pseudonyme
-
Posts
545 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by pseudonyme
-
-
4 hours ago, soak314 said:
BATTLE REPORT!
Gitz vs Idoneth Deepkin
My list:
Spearhead: 20x Shootas w/ 5x Loonsmashas, Madcap Shaman w/ Vindictive Glare + Moonface Mommet
Main Body: 12x Squig Herd, 12x Squig Herd, Loonboss On Giant Cave Squig w/ Fight Another Day, Fungoid w/ Squig Lure
Rearguard: 5x Boingrotz
Spells: Pendulum
Battleplan: Central Objective (these are learning games with various people, so I'm running the basic battleplan for all of em.)
His List
Spearhead: 3x Tanky Eels, Tidecaster w/ the d3 Mortal Wounds spell, 10x Thralls
Main Body: Volturnos w/ uh stuff, 3x Tanky Eels, 10x Thralls
Rearguard: Allopex
Hoo boy. Okay, so spoilers I lose this game on my first decision: I take first turn. I run up excitedly and get exactly 4 grots on the point, not releasing my fanatics because of ??reasons??. My madcap tails em, keepin close. His turn comes around.The eels are suddenly dead center on the point, the thralls moving up right behind em, giving him 5 bodies on the point. The tidecaster lops 3 wounds off my grots. He takes 5 points for turn 1.
Turn 2! Moon comes out, yay, and my squigs are positioned to take advantage of it. Half of them run up on the right, half on the left, trying for an encirclement on the point. The boss supports the right wing, the fungoid joins the madcap.
The shootas loose on his approaching thralls, nailing exactly one. My madcap and fungoid do 2 mortals total to the eels.
I deploy the fanatics! .... only to realize he's used the high movement on the eels to deny me deploying them on the point, in front of my shootas. , forcing me to put them out to the side where they *cannot charge* because of this tiny chokepoint he's generated with his shipwrecks. I also *don't* charge the shootas in, possibly because I was very high on the tramadol + voltaren cocktail I took in the morning for my herniated disc. (I have no idea why i didn't charge the shootas in). I deploy my boingrotz out on the right wing.
His turn, turn 2 starts and his army springs into action.
The eels on the point *s w e r v e* clean off it, shooting off to the side and into my left wing of squigs. The empty point is then filled with the 10 thralls, who both contest it and charge into my shootas. Volturnos and the second batch of eels charge my right flank of squigs. They've stopped my attempt at encirclement. 10 more thralls come in right behind the first batch. I'm thankful they're not reavers, and he's kicking himself because they're not reavers (this already utter loss would be an even more embarassing defeat if they were reavers). That's way more than 10 bodies on the point for me to chew through.
The first big melee exchange happens, I wipe out half of the thralls with a lone fanatic who cheekily piles in through a gap, but he lops off more wounds than I could keep up with on every front. The eels stand firm on both wings, putting big dents in my squigs. 5 points to him, we're at 0-10.
Turn 3 happens and boy oh boy do you idoneth fans know what that means. He gets first turn, takes it with aplomb, and attacks first with *everything*, wiping out most of my grots, forcing a nasty battleshock test on both my squig wings that takes them down to exactly no squigs left.
Also he does a ritual which takes away my boingrotz' ability to fly and I'm just stood there like the john travolta gif.
My turn turn 3 rolls around and I flail like a greenhorn sumo wrestler in the middle of a vicious takedown, sending my boingrots into the eels, a tabletop reenactment of driving five bouncy motorbikes full speed into a brick wall. 5 more points to him, 0 -15.
Turn 4, he completes the counter-encirclement, murders every last one of my units, and reaches a final score of 0-20.Without your first error, do you think you could have won ?
-
1 hour ago, SwampHeart said:
Doesn't solve issues like Morathi or GKoTG.
I meant a limit in points. Can’t even blame the autocorrect
-
Don't you think à little faq by limiting the maximum size of à unit could solve this "inbalance"?
-
A teaser or two don't you think ?
-
10 hours ago, soak314 said:
You're likely someone who'll get more out of the game's Narrative play style!
Think of it this way: Matched Play is MMA. Narrative is Pro Wrestling.
MMA is two people doing similarly structured, hyper optimised things with a focus on extreme efficiency and making life as not nice for the other person as humanly possible.
Pro Wrestling is two dudes putting on a show. It is a social contract to get in a fake fight with someone you've maybe only just met, and to make it as entertaining as you possibly can.
Does this mean Narrative play is fake? Heck yeah it does, Narrative Play is putting on a show, telling a story, just for the two of you, and for a show to truly become a Spectacle, it usually has to be worked.
Being good at this kind of game is a skill unto itself. It entails pulling each other's punches, giving the other guy breathing room so you don't pull the AoS equivalent of stiffing him in the nose and having him bleed all over everything for the rest of the match. It involves an inherent degree of trust in your 'opponent' to do the same thing. It might also involve not being too obvious about doing these things lest you start making your opponent feel bad because it's obvious you're going easy!
It's certainly not for everyone: most competitive minded people simply cannot comprehend the narrative approach when you try and sell it to em. But there's a pretty damn big subsection of the playerbase that can enjoy it, I suggest you go find em.
Best analogy ever !
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, tripchimeras said:
Agree that I think a huge point that cannot be reiterated enough is that GW does not make rules first games. They are the biggest and the "best" for a couple reasons which mostly gel with yours:
1. They make the best models. Sure this is subjective, but it is a wide majority opinion.
2. They have the best lore, with mountains of novels, lore, and flavor.
3. And I think the single biggest factor for me, they have a near monopoly on massed battle fantasy and sci-fi wargames. KoW is the only real company owned alternative, with 9th age being the only other if you are willing to risk it on the uncertainty that comes with community rulesets, both of which funny enough are largely populated by GW models. A couple new ones have come out since WHFB died, but good luck finding games, which brings me to #4.
4. In a hobby that requires a large financial commitment and a ridiculous amount of time and energy, GW is one of a very few number of companies you can pretty well depend on that in a decade the models you own now can be brought to a game without almost any meddling and just get played as is. You know on any given weekend if you wander into a gaming store with wargaming support you are going to be able to find a GW pickup game. You know your investment in the hobby is about as safe as humanly possible. BTW for those that were suggesting that GW should have just retired everything from WHFB when switching to AoS, this is why they simply could not afford to do this. It would have been better for the game in a vacuum, but longevity and sustainability of investment would have taken a huge hit, it would have felt like a far bigger betrayal of the WHFB player base then it already did, and a lot of us that did eventually come back, probably never would have if they had full stop retired the old armies.
The game rules are not in my list of why GW is successful, because I think their rules are only as important to their success as they need to be to facilitate the strengths above. That is to provide a fun and narratively fulfilling experience, and one that can be played competitively in a setting where skill determines the outcome of the game rather then just blind dice rolling luck. GW rules have always delivered the first of these two things in flying colours, and if there is something GW rules actually do better then its competition it is in delivering flavour through rule mechanics, and list building. I have never played another table top game where building a list felt so rewarding, so personalized, or so unique to my narrative or tactical vision. On the other side GW's great weakness has always been competitive balance and play. They have always managed to stay on just the right side of the line between competitively playable and not (except for a brief stint at the beginning of AoS where it was competitively non-viable), but at times it has been quite the struggle for them. A big part of that issue comes from what @Overread mentions with loosely written rules. However that loose writing style I think is one of the reason their rules are able to convey so much more flavour then those of their competitors, so there is a trade-off here. I think even bigger then this in their struggle in competitive play though, is the shear breadth of their model ranges, and their concerted effort to give the player tons of army variety and customization, a ton of play styles, and making every unit feel unique. This makes balancing of the game extraordinarily difficult, and even in a best case scenario GW games are never going to be as balanced or strategically varied as some of their competitors. But that is okay, because the benefits more then outweigh the downsides for me.
I think we as a community need to do a better job of recognizing this, and while GW needs to do a much better job with fixing mistakes (I can't remember the last time GW tried to fix something, where the fix didn't raise almost as many questions as the original problem) , we also need to understand that there is a really good reason that they carried all of the old WHFB stuff over to AoS, but there is also very clear reasons those things still are not very functional competitively. I think the new GHB continued the (much slower then any of us probably wanted) process of refining AoS into doing all of the things that made WHFB the gold standard of fantasy gaming for 25-30 years. But after all of that you still think rules balance means more to you, KoW or Malifaux is waiting for you. I just think with the former you are going to miss the flavor way more then you think and with the latter, so long as you don't mind saying goodbye to massed battles, and ginormous monsters you won't be disappointed (assuming 3rd edition isn't a broken mess, idk).
GW is one hell of a flawed company, and I am someone who has absolutely been very negative on them before, and often I still am. Hell I rage-quit after 8th was disbanded, sold off every model I owned and swore off GW forever. But at the end of the day GW understands there player base, and AoS is proof. While it was one hell of a sloppy roll-out, and the executives at the top during that roll-out may have forgotten who their player base was for a minute, within 6 months the bones were in place to fix that issue, and I really don't think GW is going to make that mistake again. As AoS stands right now, the hobby is in the best place its been since mid-8th edition, and in a far better place then it was late 8th. Honestly, it is probably more balanced then Warhammer has been in a very very long time, so I am going to count my blessings haha.
You should listen to the honest wargamer Stormcast faction focus podcast épisode with Jacob Rage of sigmar. There he says that Malifaux is a far better system than AoS, BUT, AoS has the best fun community ever
-
40 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Well with a huge chunk of the people gone, I guess it would be hard to discuss much
OK, I confess, my comment was a non added value sarcasm, and I am sorry for that.
While in my 40s, I jumped into the hobby quite recently so never got into WFB. But as I understood, lots of people considered, and still consider, AoS as à "Skirmish wargame". And I would say that, with that in mind, that GW are expecting people to have multiple small / big enough armies, instead of investing à lot in one.
Now, should GW be more clear on the future of legacy armies ? Yes, absolutely. Their silence is deqfening and frustration. Should GW put more effort in the GHB for thèse legacy armies ? Sûre, maybe.. Should the people who invested à lot in an army never / not currently supported by à battletome continue ranting without any clue that GW will do something for their army ? Probably not.
I get the frustration, and I feel for the Slave to darkness lovers, expressing your frustration and expections is one thing, ranting over and over is very annoying from this side of the fence.
Hope it won't taken to harshly.
-
1
-
-
In fact, they should have squatted all armies. We would not have those discussions.
-
The goal is too have à rough balance. Sure you will spot lots of cases, but it is just too give some guidelines. Nothing more.
If anyone is concerned about the balance, they should check the points
-
1 hour ago, zamerion said:
I think warcry is not designed to play competitive
Or they have not said anything similar. Unlike kill team or shadespire, that GW announced it as competitive.
I think there would be tournament packs, but that the game was more focused on the narrative. A shame.
Cool
-
1 hour ago, Slayerofmen said:
If they release all the super obvious units to fyreslyers now what would they release V 3
You mean woman dwarves?
-
As the rules are written, I don't think you can summon à doubled sized unit turn 1 (ok, it will be turn 2, but still).
Also, as far as I remember, there is only 1 scénario where you can field à behemoth turn 1. Not saying there isn't à problèm, I think there should be à cap to be defined.
Thanks for the feedback
-
1 hour ago, soak314 said:
I've gotten a couple games in! Running gloompsite. first game vs FeC, second game vs BcR. Both games using the first central point battleplan, which follows standard deployment order (Spearhead, Main Body, Rearguard). Worth noting that the gitz *cannot* legally deploy their loonshrine in this battleplan.
Vs FeC:
We ran this to see how big of an impact the summoning would have. Not much in this game's case because he didn't have an archregent, and could only call in horrors with his bat. The horrors were heavily limited in their deployment, and ended up getting screened by fanatics up until turn 4.
Consider that to have the free summon the FeC boss has to hang back a good ways to sit on his murderchair. That's a luxury you will likely will not be able to afford given how the faction synergises around your abhorrent.
Speaking of the terrorgheist itself, it was run as Blisterskin so it had pretty terrifying board coverage. He botched a lot of rolls and couldn't get the turn 2 charge. Turn 3 onwards the terrorgheist deleted a full unit a turn, instagibbing my bounders before they could even move and eating up my loonboss and fungoid in a single attack roll. He was still very limited in what he could and could not charge into, because I was running a ton of bodies and easily zoning out where he could land.
This game ended in a dead draw, with my grots taking big points early on via objectives, but losing steam in the end as the big bat ran roughshod through my flanks.
Vs BcR:
Started off strong with my fanatics on a point supported by 20 grots and a madcap. He tried to charge either side of the fanatic line, but rolled really badly and ended up with a pair of ogors surrounded by the sporesplattas. With help from the madcap's moonface mommet, the fanatics easily took out the one unit of mournfang and I took a juicy 5 points right there.
Turn 2 starts and in comes the stonehorn sent right into my grot blob, which he promptly wipes off the board despite the -1 to hit from the netters.
He brings out a cheeky 2 unit squad of frostsabres, and successfully splits the fanatic attacks with a two pronged charge with his remaining mournfang. They weather the Fights First and lose all of one frostsaber, and proceed to wipe the fanatics. Turn 2 sees five points to him, because my main body has fudged their charge rolls and have failed to get onto the point.
His Rearguard Yhetees are very cool because they come in, sprint up onto the point, and can pile in 6 inches into the fray while contributing their 6 bodies to the pointgrab.
From there it's pretty much his big boss stomping on my army, though I do manage to get some bodies on the point. I also whittle down his frostlord on stonehorn with a good cast of the pendulum (2d6 guaranteed! though in this case the would-be 11 wounds was cut in half, owch). I score enough to force him into a minor victory.
Loss for me here, but I was more happy to see the BCR be legitimately, strategically threatening.
***
I've yet to try the alternate deployment order battleplans, but in a tourney setting in particular those will really shake things up. I had a good gut feeling about this ruleset, and it may just be the novelty or the snappiness of the rules but this is the most cerebral AoS I've played. Almost like I'm playing Total War!Thanks mate, sounds as exciting as I was hoping.
I heard lots of people complaining without having played yet, about the inbalance of big monsters/heroes like Morathi and the likes. What's your intuition about that ?
Also, would an archregent and his summoning would have changed the game significantly ?
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Dead_Duardin said:
So nighthaunt faction hasn't been squatted by Log?
About to start an army of spooky ghosts for 2.5 so kind of important ha
You should listen to this GHB 2019 Nighthaunt faction réaction on the honest wargamer podcast http://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/638503971-the-honest-wargamer-ghb-2019-faction-reaction-ash-nighthaunt.mp3
I always that the NightHaunt book was ****** and invalidantes by LoG, but the guest has à insightful take on how should they be played
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:
Any examples in particular that you are interested in?
Example on your method to compare new warscroll vs old warscroll. You made me very curious, and as interesting as it is, your post is a little abstract because of lack of concrete examples.
Beyond actual warscroll that you would cut by 50%, was there good examples of changing the warscroll in the gloomspite gits or Skaven battletome?
-
Very interesting. a couple of examples here and there and it would have been perfect .
thank you for sharing your experience.
-
The guy replied to me on YouTube, and he, for him at least, the 2 battlelines constraint is gone.
-
1
-
-
On 6/14/2019 at 11:27 AM, Drib said:
In their latest battle report, Guerilla miniature games seemed to have only one battleline for the Stormcasts.
Besides, it seems super quick and fun.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, MattT said:
Sorry, but podcasts are terribly impractical. There´s a reason AoS Tactica is still at the top of Googles hit list and it´s that it consists of easily digested and very well illustrated scenarios. Listening through some random guys ramblings and banter for 30 minutes to try and glean some information on the subject I´m after is just a non-starter. Podcasts works best as light entertainment, not research material.
107% agree.
Good old diagrams with à couple of explanations will always be more efficient than people talking without any visuals involved.
Just look at the différence between the rules booklets between 1.0 and 2.0, nothing changed much, but the additions of visuals just made the game understandable and far less abstract.
I think Honest wargamer should produce or at least compile this kind of articles on his website.
-
1
-
-
If summoning is banned, pink horrors could not be fielded as the summoning mechanix is included in their points.
I am sure they thought about rules / contraints about summoning. Just by limiting the size of units or their cost.
Stop dramatizing everything, 10 days before the release
-
1
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, Enoby said:
Seems like people voted for power rather than internal balance.
Yep. And it is surprising to see Daughter of Khaine in the top as I recently heard than there is 1 allegiance that tops the others from a distance.
Anyway, as many if you stated, this poll would require a deep knowledge of all battletomes.
-
Oups
Here they are (only 31 one participants)
https://jugementmajoritaire.net/vote/5519d76adb5c184d48c12dbccb257770cb537ce37c9?_locale=en
Uploaded the photos from my tablet, so I have not much control on the order they will appear
-
Oh yeah, sorry dude. Will do that tomorrow from work 😬
-
6 minutes ago, Qrow said:
I would like to see something like a 6 month check in after a codex is released, similar to how they do the erratas now. Around the 6 month mark they look at the armies results, check for over/underperforming units or rules, and adjust how they can to keep the playing field more level.
I do completely agree with people saying 3 months is too short, 3 months leads to a lot of knee-****** reactions and no chance for people to learn counters. However, I think most people (certainly those at my local clubs and in many of the forums I read) agree that the last few releases have been a full step ahead of previous battletomes in relative power terms. If GW can develop a new method to minimise these issues then I'm all for it, one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K was due to consistant power imbalances. Though AoS has way less ranged vs melee issues to fix, thankfully.
Maybe they could adopt a similar program to privateer press; they announce a faction will being going up for review and take in community feedback, then there is a month where they offer beta rule/point adjustments while taking in more feedback from playtesters, adjusting slightly each week until they have a better idea of what is happening then close the beta. After that, they internally review for about a month, then release the new profiles.
That way, I guess the hype won’t be half of what it is for each release since the beginning of AoS
Warcry is Killteam/Mordheim... ?
in Warcry
Posted
Reading the last White dwarf, I am hoping that they will release fun scenarios for Warcry in it 🤞