this build it was no big deal, and they have no teleport or flying. Another appeal was to be hero-agnostic: I am tired to imagine strategies which only work in the unlikely event of keeping those 5/6 wounds heroes alive for more than 1 turn. The biggest problem are unwinnable battleplans (like the ones that pjetski mentioned). On that I have no answer other than thinking: hey, this is better than losing 2 Stardrakes in one turn 100% from mortal wounds.
  5. Not sure about this in a Stormkeep, considering that the big maces for sequitors have only 1" range too (the small maces are now identical). If you compare 9 sequitors big maces with 6 libs big maces + 3 small the difference is like 10 vs 9 wounds to a 4+ save. In the meantime you have lost a +1 to save (and bravery), 10 bodies and 20 wounds
  6. yep someone played a similar list (patrol + 9 raptors) in one of the TTS events and went... 2-1 still, I don't see the interest of going stormkeep with this list
  7. I expect it to do... ok-ish? like 2-3 / 3-2 ? honestly, I think the list and strategy are not good but I keep being told that SCE should chin up and bear it cause they got such a great boost with Broken Realms, so I want to give it my honest try in an actual tournament (so far I just tested in random gameswith mixed results). I am only playing 3-games tournaments on TTS these days and I went 2-1 twice with a Skyborne Slayers list based on the same gimmick (just it was one drop with 30 libs and 20 protectors and a single lord celestant) so I want to compare the two experiences. Agree with all your points on the battleplans. As for going for an hybrid list, yes, I think that's interesting but I have the feeling that unless you really want to go deep into liberators (or CoS units), the tradeoff for a stormkeep army is just bad -I'd rather keep the deepstrike. Plus, if you're not able to take first turn, you can't really use the patrol redeployment "aggressively" cause your liberators will not have the save buff (so why bother?)
  8. Ok, waiting for the Broken realms FAQ and winter points, this is my take on the stormkeep liberators spam. I wonder whether going 3 drops is worth it, or if I should go down to 2 and take Astral Templars (or no stormhost and cunning strategist on a veritant general), because of course outdropping the opponent is close to necessary in this army
  9. I see your point. I would note that AoS works at an incredibly high level of abstraction so the simulation angle is not really its forte -raining down arrows on enemies locked in melee with your pals? sure, no risk; true line of sight drawn from a foot to the point of a spear? of course you can see the ******! gitz are always fighting close to a fragment of the bad moon, literally can't find them anywhere else, and so on I like the game for its (relative) simplicity and I am afraid that in order to reach a more "realistic" feeling, more rules would be needed if one does not want "fake pre-arranged scenarios". For instance, you mentioned in the other topic the divesity created in 40k by the anti-infantry anti-tank roles. This is an example of added "realism" (to an extent, ofc) but it evidently requires additional rules and complexity.
  10. True, fair point. Your gaming group makes or brakes your experience of AoS (and all similar games), on this I 100% agree.
  11. I don't think social contract in gaming is idealism. In fact, all gaming is a social contract: if we agree to play a football (or soccer, depending on where you are) match among friends, I would be surprised if you bring your cousin, the professional Premier League player. I must also say that an explicit social contract is my experience in 100% of the games I play at my club ("are we playing fun, soft, or hard lists?", "I am looking for a game, 2k points, tournament prep") and I don't think I am alone in this considering how many others have pointed this out to you in this discussion. I do agree very much with you second problem: there are huge imbalances between armies (which has nothing to do with spam or not, power creep or not, so please note we are moving away from the previous topic) and this can be a huge problem precisely at casual level because it makes the social contract so hard: a "soft" list for your friend playing tzeentch, who, in perfect good faith, happens to like horrors and flamers, will destroy a "soft" list in CoS if you happen to like corsairs. Addressing this should be a major focus for GW, as it has the potential to alienate many "casual" games with bad experiences, but of course the changing of relative power levels does (I suppose) drive sales so 🤷‍♂️
  12. We're discussing across different topics so it all gets a bit blurry "to simulate battles we read in the fluff" is more or less the definition of a narrative approach. Which is both part of the game and completely different from non-narrative tournaments, where winning is the objective for many players (far from all, since the social and hobby aspect often are the main drivers). If you are hobby oriented or just don't play in tournaments, you will most likely never play against those lists anyway so no need to feel pressured to play "the broken stuff out there".
  13. You say that "winning tournaments" is not the problem, but then base you assessment on "lists popping up on the webstites tracking tournaments". If winning tournaments is not the problem, what's stopping you from playing whatever list you want? Of course, but this has been said in every topic, you should have a clear communication with your opponent to be on the same page (i.e. we're not playing competitive lists, we're playing funny lists, fluffly lists etc)
  14. Here you are changing the definition of the problem. If the problem is "all the same unit", defensive and offensive eels by definition do not fit into it, just as a list with both pistoliers and outriders, or a list of horrors and flamers (exceedingly rare to see only horrors) The fact that some units emerge as the best in their role is intrinsic in list/deck building games. You can try as much as you want to balance them but if two units end up (to simplify) costing 100 pts, the one with a 101% return will always be taken over the one with 100% return in the high competitive end of the game. To counter this you can try to have ALL units perfectly balanced, which of course risks eliminating rules diversity and is likely doomed to fail because there are a lot of moving parts in AoS with allegiances/sub-allegiances/buffs/battleplans. Or, you can try and force players to include more roles in the army, which is arguably done better by 40k at this time (both because of army building restrictions and secondary objectives). This IMHO would require greatly expanding (or merging) quite a lot of armies so it's not a viable short term solution.
  15. Phoenix guard spam, irondrakes + bridge, tempest eye with kharadron units, and these are just the lists I have actualy witnessed in tournaments I have myself played on TTS or in real life -and real world tournaments are almost nonexistent at the moment. There aren't many books with a larger number of viable "decently competitive" lists -apart from the very top ones of course. I don't know much about those lists using "sigmarine" support heroes, though of course the occasional knight azyros or knight incantor pops out here and there. Your definition of spamming is "all non-leader non-monsters" are the same unit. Let's use this although of course you are easily excluding half the units in a list with this definition. So what are the competitive lists that are doing well using this format? Even IDK do not fit the description right now as both defensive and offensive eels are used, while sharks and turtles are having a resurgence thanks to broken realms. The only strong list commonly seen fitting that description is Fyreslayers with HB, then we could add *some* OBR lists with only mortek guards (but that's because your definition excludes the heavy presence of crawlers) and some seraphon lists only have skinks. So we are doing... fine-ish?
  • Create New...