Golub87
-
Posts
186 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Golub87
-
-
Just now, Marcvs said:
Playing a lot of A Song of Ice and Fire has somewhat changed my mind on this. Playing with movement trays (and all the rules that go with that) feels much more like playing a board game for me, compared to AoS. In particular, I end up feeling that we could just do away with the miniatures and play with the trays and wound counters 🤷♂️ . I do agree that AoS feels more like a skirmish brawl than a battle
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.-
1
-
-
Just now, Greybeard86 said:
Honestly, this is an issue of trying to use skirmish rules with too many models; formations existed for a reason, both historically and in games.
40K gets away with skirmish a bit more since unit sizes used to be smaller (not anymore now in 9th, with super-prevalence of necron/admech/sister blobs of 20). The moment you start growing unit sizes the whole individual model accounting thing becomes impractical.
So, how many editions with clunky rules until we get back "blocks/trays" instead of "handfuls of models"?
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.
-
23 hours ago, Phasteon said:
Why?
Why don’t you understand people that just want to enjoy the game and not discuss about balance?
In this thread its 100% legit to discuss balance and if I don’t like it I am free to ignore this thread.
But coming from someone that worked at a GW store for some time:
When every game results in a balance discussion because some1 cant take the loss its getting really annoying.
90% of the time balance is NOT the issue - its just people blaming mistakes (gameplay or listbuilding wise) on the general balance.
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.-
3
-
1
-
-
Just now, Marcvs said:
This is kind of what listbot list checker tries to do, but its "understanding" of special rules and so on is of course very limited (it basically "counts" how many special rules a warscroll has) and it only evaluates lists based on warscrolls (no allegiance abilities and so on)
Yes. That said, it is hard to evaluate special rules on a single objective scale. Especially if they are as complex as say LRL.
-
7 hours ago, Kadeton said:
This is true, but has little relevance to this discussion, as these are not the type of opinions being expressed here.
Person A says, "I feel this problem, therefore it is a MASSIVE problem."
Person B says, "I agree it's a problem, but I feel it has less impact than you claim."
We're not arguing about whether balance is a problem. We're arguing about how much of a problem it actually is. Some people think it's such a huge problem that the game isn't even worth playing, and others would be happy to see it improved but still enjoy playing. There is no "correct" position.
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.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Marcvs said:
Mostly, I am prepared for GW to give up a tiny fraction of their impressive margins to hire more people and pay them a decent wage to work on game design.
That is a sacrifice we would all be ready to accept.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, pnkdth said:
I'd like to stick up for GW a bit here. 25 armies + extra armies (Chorfs, LoCA, etc) + expansions. Now add in sub-factions, battalions, allies, relics and traits, and you got the perfect conditions for the player to tinker and find the broken combos. Even the smallest of changes will cause ripples. In a perfect world they'll be able to update and test everything extensively. Though I would not say the game is in shambles either, I really really like it, but it is worth giving constructive criticism so...
All of this takes time, time costs money. My question is, what are we prepared to give up to, subjectively speaking, have better rules? Should they get rid of the unpopular armies? Merge certain tomes and tighten up the schedule (KO + Fyreslayers, SCE + CoS, a single chaos tome, etc)? Perhaps simplify the rules for and update them in a fashion similar to Chorfs?
Or is it simply enough to have an updated PDF with new points twice a year/each quarter between BT releases?
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.16 hours ago, Charleston said:This is what some people in the community think, and it is a quite prominent opinion as it is also shared by many content creators. Honest Wargamer had a stream 1-2 weeks ago about Sin/Bin-Battletomes on exactly this topic.
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.
16 hours ago, Charleston said:Many important notes here recently!
-
Peoples opinion on things (in this case balance) always depends on their perspective and their context.
- From DoK/Lumineth/Seraphon perspective people really like to ****** about rules instead of enjoying the game
- From Sylvaneth/BoK Perspective the balance is awfull and it is a pure act of masochism to pick up a game
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.
-
7
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
Peoples opinion on things (in this case balance) always depends on their perspective and their context.
-
9 hours ago, Battlefury said:
@PhasteonI meant this in detail. I am literally sitting on a 7000 point Khorne collection, that is worth about 1000€ now. Can't play, because it frustrates me to a degree, that it will ruin a whole day if I do. Shouldn't be like that.
Of course I see, that it depends on the local meta. My local meta gives BoK no chance.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".
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Enoby said:
We've got 329 responses so far, so I think that's a good amount
I am wondering what people think on this - should we wait until the twins before sending anything off, or should we just send it asap? I ask because the twins may turn things around - but on the other hand we could be waiting a long time and end up missing our 'deadline'
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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, wayniac said:
If some factions are clearly stronger than others they should be toned down to an acceptable level for the majority of people not just for the high level. Again, the problem seems to be that the middle where most of the imbalance happens is being downplayed by the results at the top.
And that is being downplayed very aggressively in this very thread.
-
1
-
3
-
-
24 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:
Well. First of all take a deep breath.
Please stop with the condescension.
25 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:What I said previously is if you flatten the effect of faction choice you maximize differences in player skill, which means you can't have games of roughly equal player ability.
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.
31 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:It also has the effect of chilling interesting faction development as there is no room for risk in design.
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."
38 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:That doesn't exclude the fact that sylvaneth, GSG, BoC need significant mechanical work.
I'm sorry you invested based on a lie, limited or incorrect information. But rules changes can't fix a constant that for you are experiencing. I have experienced engaging with the curve without information myself and it's not a good feeling.
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.43 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:I'm interested in AoS, I'm interested in data analysis professionally and in several of my other hobbies. Apparently the outcomes of my games are hardly impacted by faction choice at all, but I still am concerned for the larger AoS community. Which is why I'm so interested in education and community, I don't actually talk about "competitive AoS" on forums very much at all...
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?-
4
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:
My position again is in the middle I think we want player skill and faction choice to be roughly equivalent in determining outcomes of games so that players at that level can choose how much effort they want to put in.
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. -
Just now, Phasteon said:
snip...
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.
10 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:The answer is balance cannot be fixed, games will contain haves and have nots. We will live with some version of imbalance forever. So the question is what should that graph look like, what should we expect and how do we explain that to new players. You can argue for better balance until you are blue in the face, but at some point you have to say what that looks like in practice and what it would do to the relationship that graph represents.
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.
13 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:My argument is that graph is actually largely a good player friendly version of the world. Where even low effort results in relatively predictable results and players can choose to play easier or harder factions inside that relationship. Archaon is hard to use and powerful, KO Zilfin is easier to use and less consistently powerful we should want these spaces in the game exactly because there are different levels of player skill.
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.
-
3
-
-
Just now, pnkdth said:
Looking at more recent data (the feb 2021 TTS on honest wargamers) we see Seraphon winning 500% more than other factions, twice as many top3s, and half of their players end up in top10. Are you saying that all good players just happen to choose Seraphon and that we've had a massive influx of really skilled players (who also just happen to choose Seraphon)? I would say the data suggest that this army allows for otherwise unremarkable but decent players to earn top placings and great players to net even greater results.
Tournament players value consistency. Swingy armies are not worth their time because it gets in the way of their objective, to win. You can see it in the BoC data from the same batch. At first glance you see 60% win rate, and that must be good, right? But then you look at placings and you see a single top10 placing. Why? Because BoC don't win big. In contrast the higher placing armies like Seraphon, LRL, IDK, DoT, do.
Indeed, the other side of the coin of 'git gud' is the hard to swallow fact that certain battletomes will contribute to the success of a player. Both are uncomfortable since they chafe at our egos.
But just to be clear, I absolutely believe good players can get good result with most armies. It is the just the top and bottom pile that needs a look at cause the former excels in the current meta and the latter has to jump through way too many hoops to win (and rarely get a top placing despite winning more which must REALLY add to the frustration).
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.-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
You named inly half of it’s strength mate😜.
give me some time and I’ll happily lecture you about the possibilities😁
I don't think that is important. What is important is:
3 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:Nah it gave me a D for mobility while I had 3 Doomwheels and a warlock with the vial of the fulminator artefact.
it clearly is missing a ton of data
Don't get sidetracked by endless nitpicky discussions 😜
-
1
-
-
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? -
1 hour ago, Sharklone said:
You just summed up what I've been trying to explain to my mates by saying it feels like a chore. I couldn't quite think of how to phrase it.
There's a couple of armies that feel like a chore to play against or play with. I am yet to have a fun game against certain armies I won't call out here because I don't want to start faction wars. Going into games knowing I've lost before I roll a single dice is not good balance. Whatever way you try to spin it.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.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:
It is indeed a massive lie.
Thank you for calling out that condescending wall of text.
3 hours ago, whispersofblood said:snip...
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.-
3
-
3
-
-
16 hours ago, Enoby said:
Overall, I had a lot of fun and it reminds me more of old AoS where combats weren't decided by who attacks first. It is much much more fun to me for combats to be decided over multiple rounds rather than in huge alpha strikes. Certainly this list wasn't optimal, but I'm kind of glad we don't have some crazy way to get 50 attacks at 2/2/-2/3 on a first turn charge or something.
This is how the game should be IMHO
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, kozokus said:
Not sure if we are talking about the same book...i even wonder if you made one game with.
confronted it twice and saw a couple of other games.
Each of them was pretty much the same :-6" pile for half your army is broken and hard to counter.
-No pile in is even better than striking last in most situation, equals not fighting at all.
-The summoning is out of control once again. You got to summon 4 times 30 daemonettes RELIABLY EACH GAME. Almost impossible to overcome for some armies. Fortunately that is "only" daemonettes, not too hard to kill but still 30 extra bodies to flood objectives.
Complaining about unit prices would be justified if you could compare the units to other battletomes.
Spoiler, you can't because you play with 1200 extra points of slaanesh worth every game.
If you don't have 12 Depravity at the start of any of your turn, you are probably missing the whole point of the battletome. Aim for it.
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.-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, shinros said:
It was very difficult to watch for me due to a certain guest...
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, umpac said:
All in all it was easily one of the best games of warhammer I've had, despite being against DoT which are kind of a drag. I'm convinced this book has some serious teeth by now, but the more I play it the less I care about how strong it is and the more I'm impressed by how much I like playing it.
Exactly how I feel about our new tome. I have discovered that AoS can be fun.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Beliman said:
Not sure if I can help, but as a main (and only) KO player, there are some things that can help:
- Fast chaff: Having a bird, dog or something really fast that can charge in the first turn means that an entire unit of ranged specialists will kill just 1 unit in their shooting phase (and remember that they only have 5 phases to shoot). Not every army can do that. but the few that can, are a pain in the ass (unless playing with skyvessels... but that's another point).
- High wounds units: 80% of ranged units in the game doesn't have a high dmg output. Yes, they will snipe 5 wounds heroes, and there isn't a lot of interaction between your units and the attackers. But a 20-40 wounds unit will take the hit and move on unless the enemy focus fire with 500-1000 points.
- Cover, Obstacle and Garrison: I think that all AoS terrain are obstacles (or block LoS). Use and abuse it!! That's a free +1save to your "...can run and shoot..." units. There are a lot of other terrain pieces that are garrisons (the whole destroyed warcry buildings for example) that can give you +1 save and -1 to be hit (and the whole blissbarb dudes have 18" range, that's some nice range).
- Gluttos: Gluttos is not a monster nor warmachine, so give him cover. Put him between an enemy and any fence, big rock or whatever and just touch the base of the terrain for that juicy new 2+save that could even be rerolled with divine shield.
- Look Out Sir: And all combinations to stack -1 hit. Gluttos can give that -1 to hit if it's 12" near the unit (just "within") and has 18 wounds, so you can put him in all oficial garrisons (20+ wounds) to extend his range and give him 2+save and -1 (-2 with their aure) to be hit!!
I know that it's not easy to play but it helps A LOT for melee armies that have movility. Remember that you can leave garrison within 6" of the terrain with all your models , that means that Gluttos could move a lot with that big base!
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.
AoS 3 New Rules Discussion
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Nothing more inspirational than sideways cavalry charges