Freejack02
-
Posts
679 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Freejack02
-
-
12 hours ago, lare2 said:
I'm yet to see a tourney being won by an all dragon list (apologies if I've missed any). If you want to take an all dragon list then great for you. The evidence shows you're not guaranteed a 5-0 though.
I think a unit can be unbalanced without completely sweeping the tournament meta - 1st place at multiple tournaments should not be the metric overtuned units are judged by. I think just last week SDG spam-lists placed 2nd in a couple of bigger tournaments (results were posted a few pages back).
-
3
-
-
12 minutes ago, Iksdee said:
I dont know about majority running narrative battles/campaigns. However i do think the majority of people are painters and collectors who maybe play a few games a year (matched or not) and dont care one bit about 1 warscroll being slightly broken at some point. Most people including myself dont play tournaments and dont min/max their lists and play with what they own already.
That I agree with - I think there are many, many people that just collect/build/paint and don't have a large interest in playing the game. Buddy of mine does exactly that; he's been collecting/playing for 6 years now and has maybe 15 games total?
-
40 minutes ago, Carnelian said:
For anyone who wants "proof" that many ppl don't care about playing matched play
I know that some people like and play Narrative, maybe even a whole lot of people. What I am refuting is the "vast majority" are running narrative battles/campaigns - that's a giant assumption that just can't be backed up by anything more than hyperbole.
-
5
-
-
54 minutes ago, feadair said:
a) Should the points go up? If so, how much?
b) Should the Warscroll be altered? If so, how?
c) Should the conditional battleline status be removed to prevent the spamming of SDG?
I think B and C are warranted honestly, with a points reduction. They should NOT be conditional battleline (sorry to those that bought 10 of them), and the warscroll really is super bloated. Trim up some of their features, take away KD giving battleline, and drop them down to 275 or so.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:
Matched Play is the vast majority that gets talked about, not what is actually played.
4 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:matched play was them throwing you guys a bone, but it is 100% NOT how AoS is intended to be played. That’s not to say you can’t or shouldn’t play that way, but you need to realise and understand that the game wasn’t designed for that, and as such there will be ‘bugs in the system’ that gw probably won’t address, because they don’t need to.
Would love to see some actual proof to back up these claims.
What we do know is that the original AoS was not intended to be played "competitively", that is true... and it was so poorly received, so universally looked down on by the majority of their playerbase, that they changed the vision of what the game would be moving forward and wrote Matched Play into the system. They made a complete 180, because they saw that if they didn't, someone else was going to scoop up those competitive fantasy players - and I don't think they would have done that if matched players were really the minority.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, papary said:
I think looking cool as ****** is what they really excel at 🤣
100% agree - they are the reason I started SCE back in 2015. It was between the coolness of Prosecutors vs Gore Gruntas... armored fly-boys brought home the gold!
-
1
-
-
Just now, frenk_castle said:
Javelins are the proper way to play Prosecutors.
After the warscrolls got updated... I agree with @AdamR that hammers are just superior in every way but shooting range. If they let the Prime get an extra attack with the Trident/Greatweapon it would be closer, but paired hammers just do it better in this edition (I think to everyone's surprise).
The real question is - what do they really excel at? Finding squishy support heroes and taking them out is about the only real use I can see on paper.
-
5 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
Which, at the moment, is as good as pre-dragons SCE lists with raptors, fulminators and the like were doing.
Agreed, but I think raptors and fulminators are definitely considered "above the curve" in terms of power - therefore dragons can't really be said to be sub-optimal.
-
1 hour ago, Doko said:
The fact are that 340 for his stats are too much and they arent winning any tournament even triying be abused with spam builds etc.
A 10 Stormdrake list just took 2nd (4-1) at Clash of Swords in the UK, and another 9 drake list took 2nd in the Polish Team Championships over the weekend. They are being played, they are placing well.
-
1
-
-
On 12/23/2021 at 2:03 PM, Lord Krungharr said:
Ooh wow, didn't see that part!
Here's a stupid list to capitalize those 3D6 charges:
No Mawtribe/Dominating Presence/not sure about best Triumph for it yet.....
720 Kragnos
125 Icebrow Hunter (general, Winter Ranger)
165 Frost Sabres 3x2
960 Single Gorger x12
1970 Total
Only 4 cats and 9 Gorgers away from this stunning spoiler possibly destined to go 3 out of 5 or better at Adepticon 2022!
HAHA I was brainstorming a list and came up with this EXACT setup! Let me know if you ever play it (with someone who is cool with 9 proxies obviously).
Edit: Also wow, this was not a new idea at all - I should have read the previous discussions! I'm used to the SCE thread where there's a hundred pages to catch up on...
-
27 minutes ago, Fiddybucks said:
The main issue I see is if everything is in reserve kragnos has a pretty big target on his chest, and if he dies to a 1 drop alpha the list falls apart.
Yeah, probably keep a couple of them to at least semi-screen. It definitely gets out-dropped, so you'll never be deciding who goes first. Also for models that can survive being a target, Kragnos is pretty high up there.
It just seems like if each Gorger could do 2-3 mortals on the charge it could be a surprising amount of damage (and that's whithout Kragnos even getting involved). Might be one of those things that looks like it would work only on paper though.
-
6 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:
Why is everyone seemingly so obsessed with named characters having to have a Ward or they’re considered trash?
why isn’t the conversation instead that mortal wounds are a problem (there’s too much of them flying around these days) that needs to be addressed?
It's a very simple case of "which is more likely to get changed". Giving a named character a Ward is far, far more likely to happen than the entire damage mechanic of mortal wounds being revamped.
Not to mention, you can have both conversations - they go hand in hand. Are mortals too prevalent in the current game? Absolutely. Does that mean important models need a Ward to survive effectively? Absolutely.
-
4
-
-
Trying to help a friend brainstorm an army - has anyone thought to try lots of Gorgers with Kragnos? Basically just relying on Ambush deployment and the 3D6 charges (natively rerolled) to crash in for as many mortals as possible? MSU Ogors sounds odd to me, but for only 80 points they seem good enough to mass and crash. Good chance there's not enough available points to make it worthwhile though.
Also I'm not 100% on how the mortal-wounds-on-charge allegiance ability works, they are locked into the 6+ roll without a way to improve it right?
Thoughts?
-
I can agree with both perspectives I think, I just see it as a more expected approach for GW to do exactly what they did - nerf what a lot of players saw as the outlier in artefact choice. I think the "haves vs have-nots" will always be a problem in a game with such long release windows, and I can agree that your argument is a perfectly good one.
-
10 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:
That's a Slippery Slope fallacy, and also a "let the perfect be the enemy of the Good".
This is not a "slippery slope fallacy", what I stated was simply fact. Unique battalions existed, then were removed, causing varietal list-building to be decreased. I'm aware the playing field can't be perfectly balanced; it's impossible without making all factions identical. The problem is the amount of effort GW has to put into these changes - I think most people here know they're going to do the minimum amount of work when it comes to rules.
10 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:I'm not saying Amulet wasn't too strong - in some cases it absolutely was. What I take issue with is the idea that it was too strong because it was in the Core Rules. The Core Artefacts SHOULD be strong choices if you don't have good options in your Tome for your list.
Yes, they should be strong, not stronger than everything else. Competitive choices, not superior. IF future tomes were tuned to the levels of 5+ amulet than the have-nots get left further and further behind. Some tomes not having strong choices is a separate problem that GW should address, but I don't think making over-bearing items in the Core Rules is a good solution to that.
It makes more sense to prune the longest branch than to try and make the rest of the tree grow to match it.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:
I'd think that a competitive scenario would be more interested in setting up a level playing field than ensuring everyone's narrative and flavorful artefacts see play, but I suppose I'm more interested in seeing everyone has good artefact options than hoping my limited set will happen to be ok.
Good Amulet sets up a more level playing field for competition. Bad Amulet flatly does not.
There are plenty of things that work differently based on the "carrier", Amulet could have been one of them.
As long as faction variety exists, you're sacrificing the competitive "level playing field" in some way. True, amulet being too strong does create a more even field for every faction, but it also waters down what makes armies unique. We already lost interesting battalions for the sake of competitive fair play (and because GW can't balance them very well), I'd rather not homogenize everyone's artefact choice while we're at it.
It's not a perfect solution, but if we're talking in terms of expected GW effort - it's much more likely that they would just nerf amulet instead of changing faction items to be on par with it.
-
8 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:
Having the best artefacts be in the Core Book is proof against Tome Artefact bloat/power creep and prevents "winners and losers" based on whether your particular time has good artefacts or trash artefacts.
It's very easy to balance tome artefacts when everything goes as long as it's not better than Amulet of Destiny. It's a license to be cool and creative without power creep... or was.
It's impossible for someone's tome to leave theme without any good artefact options if they always have the option of taking the "simple but extremely effective" core option that is Amulet of Destiny... or was.
Amulet needed to be conditionally nerfed or restricted to make it less powerful on problematic super units. Nerfing it like they did just returned us to the previous situation, where the quality of your artefacts is essentially random based on how your tome was written - and your only fallback option is now Arcane Tome. So long as it isn't next...
So would you rather have Amulet dominating the choice meta (and all tome artefacts having little to no relevance), or would you rather the single dominant item be changed and open up interesting possibilities?
-
2 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said:
But shouldn't arcane tome have been nerfed as well then? It also outshines nearly every army book relic in the game, and really only faced competition from the amulet.
And a 6+ FNP is garbage on nearly everything except possibly the fattest monsters, it could've stayed 5+ for squishy foot heroes.
Possibly, but that's much more difficult without retooling the entire item - it's simple to make a 5+ into 6+, much harder to nerf tome without completely changing the identity of the item.
-
1 hour ago, Lord Krungharr said:
I don't think the Amulet nerf was warranted really as whole armies get a 5+ ward sometimes, or units easily get it (like apparently Sequitors), but a special artefact on one hero is only a 6+? Kinda lame.
It was 100% warranted; it was THE best choice for nearly everything that doesn't take Arcane Tome - and that's including the initial 3.0 tomes released. When the artefacts list that has been tailored to your faction can't compete with the general Core options, something needs to change (imo).
-
15 hours ago, vinnyt said:
Imperator
Relictor with translocation
5 Protectors
2x5 Retributors
6 Grandhammer Annihilators
6 Raptorslist is a 1 drop
So in a list where the purpose is to utilize Paladins, you stick in a 6-block of Annhilators and a 6-block of Raptors... which will do 90% of the heavy lifting for the entire force. I think it's possible you unintentionally stumbled upon what SCE players aren't too crazy about.
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, Kimbo said:
Hey, new stormcast player here. I got a few questions regarding some units ( I'd love input)
1. New big hero drakes, are they viable? They seem bit over costed, but not the worst thing ive seen.
2. Bastian, thought? Good, bad or ok. Please explain your thoughts!
3. Greathammers, I'd like to run 6 as a hammer. Anyone used them and loved them? They seem good, but not seen them in many lists, why?
1. They seem VERY overcosted to me (and a lot of others), I personally wouldn't run them except in pretty casual games.
2. Seems very good, haven't had the chance to use him yet. Have seen tournament lists use him successfully.
3. Seem a good hammer as 6, personally haven't used them yet (and I think they're just overshadowed by Fulminators and Drakes).
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
I disagree ^^
(they look to short for my taste) ^^They didn't want to embarrass the dragon necks any further.
-
2 hours ago, Doko said:
Just a fast glimple at glotkin and for only 100 points he have more wounds,5 ward, and more damage and utility than both twin dragons together(2 spells as krondys but as double damage than karazai)
The dragons were costed poorly; we know this. That doesn't mean other new factions should suffer the same fate - hopefully they get a reduction soon (in the winter faq would be nice).
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, readercolin said:
Ahh, well all the good Stormcast armies have 3 squads of liberators in them. They are all the same army. I don't know what you people are complaining about when they say that they are nerfing stormcast into the ground - you're using most of the same models, with the same allegiance abilities, spells, keywords.
Sarcasm in case anyone is dense enough to not see through that. But that is effectively what you just said about Tzeentch. If I keep the same book but have to go out and purchase 1500-2000 points for a new army because of meta/edition/FAQ changes, it is not the same army.
I can see your point, but I think Tzeentch is a bad example - they rely so heavy on spells (both faction and universal) that it almost doesn't matter what their warscroll situation is... as long as it's a wizard, they can make use of it. Yes, horrors have always been a bit cancerous to deal with and Archaon + Destiny Dice has reared its head; but that backbone of that entire faction is a universal mechanic that everyone has access to - which lets them deal plenty of damage and summon more casters. Stormcast don't have that - we rely on independently strong warscrolls to keep us competitive; doubly so now that a lot of battalions and group synergies have been dismantled. TV is the real outlier there; but for the rest pretty much all the synergy we have is "Translocate them here" and "Stay close to Gardus". We aren't well-equipped to seeing our S tier get chopped down, there's not much to fall back on.
-
5
-
Stormcast Eternals 3.0 - There is no "a" in Vindictors
in Stormcast Eternals
Posted
Good to see 15x Judicators win - I know they looked great on paper but hadn't heard many real reports on using them. That second list; anyone know the main purpose behind doubling up on the Tempestors instead of Fulminators?