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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

73 Celestant-Prime


About Sarkazim

  • Rank
  • Birthday March 10

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No one should be forced to play a game where they aren’t having fun. Tournaments seem to have forgotten this, and as a few here have said, some have failed to include that in their scoring. It seems like quite a few tournaments are still not treating wins the same. Players are being rewarded for unfavorable matchups, while those who have difficult games are getting punished. Concession punishes the the winner in an unfavorable matchup, but also creates another monster, the ‘Going Easy’ guy. I’ve been guilty of this. It’s where you control the game so well, that you hold back to score more while dragging the game on. While this might be acceptable when teaching the game, or trying to help someone out, it ruins the experience because you are not giving your opponent your best.
  2. After my second game, I did re read the rules and I saw the potential in Urbaz. Decided to stick with Mhornar, so I don’t get confused. In addition to fitting my paint theme, we’re also into 1k games now, so moving past that. I started reading the KO thread before starting this one to track my own progress and found quite a bit of helpful info there. I’m going to stick with the above list for the league largely because I now have most of those models and just need to get the Arknauts at this point. I really like the Thunderers and I’ve decided to get another 10. I also want to get a unit of Skywardens to try out the different Battalions. While not set on it yet, I think I’m going to get two more SC boxes. That’ll give me the Thunderers, Skywardens, and put me at 4 Gunhaulers if I ever decide to use the Mhornar bonus with that Battalion. Just need ideas to convert the additional Skyhooks in the large block of AC.
  3. I'm In: Committed: Aether-Khemist 10 x Arknaut Company 10 x Grundstok Thunderers Pushing it: Knight-Incantor 10 x Arknaut Company 9 x Endrinriggers * Seems like a lot, but one of the newer players at my FLGS was given flak for having a drybrushed army, ironically by someone who's army isn't even painted. So I've decided to do a majority of this force by drybrushing to show that it's okay and can look good. Here's hoping I can deliver on the second part. (Off question, what are people using for img hosting?)
  4. Thanks. I had my first 500 pt game with the above vs. Khorne and had a blast, literally. The 10 Thunderers went to town on the enemy with the Khemist buff and their ability to retreat instead of attacking. Never really got to buff the Skyhooks since they were the screen unit but over the 4 turns they maybe hit once or twice. I originally went with the Aethermatics because of the 1 per box issue, but I’m now leaning toward just having one unit of Skyhooks with two supporting units. Originally I intended to get 60 Arknauts in the long run, running 3x20 with each special weapon. After seeing how the AC did in combat I’m not really seeing much benefit to the Melee option, so it’s good to know that I can use the Skyhooks from the Endrins. It was my first 2.0 game and I learned a ton, and made a few mistakes. I didn’t really play with any of the Barack rules because I had no idea of what the army did. It seems the KO are a good army where choosing to go second could be a better option. Admittedly, I Now think that choosing Mhornar for theme might be more my style anyways after reading what they do. I can already see the problem with Command points in larger games where I’m going to have more units than I can buff, so I’m looking forward to tackling that. The mistakes were mostly related to my opponent an I just finishing a game of 40k before. So we didn’t do the Alternating turns, I forgot about being able to shoot in Combat and that I’m able to target Characters if they aren’t the closest. I let him go first given the range on the guns and he left his Bloodsecrator out in the open behind all of his Warriors trying to manage the Battleshock aura. He was a sitting duck for the Arknauts on T1 and I completely spaced that I could even shoot him. I’m going to have to play around with going second more often I think, but we’ll see. Not using the Mhornar bonuses was a HUGE oversight that won’t happen again, now that I’ve read it. To be fair I wasn’t expecting to play as I had just finished assembling them, and was asking questions about 2.0. The offer to play to answer my questions instead of trying to explain it just popped up.
  5. So I just found out that my local GW store is doing an AoS Escalation league and I'm behind. It's only 500 points so I've decided to start with this: Aether-Khemist 10 x Arkanaut Company - 3 x Light Skyhooks10 x Grundstok Thunderers - All RiflesTotal: 480 Expanding up to 1k: Knight-Incantor 10 x Arkanaut Company - 3 x Aethermatic Volleyguns3 x Endrinriggers Everblaze Comet ------- List tips aside, I'm planning on painting them with an Ulgu theme, and going with a darkness/moonlit paint scheme. If anyone has any tips on how to do this I'd also appreciate it.
  6. Pretty much what the title says. My Shadowblades army is effectively dead, but I still like the game. I decided to pick one of the newer armies and went with KO simply for the look of them and how fun they are going to be paint. I've started collecting boxes, and I'm looking for anything I should be aware of or tips in building, etc. I've gone and read all of the KO thread for some ideas, and with the new year coming up, I might be breaking these out of the boxes soon. What I have so far: Brokk 2 Aetherkhemists 2 Start Collecting 3 Arknaut Boxes 1 Frigate I also have a Knight Incantor given to me, and didn't think I'd be needing him, but I see him on quite a few KO lists, so thought I'd mention that I own one. I've got an idea of what I want to do with them playwise and have 2 lists roughed out, but not set in stone. I'd appreciate any list advice or what I should look at getting next. Also looking out for any building/conversion things I should be aware of. ex. I see Skyhooks on most Arknaut lists, but I guess the box only comes with one? Stuff like that or what guns I should give the boats, etc. Thanks All!
  7. Got an email because I’ve been inactive, so I figured this was the best place to drop a line to say that I’m still poking around. GW gaming has taken a bit of a back burner for now with me working two jobs. One is at a FLGS, but it’s mostly 40k so I don’t get much time in to keep up with AoS. Still have my Shadowblades, but with them getting shafted they’re in a box for the meantime. I’m looking at another army, but it’s mostly going to be for painting as I don’t have much time to play, and there aren’t any events around worth attending. Theres my update, don’t delete me please.
  8. Got a fresh group of players in my area as well. 1k seems to work out fine since the games are short, rules aren't complicated, and table space isn't tied up too long.
  9. This pack is nothing but failure because this is where it starts. We know this because of how the ITC has ruined 40k. This pack, and others like it, are based on fixing a problem that would first have to exist. A perception that such a problem exists in the first place, but it's difficult to balance. AoS has done something that hasn't been done in a long time, and that is updated scenarios within an edition. GW is now actively adapting the game more than they have in the past. Prior to GHB1, we only had the one real scenario, so a problem did exist when trying to provide variety to an event. GHB1 gave us scenarios with 2 objectives. The first being whatever the main objective was. The second test to see who killed more models/points was only ever implemented if the results of the first objective didn't determine a winner. This leads to what you're saying @WSDdeloach, that we have a game where there are clearly top table armies. There is nothing wrong with making it accessible so that players can bring their own armies and still hope to win, but it really needs to keep this core concept of scenario design when trying to make improvements. This pack doesn't accomplish what you're hoping it will. First of all, while there may be a ladder, it is one set by GW. It's their game, we should let them fix it. I'll come back to this, but it's the first key point. The second is that this pack starts by detracting from the game resting on that main objective. No one should ever be able to win off of secondary objectives. This pack actually decreases the value of winning that main objective by possibly denying a major victory to someone who earned it. The last point is that we've had an update, and it was about a year from the previous one. None of the GHB17 missions have added anything resembling this pack, so there isn't a problem. We know this will fail because of what they've done to 40k. (I've tried to make this relevant to the discussion and the approach is from the mentality above, and what the ITC did to address it. If you read this as a defense of a mechanic that isn't current, then you're missing my point). I've put this in a spoiler, since it was mentioned that this is an AoS forum and not a 40k one. I'm attempting to illustrate a pattern here. After this, I'll be done ranting. I play this game to remove stress from my life and not add to it. The ITC as a whole has not been a positive influence on my hobby, and representing ~20% of the total community, shouldn't be dictating the game. That said, this pack is just the beginning of the road that the ITC will drag AoS through. The intent is to make it so that we will see some diversity in the army rankings. The results will show that some will, while it won't impact others at all. The final result will be an altered ranking of what is considered good anyways. Ironically, the only difference between this one and the one that exists under the current setup is that GW isn't dictating which armies are good/bad. So what are you truly hoping to accomplish when change the game into something other than AoS, only to end up with a fan driven result as opposed to a company controlled one?
  10. Fair Enough. So how is this not the same thing? Trying to be sincere here and not trolling, and trying to keep it relevant to the topic. I've had a great experience here compared to other places, like Dakka. I try to have an open discussion, but it's the same thing every time. The ITC has evolved to cater to the discontent and hatred toward the rules. We've had to listen to this vitriol and hate for at least 3 editions of 40k now. This AoS packet is a reflection of the same thing happening.
  11. Anyone else bummed because they were hoping it was an 'Aussie man reviews' video?
  12. How do we say ‘Don’t ruin AoS like they did with 40k’ in a way that will have any impact on the decision to avoid running this ******? If he is the same kind of ‘Reasonable’ as the 40k side, then it won’t have any impact, and there won’t be any point. Im not trying to be disrespectful (or trolling), but you don’t create balance by removing core elements of scenarios and/or adding other mechanics. I’ve found the complete opposite of what you said to be true. The ITC missions were utter ——, and are probably the most unbalanced scenarios out there still. I’ve heard the whole ‘I couldn’t have won vs. X if we played the straight missions’ argument so many times. What I found was that those players who struggled with it, had a more difficult time adjusting their army to the scenarios. It was easier for them to ignore having to deal with that so they wouldn’t have to adapt. 7th introduced the Maelstrom cards, and even I ignored them until I got a grasp on the changes. After that, I went back and incorporated them into my lists, and found it to be VERY competitive. The ITC went the other way, and helped destroy the whole thing by avoiding incorporating it. They couldn’t leave it at that either. They replaced it with some brainless attempt to try what they thought was the intent, then managed to convince the players that they were somehow still playing Maelstrom from the book. This didn’t become a problem until it spilled outside of their events. Independent events were now playing the ITC instead of 40k. Casual games / Batreps started showing the ITC instead of 40k. In some cases, a players first exposure to the hobby was the ITC, not 40k. I gave the scenarios a good year of playing them, tried to enjoy them, modified and adapted my list to succeed, just like anyone else. I ended up not having fun, being pigeon holed into running units that didn’t perform well in 40k, knowing that a HUGE part of the game had been ripped out. There is nothing competitive about the ITC, unless you’re changing the definition of competitive to also mean nerfed?The BIGGEST tradgedy of all of it was that they HAD the opportunity to scrap their system with 8th, but didnt even bother. The insult is that they got to play test it, write articles on how armies are going to change, and then show us that it’s still not good enough by continuing with what they’ve been playing with for years. There are plenty of competitive lists that will never get their opportunity to shine because of what they’ve done on the 40k side. This packet is emulating that, and is just the start of continuing to divide the community between those who play the ITC, and those that play AoS. In the end it won’t make one... bit... of difference... to FLG. What matters to them is that they fill those seats, and they will,do that as long as they cater to those who want to avoid adjusting to the current game state. An effort is no longer being made to create a truly competitive event. The rest of us will continue to wait for Competitive 40k/AoS to return to the US.
  13. I think you simply might be putting the who instead of the what. What happened is simply that Competitive events still happened. You've associated that event with those names, and you're implying that without these players that we wouldn't have any competitive events. After the fall of the GW spine (No more GT's, Games day, removal of the Outrider program, and no more tournament kits), it simply fell back onto the Clubs, FLGS stores, and loyal players to organize players. Several stepped up to the challenge, tried to establish themselves, and setup something with the intent of making something of it. Having to fight by not having an established name, FLGS store owners being bitter about lack of support for promoting the product, or simply protecting their own communities, to players wanting to 'correct' problems within the game, were just a few of the things that had to be overcome. Those names are those who were successful. I have ZERO doubt that if they failed, we'd be talking about someone else who would be succeeded. That's not to say that what these giants haven't done something impressive. They have absolutely done something amazing. They aren't the reason competitive GW events exist. Every player, even those who prefer these alternate rules sets, are the reason that we have the events. There are plenty of people willing to organize it, some are just more known.
  14. This is strictly not true. We could talk forever on why the scene died and was resurrected, but there were plenty of events around long before the ITC. It's all off topic but the ITC did not save the competitive scene.
  15. (I'll do my best) It alters how victories are determined for purposes of ranking. More importantly, will force players to adapt their lists to focus/achieve objectives that are outside of the mission. - The ITC has a point differential system where player wins aren't the same when comparing them cross game. ie. The win on Table 1 isn't the same as a win on Table 2. * In their defense, this is an amazing solution in an event where you have more players than rounds to find that single, undefeated player. A 5 round event would have to cap at 32 players to get a single undefeated player. These bonus points are tacked on to score after determining the result of the main scenario. The outcome is that two equally matched players should have a close game and the winner will actually rank lower than an unbalanced match for the next pairing. - The next problem is that out of the max 19 points possible, a Major Victory accounts for less than 1/2 of that score. The MAIN objective accounts for LESS than the total score. This means it's possible for a player to score more points on the back end than is possible in the actual scenario. Statistically, this is a rare occurrence, but it is possible. It becomes frustrating, because in a Tie situation and even a minor victory, the losing player who has compensated for the additional objectives will actually win. * In the ITC, this isn't really an issue in the larger events. While the loser might be ranked higher, they'll still be under those that have won their games AND scored the additional VP. In smaller events, this actually creates more problems, because you could end up pairing a winner with someone who lost the main objective in the previous game. Regardless of either of these two points, it distracts from the main objective of just playing scenario but adding in these extra bits to skew the results. As above, I don't have a problem with this as long as it's limited to the venue. Players look at the results of these events to see what's performing well and what isn't. This is problematic for two reasons. The results are based on being able to perform with these additional scenarios. While this number will be low, the potential for lists to play to a draw on the main objective and win off of secondaries is possible. This confuses newer players when they base their purchases off of the results without understanding the format. The second problem is that it potentially alters the value of other units. MSU, # of heroes, Output/Survivability. I can't thing of which AOS units this applies to because I'm still just working on my own army. I've seen it in 40k too many times though. It ends up dictating that players can't succeed unless they take units. The internet bullying re-enforces this with words like 'That's an Okay list for Casual Play', 'You need to have XX if you want to be competitive', 'My advice is DON'T play that', and 'There is a reason why XX is in every list'. ----- The STUPIDITY of going through all that effort is that you still end up with a power level / ranking system of where armies sit on the ladder. It's unnecessary since simply playing the Battleplans as they are will still filter out top armies from bottoms armies. The difference will be that they will be reflective of how the game is written, and not some artificial ladder which has conditions in it that aren't required when building an army within the game.
  • Create New...