wayniac

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".

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.

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?

So this got me thinking. Since Koatl's Claw makes Saurus viable, couldn't you make a relatively cheap army by using like two start collectings, plus a few more boxes of saurus and some heroes? You could run a double battalion with a Sunclaw and a Firelance, Oldblood on Carno, Scar-Vet on Carno, Sunblood (convert from a spare Saurus with leftover Oldblood/Scar-Vet parts), Skink Starpriest, 40/20/20 Saurus, 3x5 Knights. Should be relatively cheap. Now whether that's good is another question...

I've always liked the look of Saurus, but Skinks much less so and it's really never sat well that the "go to" competitive army was mostly Skinks. I'm hoping this book has the buff Saurus need to do most/all Saurus because that's IMHO much more evocative of the army.

I find that a lot of areas will only do 2k because it's "tournament standard" and it's very hard to get lower point games, so often you have no choice. Which IMHO is stupid because it increases the already considerable investment in an army that you may find you don't like. Much better to do it slow and build up, that way also you don't just parrot a meta list that someone else "decided" is the best way to play the army, which stagnates the playing field. Especially if the players in the area refuse to play anything sub 2k because they don't want to change how the list works or, worse, have only bought 2k and nothing else so they don't even have anything which works at below 2k.

Given that models are seemingly designed first without input/concern for what a faction needs, it's anyone's guess if it will ever happen. Hard to tell since there's little to no real transparency with how things operate other than bits and pieces gleaned from articles but as crazy as it sounds it appears like there isn't communication between the model designers and the game designers.

Hmm I did miss that (haven't checked much in a while). Well that makes it drop in usefulness

Very helpful advice, thank you! Might look at the Thermalrider, I was immediately attracted to Doppelganger because a King on TG that can't be attacked until he attacks is nasty. Another option was Grim Garland for the Bravery debuff which helps both the TG and Flayers.

I'm looking at dusting off my Court. Are they still pretty high-tier? I have never been a fan of Gristlegore (nor do I have that many monsters) but I like Blisterskin and Hollowmourne, and would likely build a Blisterskin army as I have 15 Flayers now. With the slight nerfs to Gristlegore is Blisterskin the way to go now? Like I said I don't have enough monsters to run Gristlegore (I only have a King on TG and King on ZG) I originally was going to do something like this: Allegiance: Flesh Eater Courts - Grand Court: Blisterskin Mortal Realm: Ulgu Abhorrant Archregent (240) - General - Trait: Hellish Orator - Lore of Madness: Spectral Host Abhorrant Ghoul King on Royal Terrorgheist (420) - Artefact: Eye of Hysh - Lore of Madness: Monstrous Vigour - Mount Trait: Gruesome Bite Abhorrant Ghoul King on Royal Terrorgheist (420) - Artefact: Doppelganger Cloak - Lore of Madness: Deranged Transformation - Mount Trait: Gruesome Bite Crypt Infernal Courtier (120) 6 x Crypt Flayers (340) 3 x Crypt Flayers (170) 3 x Crypt Flayers (170) Deadwatch (110) Total: 1990 / 2000 Extra Command Points: 1 Allies: 0 / 400 Wounds: 89 Having to proxy the second King on TG with a King on ZD. The Archregent summoning 20 ghouls and each AGKoTG summoning Flayers (or Horrors but probably Flayers). But it seems a bit light on bodies and it was suggested to me to try something like this instead: Allegiance: Flesh Eater Courts - Grand Court: Blisterskin Mortal Realm: Ulgu Abhorrant Archregent (240) - General - Trait: Hellish Orator - Lore of Madness: Spectral Host Abhorrant Ghoul King on Royal Terrorgheist (420) - Artefact: Doppelganger Cloak - Lore of Madness: Monstrous Vigour - Mount Trait: Gruesome Bite Abhorrant Ghoul King (160) - Lore of Madness: Blood Feast Varghulf Courtier (160) - Artefact: Eye of Hysh 9 x Crypt Flayers (510) 10 x Crypt Ghouls (100) 10 x Crypt Ghouls (100) 3 x Crypt Horrors (130) Royal Mordants (120) Extra Command Point (50) Total: 1990 / 2000 Extra Command Points: 2 Allies: 0 / 400 Wounds: 103 With again, Archregent summons 20 ghouls, king on foot summons 10 ghouls for a backfield objective, and AGKoTG summoning additional flayers. Are these lists on the right track with FEC now? I haven't really played them since long before the new book.

From looking at the battalions, none of them really seem to be worth taking. The bonuses they give seem really lackluster.

Well if I have the choice I'll go amazing, but that is something to keep in mind. I think I've decided to give it a shot though, I spent most of last night really scrutinizing the Bonereapers and Deepkin models and really found myself more attracted to the Deepkin.

If KF didn't "become" Sigmar then he's a good candidate (I thought he became Sigmar too). Otherwise my vote is Magnus the Pious. He fits all the criteria. I think this is one of the things that will never be stated (like what happened to the 2 missing legions in 40k).

Hi all considering jumping back into AOS after not having played since.. probably since 2.0 first came out. I haven't done an Order army yet (I have FEC and Nurgle) and really like the look and fluff of Deepkin (right now it's a tossup between them and Bonereapers with Deepkin slightly in the lead). One of the things I'm looking for in an army this time around besides no summoning (really don't want to have to buy a lot of extra stuff on top of the actual army) is an army that I can adjust the power level relatively easy i.e. turn it up for competitive games/tournaments and tone it down for more casual games. Deepkin seem to fall right into this category as it seems like if I don't take 18+ Eels or maybe take some Allopex (love these models) and Namarti it tones it down, while more eels = more power? Luckily for me I really like the entire range of models in the Deepkin line with the possible exception of the Octodude and I'm not a huge fan of the female spellcaster but she's not so bad. Is this observation correct? I know Deepkin are (were?) a higher end army competitively with eel spam, how do they fare when toned down? Are they still pretty decent?

I think besides the obvious find people who don't immediately jump to Matched Play or go on a tirade how without points the game is broken (because it's not much better with points, and you can do Narrative with points anyway) or, worst of all, would go out of their way to break a non-points game to "prove" why it sucks (no joke I've talked to people who flat out admitted in an Open Play game they would purposely break it), a good way to start is to slowly introduce asymmetrical or themed battleplans for games, maybe with a small blurb about the reason why the armies are fighting. Even if basic or cliche, having some sort of background to the game beyond "I'm here with my army, Bob is here with his army, let's play" can help ease people into thinking about that stuff. And that naturally lends itself to cobbling together a small narrative campaign if each game sort of builds on the last and at the end you've set a story. It's a far cry from the grand dream of a big map based campaign with logistics and a big story behind it, but it's a start. I absolutely agree though with a sort of "don't bring filth lists" guideline, although you can't always enforce that and there's a blurred line sometimes (for instance, Deepkin eel spam is cool and thematic. It's also the "meta" list) but if you can get people who don't do it, then you're good to go. Most of all, I think, is that you have to lead by example. Even if it's only two guys who every week are playing asymmetrical battles or using something other than Matched Play, it can help entice others who naturally are curious about what their fellow gamers are doing. Perhaps if they see that two of their peers are enjoying asymmetrical games and weaving a little story to go with it, they will want to join in. I'm skeptical on how it would work (too many people would either complain or try to break it) but a localized idea like Coalescence could be interesting. A day-long event (specifically worded as not being a tournament or competitive event) with linked battles that tells some tale. For a local event, maybe cap it off with a multi-player battle or something as the victorious forces converge on their goal. Anything to start and get people thinking about more than the "2000 Pitched Battle, all Matched Play rules, meta netlisting" approach you so often find in groups/stores/clubs.

Out of curiosity, anyone done anything with Meeting Engagements? What works for Maggotkin in that format? They sounded like a great idea, but seem to have fizzled out almost immediately. I recall reading a lot about how it was very easily busted (more than normal) and that was about it, with it never really catching on. I like the idea because I always prefer smaller games to 2k.

Honestly, and I know I will get flak for this, I don't think there's an actual desire to balance, not even close. This isn't a GW problem however, although it often seems like GW is one of the worst offenders. Games the last decade or so (maybe more) have adhered to the Magic: The Gathering mindset where its mostly (if not entirely) about deckbuilding and stacking combos to make a "killer" combo; as close as you can get to a one-hit KO. Wargaming has followed that (I've watched it) and AOS is no exception. The intention is that there are better/worse choices (the "skill" is figuring out what is OP and using as much of it as possible) and an emphasis on stacking buffs and combos, with a rollercoaster power curve instead of as close to a flat line as you can get. Of course, you can never get a fully flat line i.e. 100% perfect balance, and nobody really wants that, but in design you strive to get as close as possible to that as a general rule and the key to good game design is getting as close to that line without making things too bland. For whatever reason (to push sales, really wanting MtG style combos to reward theorycrafting, who knows?) the opposite approach has been true in Warhammer (possibly more so in 40k than AOS, but AOS is a big offender in that as well) and rather than strive to get as close as possible to balance, it feels like more of a "throw it out the window, this seems cool" approach even if that's not the intended goal; from their articles in WD, it appears GW seems to want to try and care about balance, just it never shows. I doubt they're lying just to say they care, so it's anyone's guess why they continue to miss the mark. It might not even be the designer's fault. There was an interview, 40k related granted, where one of the designers stated that they were told to make the Eldar Wrathknight better without balancing it, just to sell more of it. Still, to answer the OP yeah I think this is as good as we get, and it's a rollercoaster where you can't see what the next part is until you get to it. It could be a straight line, it could be a steep curve upward, it could be a fast plunge downward. If you like that (and a lot of people are seemingly okay with that style of design) then it's all well and good. If you don't, however...

I'm not surprised really. The Maggotkin book seems to be pretty well balanced, and we all know how GW is with that. There have been a slew of books that were way above the power curve, which will make the "normal" books get weaker over time as they continue that trend. It's been that way for years and the design team has zero interest in fixing it, in fact from what I've read they and the AOS community want those weird imbalances and rollercoaster power curves as intended design.

Been considering finishing off my Maggotkin since I saw 5 BKs on my painting table and started to paint them up and was reminded why I love painting Nurgle things. Sort of torn between the cookie cutter type build with Blight Cyst + GUO + 30 PBs or trying something with Marauders and that beastman dude (maybe with Bestigor. I'd really love to be able to do a "Realm of Chaos" type mixed warband with humans, daemons and beastmen like in the old days and not have it be garbage) but I really like how 30 PBs have performed for me in the past. They do make good summoning fodder though (albeit IIRC you can only summon in units of 10). Decisions, decisions...

I just picked up GHB2019 yesterday and have been flipping through it. Personally I think the army generator, terrain layout generator et all are probably one of the best things GW has added. I am so tired of the same boring "Matched Play, Pitched Battle" and I really think the army generator alleviates a lot of the prior stigma of Open Play, that being there was zero guideline for how to pick something without lengthy discussion with your opponent (and we know how that usually goes over). Of course it won't be quite as balanced as matched (not like matched points is really balanced though) and I do suppose it rewards people who have larger collections instead of your typical "I bought 2000 points of X only" but overall I think it's a great idea that adds a lot of possibilities for a more open-minded group who wants something different. Has anyone given them a shot yet and can offer their experiences? I also really really like the terrain layout generator (the piece of terrain generator not so much); I find it's often really hard to figure out where terrain pieces should go so being able to roll on that table and have a guideline for where pieces should be set up adds a lot. This in particular I think has application outside of Open Play since even in Matched Play you need to set up terrain, and this provides a (relatively) impartial guide for where it should go. I really think with this, plus the open war table/cards, Open Play just got a lot more interesting. It's still not for everyone and I've already heard some dislike of the system since it's "random", but overall as a concept I could see this sort of thing being great for game night in a group/club that isn't dead set on matched play 24-7. Between the army generator (and I suppose you could pick rather than roll if rolling is such a concern; it already mentions you can agree on the force points beforehand), the terrain generator (layout, at least), the hidden agendas and the open war battleplans, that sounds like a lot of fun to me. Not to mention the application for narrative campaigns without just using your standard X points method. What are your thoughts on them?

RE: Terrain, the main thing is that terrain has to be meaningful. I see way too often like just a ton of rocky outcrops or similar that are easy to make and ultimately useless except as decorations or to block off lanes because they have gaps so don't do anything to block LOS, are too narrow to really give cover, so are just there so you aren't playing on a flat table. That's another topic but I find there's a serious lack of good terrain in most games. It might be functional, but it doesn't do what terrain should do. However, my mind is clouded because in my area people rarely if ever use the mysterious terrain rules, if we use them its forgotten about 99% of the time, and a lot of the terrain is leftover stuff from WHFB that doesn't really fit or IMHO is suitable for AOS and is better suited to rank-and-file games like Kings of War. However, other than GW (which is still too limited IMHO) I haven't really found any good terrain that fits the AOS aesthetic and isn't just your typical WHFB Empire/Bretonnia medieval European building.

Well part of that is because hills, lakes, rivers etc. are useless. They serve no purpose other than to add visuals to the game. Back on topic the fact that TOs think they know better (ITC is especially guilty of this) is always going to be an issue. Even in the old days you had RTTs that had additional rules, just it was less prevalent. I personally feel GW needs to have an actual tournament pack, an official one based on what they feel makes the game, and make using it a requirement for "official" tournaments. So your "GW tournament rules suck" person can run their own event, just it won't be officially recognized. You'd still have people like the ITC trying to undermine and usurp (which they already have done in the USA) but I think most people would be using the official from GW rules and not from an arrogant third-party who thinks they know better than the designers of the game.

I find it's either love it or hate it, sometimes both. The major issue with it is that it's basically you rolled badly, so you spend two turns doing nothing except rolling saves (if you're lucky) and removing models. That's bad. The benefit is that it is pretty unique and I guess adds some complexity, but really not because "hinging on a single die roll" isn't complexity. I have almost always seen situations where whoever gets the first double turn wins, because they get two free rounds of beating on their opponent while the other guy cannot do anything but sit there and take it. Honestly I would have preferred getting rid of the IGO-UGO thing anyways and doing alternating activations like Bolt Action, then I could see a double turn mechanic mattering since if you drew two activations in a row, it means you use more of your units so you can't react when your opponent inevitably gets more of theirs. That's good random chance IMHO. Double Turn is, again IMHO, bad random chance because it's all or nothing. So basically I think it's an alright mechanic but not in an IGO-UGO game. If it was unit activations or the game itself had more reactionary things you could do (imagine like like a unit given an action such that if you move in range of them, they can counter-charge you on your turn) then it would make sense since the person who lost the roll would get something other than two turns of being kicked in the groin.

While I don't disagree, a standard set of rules is a very important thing. When tournaments run their own rules, pick and choose what they run, etc. it sort of detracts from the "legitimacy" of competitive play since there's no single standard. The GW rules might not be the best but they should be the standard if only because they are directly from the company making the game. I feel what they say should be used in events is what should be used in events. If that includes the terrain and realm rules, then so be it.

I agree losing to RNG is bad, but isn't the point of these to DISCOURAGE stuff like Shootcast or Stardrake Staunch Defender? Okay Nagash you can't help he's one dude, but it seems like the entire intent (even if it's not used that way) of the realms is to make people think "Hmm.. we could roll Ulgu limited sight for the realm. Shootcast might not be the best option, I should bring something more well-rounded" or what have you and give a reason to rethink those skew builds.