Golub87
-
Posts
186 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Golub87
-
-
11 minutes ago, Gauche said:
I'd echo to the people that are having negative reactions, without trying to invalidate that, to play some games.
I can't - don't own battlelines. Can't make a legal list.
Actually, I am a liar, I have 30 Daemonnettes - 3x10 for 420 for 3 legal battlelines. Like that is going to do me any good.-
1
-
-
Just now, SentinelGuy said:
Anyone else old enough to remember the Dark Elves 6th edition nightmare when Druchii.net basically pestered GW until they fixed the army book? Boy do I feel old listening to these young 'uns. You just have to accept that the GW giveth and the GW taketh away again. Time is a flat circle.
I do not feel that is a good attitude to have when are people paying a company for a service.
It is quite weird to me that there is such a nonchalant dismissal "yeah, they were even worse to X". How is that sane?
Hell I play Flames of War to what, close to 15 years now? Battlefront had its issues, but never have they disrespected the players in such a casual manner.-
2
-
-
So, here is a constructive idea:
Slaanesh points should go back to what they were prior to GHB21 and battleline role should be returned to S2D units in god armies. Also, Slaangors need a rewrite because no amount of point drop is going to make them usable. At the very least they should have the right keywords for BoC tome.
Speaking of BoC, they need a new tome. Sylvaneth too. They needed one years ago, but we will settle for a release date now with understanding that it may move a bit but that it is in the works.
It would also be super nice if GW dev team could interact with community more, along the lines of providing explanation for why the unit is costed the way it is. I am not the greatest player in the world and it would mean a lot to me if the Man himself explained to me the hidden depths and tactics with the units they made. Mathematically, not with adjectives in the style of community articles.
A nice explanation of the game development process, how many teams there are, how many people in each team (no need for personal information), how are they structured and managed, how do they calibrate among each other, how is play-testing done... would go a long way towards recovering the crumbling trust that players have in their ability to produce good rules.Sadly, we cannot go around the topic of certain missteps of late that we are all aware of and that do not need repeating. A nice explanation of how each of those issues happened along with lessons learned and steps taken to avoid those in the future would also go a long way to solidify trust.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Vaporlocke said:
As a BoC player let me be the first to welcome you... Everything floats down here.
All the love man, all the love...
You guys should get a medal or ten.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Aturox said:
Tbh its more fitting for the aos 3 rules discussion instead of complaining about point updates in the rumor thread? There is literally no connection to this thread.
You can be upset and have every right to be but why should everybody else be upset aswell?
I replied to a condescending post that said that Slaanesh players should know their place. Why not single out that post?
-
Just now, Greybeard86 said:
I have done that too, just check my post history. I just feel we'd be better off if both sides stayed apart a bit, on these topics.
I am not forcing anyone to respond to me or to reply in topics about recent changes complaining about people complaining.
-
48 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:
And who says you have to respond to them?
It is not the other players you are looking to convince.
For example, when Drukhari completely took over the competitive scene in 9e, people still defended them. But it was so brutally obvious that they were busted that GW implemented a FAQ.
So, discuss balance, not posters.
Personally, I feel that those points are the result of some general rule of thumb they are using to move all points up. Then they will selectively discount what they feel like pushing. We saw exactly this in 40k.
Why is it always the responsibility of people that have an issue to ignore people that are shutting them up and not the responsibility of people who do not have an issue to mind their own business?
Why aren't you telling people stiffing conversation about the problems that they should ignore people that have problems and conversations about those problems? -
1 minute ago, Gailon said:
Frankly, it's perceptions in the community like this that make me understand GW's aloof lack of responsiveness to the community. Because there are so many people and so many competing interests, and so many people that are going to engage in pure hyperbole that it's not worth it. If you feel like there is no pleasing people, then just make your product and close your ears.
Hydrogen bomb? That's the equivalent? You typed that out and feel like that's the best analogy to this situation? Let's see if we can think of some better analogies:
It's like being a Sylvaneth player and being bottom tier for ages and then not getting points fixes. Maybe it's like being a Beast of Chaos player and then having a game released in the realm of beasts and it not being clear that any of it will do anything for your faction. Maybe it's like being a Seraphon player and having one of the oldest AoS 2.0 model ranges in the entire game, then getting a new book that doesn't update a single model.
I don't like the "but GW has always treated people like trash" argument. But I don't think that's what's happening. This is more just that in a game this complicated and large there are always basement tier armies and units. That's a given. Isn't that a given in any competitive game with a shifting meta? There are heroes that are unusable in LoL or in DotA,
It is definitely tough in Warhammer, where models are expensive and time consuming. You can't just switch armies. But the complaints are all about competitive power level. This is where I just don't see eye to eye with the severity of the complaints. (having a weak army is a bummer for sure, but HoS players here are acting, well, like this is a hydrogen bomb). If you have a weak army, then try to play against weak armies. There are a lot of them, there always are. Someone has a collection of spider riders they barely get to play with.
Frankly, that's the same situation for powerful armies. Maybe some people like smashing their opponents to bits, but people with very strong armies also need to seek out specific opponents with strong armies to have a good game.
If the concern is with high level competitive play, that you want to take an army to a tournament and win, then it is difficult for me to believe that that type of player (where that is their primary enjoyment from the game) is stuck with only a HoS army as their option.
I think GW thought HoS would be better in 3.0 than it looks like it will be. There are arguments for this (summoning is more powerful now, depravity points could be more numerous). In my opinion, they were wrong. Just like how Wizards is frequently wrong about the strength of magic cards, or any other company that makes any other complex game with a shifting power balance.
So the uppity Slaanesh players should accept that they need to sit at the back of the bus with Sylvaneth and BoC and Spider Riders and just accept their lot in life?
-
14 minutes ago, SentinelGuy said:
This could be due to Brexit rather than GW.
I have to agree here. Transportation has been a nightmare in the past 18 months and UK is especially hard hit nowadays.
-
1 minute ago, Ragest said:
My alarith, illiatha, hurakan and mixed variants are all destroyed, but if i make a Teclis syar list seems almost the same for me.
What a damm joke
Feeling the same here - if I just played Archaon like a normal chaos player, I would have been fine. I have a feeling that the battlefields of 3.0 will just be the same handful of named individuals headbutting each other. What a way to shrink your world.
Edit: I suppose that was true of AoS 2 for the most part.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:
I get what you are saying, but they will have lost more money 💯 in the long run now due to lost sales.
Not likely, as we have repeatedly seen, people will defend GW with walls of text regardless of what happens.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:
Imagine if GW had actually taken the time to do this and prepared a series of videos to discuss it to accompany the GHB release, perhaps as guests on certain favourite influencers YouTube channels, instead of just farming the whole thing out for those same favourite influencers to lazily page-turn.
The way GW squander their social media presence is honestly infuriating.
Well, that would cost money and take effort and they do not really need it. The community seems to be conditioned to self-police against criticism so why put additional effort into engaging with players?
-
1
-
-
Just now, Aeryenn said:
Seriously the longer I play this game the more I'm sure that people without any qualifications write the rules. Total amateurs that set points based on their feelings not math. I'm not sure even feelings are taken under consideration.
People read these points and in a heartbeat see how nonsense they are. How random, how unfair. GW get yourself up. Hire people that know how to write rules.
You will loose customers otherwise.
Oh, and to people writing "less emotions, be patient, be positive". Here's my advice: don't be childish.
Thank you!
I honestly feel that the false positivity and absolute acceptance of whatever nonsense comes from GW is the reason why they do not care about the rules in the slightest.-
12
-
-
Just now, whispersofblood said:
lol look bro/sis if you want to mourn that's fine but don't pretend like you are acting rationally and debating or discussing. If you are just emoting online, perhaps flag your posts. Or do what I learned to do on Facebook, type it all out and don't hit post.
IF you want to play AoS3 then join the discussion, if you just want to moan about the misfortune of being a HoS player(A faction I myself play; I own 2 plastic KoS and 2 Soulfeasters.) then perhaps there are better ways to do that, which don't expose you to normal, and rational criticism to a hyperbolic position. Like just sit it out a minute and think about something else for a bit, I'm certain you will be happier afterwards.
I've been through Three edition changes in WHFB, five in 40k before finally giving up, and now 3 in AoS. Let me tell you for those of us who have been around you aren't saying anything someone didn't say going from 6th to 7th edition, to 8th edition, to AoS2. Every edition certain types of armies are invalidated, for instance my Chaos Army with 3 core(batteline) units of knights going from 7th to 8th were no longer core, and the required points for core went from units to % of the army. A massive invalidating change, but I wanted to play the game and I got on with it. If we are being cool, it (being able to use another factions batteline) was an interesting historical and practical aspect that let the god armies fill their batteline with generic Chaos units, but these factions all have their own versions of those units and probably should be relying on them going forward. It is unfortunate that your specific army got lost in the shuffle a bit, but have you considered playing S2D Slaanesh followers? That is one of the natural advantages to playing a Chaos Faction the core faction is always somewhat available.
I understand, if I complain about legitimate issues today, that makes you look silly for all the abuse from GW you have accepted and came to expect over the years, right?
-
2
-
4
-
-
10 minutes ago, Dressedspring1 said:
This is where I’m at too. It’s not like I’m so mad I’m quitting AoS but my Khorne army with heavy S2D elements is no longer a legal army and given that all my stuff has been nerfed I’m just not really excited to go buy more stuff to make my army which is now comparatively worse into a playable list again.
I’m probably waiting for a new slaves or Khorne Battletome before really thinking about playing AoS in all likelihood and that’s likely a ways away still
Chaos overall got hit hard
-
Just now, whispersofblood said:
Then you can play S2D and given the state of HoS at the moment perhaps that is for the best. Your statement was you cannot play the game. Which you can as you have 2.5 Battleline Chaos Warrior selections, and 4 Marauders Battaline selections.
3x5 Chaos Warriors was what I was referring to as Min/Maxing, which is essentially the definition filling the minimum with the minimum.
I just do not know what to say. Read the ....... room.
-
1
-
-
Just now, whispersofblood said:
Unless the only battleline you owned was 15 Chaos Warriors you have battleline for S2D, or BoC. And, if that was the case then yes edition changes often require investment if you were min/maxing the previous edition.
My battlelines were Chaos Warriors (25 models total) and Marauders (40 models total, made from splintered fang and unmade because marauder models are bad).
How is that min/maxing?
-
1
-
-
Just now, Kitsumy said:
Im not sure about others armys but im sure not everyone got hit hard on his playable units. Like slanesh criying about slangors when they were allready useless so who cares if they are nerfed 5 or 300%. Only playable units points are important
Slaangors only demonstrate the absurdity of what was done.
If you want to look at only playable Slaanesh units, be my guest. KoS 340 to 420, Glutos 400 to 475, Blissbarb Archers 160 to 180, Slickblade Seekers 200 to 230, Blissbarb Seekers 180 to 220, Contorted Epitome 210 to 255...
We also lost Battlelines from S2D (which were also nerfed, Marauders for a reason, Warriros for no reason at all).-
1
-
-
Just now, sandlemad said:
C'mon dude, there's positivity and then there's smirking passive-aggressiveness. This isn't cool.
I literally can't play a legal list with my collection because I lost all my battlelines but I guess saying that means I am not acting like an adult.
-
1
-
-
Just now, whispersofblood said:
HoS are terrible, its obvious and clear for everyone. But, that doesn't mean that the game itself and the emergent meta will be terrible. To think so would be a fallacy. What @Athrawes is arguing that we should all be building to what we believe is good, and let the meta emerge from that effort, so that we can then with some actual insight, facts, data and statistics identify what works and doesn't work.
Most AoS and wargame discussion is very inference heavy to begin with, which personally I find barely acceptable. But, we are going off the deep end, because of how we feel about the points costs. Like no one has even posted a hypothetic list yet and had discussion about the capacity for factions to achieve the battle tactics or their grand strategies. We are definitely mostly dealing in untruth.
Well, as I mentioned I can't play even if I wanted to because my battlelines got deleted. I do not have a legal list in the models I own.
Should I spend money to buy legal battlelines so I could participate in that supposed good game with the army that is, in your own words, terrible? Is that the conclusion, that I should give GW more money after this? Help me out here.-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Athrawes said:
By the end of aos 2, there were arguably 6 or so top tier armies that were (generally speaking) winning tournaments and very competitive. Likewise there were about 5 or so, bottom of the pack armies that really struggled to compete at any level. The rest of the factions fell into the middle of the pack.
Got it?
And this is quite a terrible state of the game. Got it?
Especially given that certain match-ups are even more lopsided.
And you have the nerve to argue patience and to lecture people whose armies have been ruined. I literally can't field a legal army with the models I own. I can't have a legal game even if I looked past the travesty of Slaanesh points and wanted it.
And yeah GW might not be malicious towards certain factions and players. Gross incompetence is also on the table.-
4
-
-
Just now, Athrawes said:
Patience because you and others here cannot possibly have played any meaningful number of games in 3rd edition using the new points. There have been no tournament, there is NO META. We have ideas about issues with the ruleset, but no proof.
The idea that this position is apparently a controversial one, is however proof of how toxic the community is becoming.
You are right, of course. Slaangor are clearly a hidden powerhouse of the new edition, hence the preemptive points hike. All is well with the world, always was, always will be.
-
2
-
-
41 minutes ago, UnholyRevenant said:
I dont think it will be as bad as everyone is making out.
Aside from point cost nerfs, my model collection is literally unplayable in my chosen allegiance. My battlelines are no longer legal.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:
I'd perhaps suggest waiting for any accompanying FAQ's that will inevitably come out rather than deciding not to play AoS3 based on half the information.
OK, serious questions: Do you expect that GW will reverse their ruling on using S2D units as battlelines in god armies? Do you expect that they will reverse Slaanesh points back to 2.0?
I am genuinely asking because I do not see that happening so I do not see what is the point in waiting for the FAQ
AoS3 - The points discussion
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Marauders and Chaos Warriors