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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

747 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About wayniac

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant
  • Birthday 06/26/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

1,142 profile views
  1. How so? I've seen for years now where most of a book is deemed to be "garbage" because it's not the most OP option, therefore meaning it will never get seen in competitive play except by people who want to try to dark horse things. I've seen this for over 15 years now across Warhammer and most other tabletop games (usually to a lesser extent than Warhammer due to balancing). Half of the options in AOS you're told to skip out on and take whatever the FOTM netlist is if you ask for what works and what doesn't.
  2. You say this as though nearly every army doesn't suffer from the same thing in competitive play. It may not be as detrimental with some compared to others but every army only the gimmicks are worth considering when you decide to focus on competitive above all else. It's been the major problem with competitive play forever: 80% of your options are garbage and may as well not even exist because it's not the cheesy/gimmicky choice. It's the price you pay for breaking everything down to numbers.
  3. Bit of column A, bit of column B Right now I think the best thing is to pick an army that can reasonably do both, rather than an army that is "low tier" which would have a hard time doing well. That way I can tailor up or down. Right now that is Idoneth Deepkin (and I like the eel models anyway so I'm covered there). This is something I see a lot. People just buy their "2k list" and then only play that. They have no other models except the exact models in that 2k list, and often won't even play other than 2000 points because they only bought very specific models to fit that competitive list, so they'd be at a big disadvantage at anything else because whatever wombo-combo they specifically bought only works at 2k. So you have not only a subset of players that only buy the minimum needed but also buy an extremely specific minimum and refuse to do anything where they can't use that very specific minimum, because they don't know anything else.
  4. This bears repeating because like I stated previously I've witnessed exactly this happen and it pretty much killed anything other than competitive play in that area because nobody wanted to play a "handicapped" list or, worse, feel they were just going to get clubbed by taking a fluffy list against someone else. Granted, that can be solved by a discussion with your opponent but that's not always as frequent as it should be.
  5. Oh this I know. In my years I've seen this happen to a previously laid back and casual group. One person started bringing a power list and over time casual play essentially became extinct as more and more people got tired of being crushed by the power lists and brought power lists of their own. It was pretty much mutually assured destruction but in a gaming context. Now admittedly when I tell this story it never paints the competitive aspect in a positive light, but sadly I think this is the inevitable result of anything outside of maybe a very small and close-knit group. Anything involving pick up games at a store or club will inevitably go this route in some capacity because there will always be someone who, knowingly or not, decides to play a FOTM list or army and all it usually takes is curbstomping someone in full view of everybody else to get the escalation war going. It sounds like overall my best approach is going to be to choose an army that's higher tier but then have a varied collection so, for instance, I can bring out the big guns against someone who wants to play competitively or who I know plays competitive lists while swapping some of those powerful choices out for less powerful ones against the people playing more casually to not become TFG. Thankfully though I think Deepkin fit that perfectly.
  6. So would I be right in assuming that if AOS wasn't popular but another game was and had a large competitive community you would play that game? That is, you play a game that offers you a large pool of competitive players without any vested interest in that game?
  7. I get that part, but I don't get playing an army you don't like the models/whatever just because its better.
  8. See, this is what I struggle so hard to get. Like.. you would pick an army with models you don't care for, with even the most basic fluff blurb about who they are not being appealing, just because it's the "best" army? The "churn and burn" approach where you aren't invested in your army beyond how it currently performs just.. seems so foreign.
  9. I think I'm attracted to Idoneth Deepkin, which honestly from what I see seem to be able to go more competitive or not depending on what you take (i.e. how many eels). So I might be able to swing both if I get lucky... although there's still the issue of not really being able to do a roundede army, but that's been the case for years.
  10. I mean they aren't mutually exclusive at the high level, but I wish I could not care about the lore/reality. I mean if you ignore that, then what keeps you to an army? Wouldn't you just swap armies to whatever is the "best" at a given time, if the army background/aesthetics are meaningless?
  11. If this is the case though, they don't show it. Their armies in white dwarf (and yes I know its a marketing publication at its core) show a variety of units, not spamming the 3 units that have been deemed "good". This is part of the dilemma. That shouldn't be the case. The reality is that it is, but it's the hardest thing to adopt that and not care about the rest. You're making very valid points, you really are. Just... it's such a hard mindset to get into. Especially when not only part of books but entire armies are deemed "not worth taking" because they aren't competitive. It can't be "S tier or bust"
  12. Whether or not this is a good thing though is subjective. Personally I feel that "tSports" are a terrible idea that ****** all over the foundation of the genre (but I also feel the same about esports). But you are right, this mindset is becoming more and more prevalent and is a huge part of why I keep feeling the draw of that style of gameplay, knowing how much it removes choices and reduces 25 options to 5 because those 5 have been decided to be "the best". It just feels completely wrong sometimes. I mean, the competitive mindset literally looks at a brand new book and throws out 90% of it instantly and then encourages everyone else to ignore that 90% too since it's "not good". You basically hit the exact nail on the head. You can't do both in AOS, and I don't know which one I want to focus on because I see the benefit of both, but one side (the competitive one) makes me feel so many times that I'd just be doing something boring. Not because I dislike the aspect, but because let's say I pick whatever FOTM new hotness army is dominating (OBR, let's say). Well there are a few other people in the area who have that army too. These games then become boring mirror matches that may as well be pseudo-tournament rounds because there isn't going to be any sort of logical story to it, it's literally just like matchmaking in an online game where you don't care about the lore or background of your character, you picked it because it's the best one currently. That shouldn't be something that I care about (what everyone else plays), but the problem is I DO.
  13. Well, a big part of the issue is that as I said, having been around the block for a long time with GW games I know that at their heart they have never been intended as cutthroat competitive games. They've been manipulated to sort of resemble that as of late, but it was never their goal. I also know that there's a strong aversion, even among the more casual/narrative players I know, to have asymmetrical games; like for example the "40 spearmen vs. 2 dragons" example above would never get any traction whatsoever because "it's not balanced", from either the casual or competitive player alike. Which is what partially pushes me towards the competitive approach. My mind tends to go through two trains of thought: 1) It's a game, games are competitive. Besides, GW's balance has always been so bad that you usually hurt yourself by not caring about a unit's effectiveness. I can play the game as a game, I don't have to have a narrative behind my army and name my characters/etc. 2) GW games have always been about narrative/casual/laid back gameplay. It's only recently that the ultra-competitive everything needs to have world championships "tSport" mindset has come about and doing that means I'm ignoring 90% of the game to focus on 10% which can and will change thanks to the "meta" constantly churning. And to me these are largely mutually exclusive (they shouldn't be but the reality is they are) because of the game's design. So as a result I have trouble even deciding what "new army" to pick because I'll look first at what's played locally and try to pick a complement to that (having half your group all playing the same faction is boring) and/or look at models I like before I check what's "good".
  14. I've decided to use my downtime from gaming to take a step back and really decide what I want out of this game because I haven't ever really been able to pinpoint what my goal is. I've been involved in GW games since 1996, and I've always gotten the impression that the goal has never been to have a competitive game. The rules have never really been conducive towards it. I look at armies as they show in White Dwarf battle reports, with varied units and usually little or no spamming, and think to myself "This is how GW envisions the game". Then I start to read sources online, which let's be honest here tend to usually focus on the competitive side of things. Places like The Honest Wargamer, AOS Shorts and several podcasts focus on approaching AOS as a high-level competitive game with seemingly little concern to how an army is in the fluff other than "is this unit good" (which often means "overpowered in some way"). My dilemma now, and for the past couple years as well, has been trying to think of how I want to approach the game. I've long tried to find a middle ground, and find an army/style that could behave at least remotely like it does in the fluff without sacrificing the army's background for effectiveness, and I have failed miserably in this approach every time. I'm sitting here now trying to decide on a new army, and every potential choice is limited by something, whether it's the fact that it's not at all competitive (while I may not want to go full blown "I only care about how good something is" I also don't want to pick something I like only to find it's weak and get steamrolled in games. From past experience this just makes me want to stop playing), the fact that I would want a well-rounded army which doesn't work well (constantly receiving "advice" in the form of "Drop X and Y, take more of Z"), or simply the fact it's popular and a lot of people in the area have the army (I am a big proponent of the idea that having a diverse playgroup benefits everyone. If half your group play the same army, or even worse mostly the same list, it leads to a stagnant community). As you might imagine, this has led me to be incredibly indecisive and anyone who has spoken to me frequently know that I often change what army I'm doing every few days, and never fully commit to anything because every time I decide something sways me to change my mind/approach to the game. While of course that's an issue I have to face myself, it lends itself to the question of, first of all is there a sweet spot, a middle ground, between having an army solely focused on competitive without care to the army's actual fluff, only what units are good, and not caring about how good a unit is only how it fits in? I often find that there's only the two extremes: Either something is good and therefore competitive, or it's not good (and again this usually means "overpowered") and is therefore bad and shouldn't be taken. The way I see it, I have to "choose a side" as it were and decide to either treat AOS as a game first and foremost and fluff be damned if it means not making optimal choices (the more competitive approach, as this is usually but not always what sticking to competitive play entails), or else focus on the other aspects of the game and perhaps try to talk to a few locals I feel would have similar mindsets to have a smaller subgroup (we don't really have gaming clubs in the USA like they do in the UK but along those lines) that we focus more on the narrative/casual gameplay and less on the competitive side altogether, which would limit the players (as I wouldn't likely turn up to play against the people I know play more competitively) but may result in a more close-knit experience. I don't think there's a happy medium between the two, or if there is I certainly haven't been able to find anything that resonates with me when looking. I realize this got a bit wordy, so the main point here is if anyone has successfully dealt with this same dilemma that I have been struggling with for years now and how you handled it? I feel like I'm going around in circles without ever deciding, and usually buying a few things only to change my mind later which is putting me in the doghouse with my wife because she feels I'm just spending money and never doing anything else.
  15. I am thinking that building an Akhelian Corps will make a solid start to an army, and then I can always expand with more eels later on if I want the list to be more competitive. Thinking something like this: Allegiance: Idoneth Deepkin- Enclave: Dhom-HainMortal Realm: GhurAkhelian King (240)- General- Bladed Polearm- Command Trait: Lord of Storm and Sea- Artefact: Gryph-feather CharmIsharann Tidecaster (100)- Lore of the Deeps: Arcane CorrasionIsharann Soulrender (80)10 x Namarti Thralls (130)10 x Namarti Thralls (130)6 x Akhelian Morrsarr Guard (340)6 x Akhelian Morrsarr Guard (340)2 x Akhelian Allopexes (200)- Razorshell HarpoonAkhelian Leviadon (310)Akhelian Corps (100)Total: 1970 / 2000Extra Command Points: 1Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 117 Would that be a good starting point to a Deepkin army?
  • Create New...