Jump to content

Golub87

Members
  • Posts

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Golub87

  1. Nothing more inspirational than sideways cavalry charges
  2. Well, you can use the same argument for AoS - I have used empty bases as model-stand ins (for testing purposes or because the models were not assembled/painted) and it actually made the game less stressful - spiky bits are a pain for pushing around. Models themselves are not needed in either case. That said it is nice to have a visual representation and the hobby aspect of assembly and painting is fun (for me more than the game itself). One of the problems with AoS is poor game design choice when it comes to scale. The game is designed like a skirmish game, with each individual model being independent or semi-independent, powerups, buffs. Terrain rules are also reminiscent of a small scale skirmish. But in reality the scale is like a full battle wargame when it comes to model counts and table sizes. This is yet another thing that make it such a pain to play.
  3. To be perfectly honest, I do miss square basses and movement trays. WHFB battles felt like... well, battles. I can easily live with not seeing another noodle formation ever again. I would also like to see rules where slain models are removed starting from the ones closest to the attacking unit. Now that would give some bite to flanking attacks. It would also be very deadly for thin formations if you can hit them with something powerful with small footprint (like a monster) and split them in half. If only something is done about shooting (-1 if shooting at any units within 3" of your own units, -1 if LoS is drawn trough your own unit, engaged shooters can't shoot, any of the above) and the game might be worth playing.
  4. First of all, we do have definitive numbers that prove that books have great impact on mid-lvl players and their games. Your 90% number on the other hand, is a complete and utter fabrication with absolutely no data to back it up. You just added it there to sound more convincing. Please stop doing that. It is deceptive and manipulative. Now the second thing is: Why? Why don't you understand that some people can't enjoy the game if it is impacted so much by the army matchup and so little by their actions on the table? As Honest Wargamer has started exploring, it seems that the numbers get even more skewed when you take specific army vs army interactions. It seems that there is a significant subset of people who enjoy the fact that their armies can effortlessly crush others and then get downright terrified whenever talk of balance is brought up. I mean, of course they are, how will they get such skewed win ratios if the game is even remotely balanced? I am super sorry, but I want a game that will provide randomized and fun outcomes on a Sunday afternoon, not a game that will indulge someone's power fantasies at the expense of someone else. I get it that it is super fun for the hypothetical tryhard personality profile who lucked into getting an army that dominates its local casual meta, but it is not fun for anyone else.
  5. Yes. That said, it is hard to evaluate special rules on a single objective scale. Especially if they are as complex as say LRL.
  6. This is manipulative phrasing. Notice how in my example, both A and B are tone neutral and mirror each other. In your example, A is presented as unreasonable and overreacting (all caps) while B seems calm and collected. You want us to agree with B. That is the position you identify with. Your second paragraph completely misinterprets this entire discussion. If a group of people feel that this is such a huge problem that the game is not worth playing and another group of people feels like it is no big deal but would be happy to see it improved, then why are we consistently accosted with people who vehemently defend the current state of the game? If the second group is happy with the game and happy to see it further improved by a good team that did a fine job so far, why the need to chime in this discussion at all, when nothing will change for them, and a lot will change for this other group? Yes, we're arguing about how much of a problem it actually is. Some people have experienced this problem to the point where the game isn't even worth playing for them, and others claim they would be happy to see it improved but still enjoy playing, but in reality they just take up public space with nothing to show for it. Bottom line is - if you do not experience the problem, you do not get to determine how big of a problem it is, how much it impacts other people and if it should be fixed or not. We have the numbers that show quite conclusively that the problem exists for a significant chunk of the player base - the fat middle that is allegedly the target audience according to the game creators themselves. This is not marketed as competitive spectator sport. Also - there is a correct position. *Always* As long as everyone shares a goal there is a correct position that allows for the best way to reach the goal. If there is no agreement then it is either due to some sort of fallacy and bias or differing goals altogether.
  7. Another important thing that needs to be looked into is how specific armies perform vs other specific armies. My hunch is that we would see some spectacular discrepancies there.
  8. That is a sacrifice we would all be ready to accept.
  9. Honestly, I feel that the main issue here is that GW feels like every army has to be super unique when it comes to rules. There are so so many games where very slight differences produce dramatically different play-styles for factions. GW just goes overboard. If you want the army to be good at X, you do not have to give insane bonuses to X while disabling Y and Z and yet that is what GW often does. Armies that do well are either armies that are somehow balanced and get those insane bonuses to X while remaining capable in Y and Z or armies whose X is currently favored in the meta. Everything points to GW not begin confident at all in their design process. The secrecy surrounding it, the hilarious insistence on open play being the default and best game mode and the tendency to overcompensate when it comes faction rules diversity. Secrecy, deflection and overcompensation tell a story when taken together. I play other games, many of them historic, others fictional. Those games prove that all factions can have access to same tools and that slight variation in degrees of access and effectiveness of those tools can cause for the factions to play very differently while at the same time avoiding the rock-paper-scissors style of AoS. AoS also needs to slow down and let the players and the match itself breathe. At the moment it is too explosive and it feels more like combo execution game than a tactical wargame. Better game allows for extensive maneuvering and positioning and advantage is something that accumulates over time. AoS needs to incorporate terrain better in the game. Currently it is a gimmick. You can play a game of AoS without a single piece of terrain on the board and it will still feel and largely function as an AoS game. This is a failing for a tactical game. Terrain in AoS functions as an obstacle course rather than the integral part of the battle. Better game integrates terrain in such a way that it is impossible to imagine playing without it. AoS needs to differentiate better between roles of various unit types, to make sure that you need every role in every battle (and not just if you roll for that specific scenario where you need heroes and monsters, because that is rock-paper-scissors design) and make sure that every army can bring every role to the table. Better game requires all kinds of units to support each other for the list to be effective. This is brilliant and I missed it. Thank you for the video. Yeah, it sums up very nicely how the different tomes feel. Two guys, one slacking, other overdoing it, no oversight, calibration or cross-referencing. I get what you are trying to say here, but I think this is quite the dangerous way to look at things. "Bothsiding" and perspective talk is encouraged and praised in our society precisely because it is a very polite and civil method of stalling. A way to overpower and even kill the discussion without leaving any room to be called out for it. Aassuming 100% honest actors, if A says "I feel no problem, therefore the problem does not exist" and person B says "I feel the problem, therefore it does exist.", person B is correct 100% of the time and person A is absolutely wrong. A is basically gaslighting here. As I stated, I played Slaanesh during THOSE days and I shelved the army, so yeah, people do know even if they have different perspective. I am happy that the new book is toned down in power despite the bland and uninteresting design. Another methods used to derail the talk about the issue is concern trolling - we might ruin something if the changes are made. This makes no sense because if you put such trust in the people who made these, according to you great rules, why are you so concerned about them ruining it? Maybe because you are aware that it really not as good as you claim for it to be, just that it currently favors you, otherwise you would trust the design process. Another is the Just world hypothesis - the need to believe that the world is just, therefore if bad things happen to someone it is their own fault (i.e. "git gud" argument). SUPER IMPORTANT - all this written is a reaction to your statement only because I am 100% certain that you are acting in good faith. It is not an attack, just an overview of how easily we internalize the methods of bad faith actors. This is a conversation about a problem. We have both the lived experiences of people affected and the robust data that pinpoints exactly where the problem is located. The problem is real and there is no two ways about it. Do not provide an alibi and an atmosphere of acceptance to those who would deny it in bad faith. The science is real Going back to stalling methods - the purpose of the conversation about a specific issue is to reach a conclusion, a consensus. Information and perspective exchanges are presented and widely accepted as the goal, but they are merely the tools, not the ultimate objective of the conversation. Conversation where everyone states their opinion, agrees to disagree and then backs out is a waste of time that did not achieve anything.
  10. And that is one of the key issues with how GW designs armies. They basically make the whole book into a rock or paper or scissors. They also happen to be very careless with how the meta shifts, so if your army is all rocks, and meta favors paper ATM... well you are out of luck. It is like they have no rules design direction so they tend to overcompensate. "This is a melee army? OK it is 100% melee and nothing else! Shooting army? OK, all shooting then" This tends to get exacerbated with factions that they clearly have no interest in, like Chaos armies, that tend to be underdesigned (which occasionally slips trough some OP nonsense like Keeper spam and Changehost). Some pet factions get the opposite treatment and get overdesigned (LRL). I'd really like to be a fly on the wall for any meeting of the designer team, presuming that they have those. I am really interested if the process is more than just "Hey Jeff! You do the DoK tome, it is due next Tuesday".
  11. I am of the opinion that it should be sent right away. If we wait, we might as well discard the results and start anew since the situation changed.
  12. And that is being downplayed very aggressively in this very thread.
  13. Please stop with the condescension. So you advocate for imbalance in order to make up the difference in player skill? Pay to win if you will? The core of the issue here is the fact that the game is very explosive and is decided by T3 most of the time. Shorter game means less decisions to make and less decisions to make means greater impact of every single decision. Slow down the game and you give room to players to breathe. No, it just means that people who design the rules need to put a modicum of effort in it. You can make risks, but that means that you actually need to think about the rules you are writing, work on that as a team so that there is a level of baseline expectations and have FAQ chambered and ready to go as soon as you put out a risky rule. It would also help if GW abandoned cultish secrecy when it comes to rules design. I am a mediocre player that does not want to put in the effort and time and still have fun with the game with the people of similar engagement levels, which is something that I stated several times despite how @Phasteon misrepresents me. So, if everyone is scratching their heads why is unit A worth X points and unit B worth Y points it would be nice if a team that wrote that stuff came out and said: "We wanted to do this with it and for it to have that role in the army. This is how it fits with the rest of the book, these are the synergies etc." Funny that you say that... I play(ed) Slaanesh. And yes people from my circle did ask me "Why do you complain when you are winning so much?". Because winning is not the point. The point is in fun and not in one-sided games. That is not a good feeling. I do not mind losing one bit. I prefer it to this. New book is step down in power and a step up in diversity of tools so power wise it is great. Designwise... well, it is very lazy and uninspired but that is a tale for another time. Great... sounds like you are one of those players that are of such great skill that you are not impacted by faction choice. I am glad for you. But please... drop the condescending act of being concerned about the community. You have data that clearly shows that players below your apparent level are hurting, you have people directly telling you that and all that you offer is bootstrap pulling and personal responsibility. That does not sound like you are concerned for the people. Well thanks but no thanks... I'd rather have some balance. You have the data and you have personal input from us. What motivates you to keep telling us that we are good where we are? The game will not change for you whatever happens. You are too good. So, what gives?
  14. Yeah... no. Faction choice should never be roughly equivalent to skill at middle level. It should not even be significant. Funny how you pivoted from "faction choice is not that important" to "It is important but that is how it should be". So invested in something that does not seem to concern you.
  15. Well, you are completely missing the point, hence your opinion is wrong. I do not care about tournaments and have consciously avoided them. I also win about the same that I lose in my casual games. The problem is, when I win, I win because my army is scissors and theirs is paper. And when I lose I lose because their army is rock and mine is scissors. There is no point in actually playing. The numbers mostly do workout the same, barring the exceptional throw of the dice. And I do not need the whole AoS shell and hassle for exciting dice throws. I am playing my first game in months this weekend because a buddy got a new army so I genuinely have no idea what is about to happen. Straw-man, no one is asking for the mythic perfect balance. I'll bite regardless - graph needs to look the same for the mid tier players as for the top tier players. Even at the cost of getting skewed for the top tiers. GW should figure out if they are making a casual game for the lads and middle aged dads or a competitive spectator sport. Graph is not good for the plurality of players. As for the niches and tools they need to exist within the armies. So if I am a low skilled player getting an army that I like to paint and look at, I have the easy option and high skill option. As it stands certain armies are traps and if you are not meta chasing you are out of luck as a mediocre player.
  16. To be honest, tournaments and placings are really not that important. Even the data shows that good players perform well with any faction, but favor factions that will give them an edge. Meta-chasers if you will (and I do not mean that in any derogatory way - they take this seriously and pick the best tools for the job). Kitchen table games are where the real problems lie.
  17. I don't think that is important. What is important is: Don't get sidetracked by endless nitpicky discussions 😜
  18. What I find super interesting is how whenever there is a discussion about systemic issue, the loudest people tend to be those that insist that "there is no problem"/"problem is not as bad as it is claimed"/"it is all your fault anyway" as if their lives depend on it. Which is kind of odd, given that, in this particular example, there are two possible outcomes: 1. Balance gets fixed 2. Balance does not get fixed. Why are the people who claim that balance has little impact so invested into shouting down anyone who asks for 1.? Will something change for you if 2. happened, @whispersofblood? If you do not think that balance is important, why participate in this conversation at all?
  19. Right? I found that the best way to play AoS is, if a buddy hits me up for a game, I ask them what is their list and then I just tell them if I won or lost. Even setting up TTS feels like too much effort for this game.
  20. Thank you for calling out that condescending wall of text. Yes, the data demonstrated that the game is quite broken for the fat middle of average players who do not care about "giitin gud" because we have better things to do with our time. Playing this game should not feel like a chore but it really really feels like a chore. The data clearly demonstrated that if two average player at similar skill levels play each other the outcome of the game will be significantly impacted by the broken balance. The data clearly demonstrated that this is not a "kitchen table, beer and pretzels, Sunday afternoon" game. WHW had an amazing show where they clearly showed the problem with looking at the top players only and where they even said that the problem seems to be with GW not listening to the plurality of players that are having a bad experience. And no, I do not want to "git gud", I want to have fun with the models that costed me a significant chunk of change. And I want to have fun with them at my current level of engagement and effort. And that means that playing with people of similar levels of engagement and effort I get different interesting outcomes depending on our choices during the game and not just the same predetermined rock-paper-siccors game where everyone knows what they are bringing to table with occasional ademantium drill thrown into the mix if someone gets lucky with the army they like. And we also happen to be the plurality of the game that is not working for us. If the plurality of players are experiencing the problem, it means that you need to change the game and not the players.
  21. 6" pile in and locus are good... vs melee armies. AoS is not a melee game. Wasn't for some time now. So yeah, tome is very good for some other meta, and it melts in current meta. As for the summoning... Would you be so kind to explain HOW you get to those numbers. I am quite sure that everyone here would love to hear it and use it. Also, while you are at it, please tell me how to use Slaangors, Painbringers, Twinsouls... I really love the models but they seem to not really do anything. You say they are not overcosted. Ok, I believe you. How would you use them with their point costs? Thanks in advance for all the valuable tips and tricks.
  22. Dude went as far as to compare Vince to Ben Shapiro. I was really looking forward to the show and was delighted to see it is that long. But in the end we got an adequate, but not spectacular show with Mephiwhatever derailing it and being rude every few minutes.
  23. Exactly how I feel about our new tome. I have discovered that AoS can be fun.
  24. Wow, all of this is actually super useful! Thank you. How would you rate Seekers vs shooting? for 150 pts, you get 5 of them. That is 10W with 5+ save and mediocre attacks (11x 3+/4+/-1/1 and 10x 3+/4+/-/1) but they have speed. 14" move, 2d6 run (that can easily get a RR in T1) and can run and charge with charge RR. Sounds exactly like what you advocate in your point 1. Points about terrain and Gluttos are also great.
×
×
  • Create New...