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

Solaris

Members
  • Content Count

    663
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Solaris last won the day on July 10 2018

Solaris had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

442 Celestant-Prime

About Solaris

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I actually disagree with most of what you've written in this post and in others. The double turn adds a LOT of tactical consideration to the game, forcing you to be very careful with your positioning when there's a risk of your opponent getting a double. In many scenarios it's actually perfectly valid to sit back passively for up to three turns, scoring with chaff and screen units as much as you can and waiting for your opponent to commit. If my opponent is in no position to inflict heavy damage on me, I'll happily give them a double turn (I actually did that in a game I played just two days ago). That way, I can get into an advantageous position later in the game instead. It's all a matter of being in the right position at the right time. If your opponent is able to attack your monster or important unit for two turns in a row, then you've made a mistake earlier in the game to enable that. If I position well, I can mitigate my opponent's double turn. If I position well, I can also maximize the the damage I inflict should I get a double turn of my own. At all times, you need to be prepare for both winning and to losing the next initiative roll. The players that do this tend to do well in tournaments consistently, and the players that don't do this tend to lose and/or complain about the double turn on the internet. I actually think IGOUGO would make the game incredibly dull. Turn predictability would take away so much from the game in terms of tactical positioning and maneuvering. It would significantly empower gunline armies, making kiting and screening reliable ways of ensuring several turns of shooting.
  2. Totally agree, I think it's the responsibility of both players to talk beforehand and adjust to their opponent's expectations when playing casual games. Sometimes I want to try a new list, sometimes I want to practice for a tournament and sometimes I want to roll dice and laugh at my Orruks doing stupid stuff and dying in droves. Talking to my opponent beforehand so we both know what to expect is key to a good gaming experience. The previous point of letting go of excuses was related to playing top tier armies. When I play my DoK, I know that if I lose, it was because I made mistakes (most of the time). With my Destruction armies, there is always the feeling that I could have won if I brought a stronger list. There's a lot more pressure on me as a player to perform when I bring a strong army to the table.
  3. I disagree with this, what you're describing is a person trying to do the best they can. For me, both list building and gameplay are quests for perfection. I play strong factions because they lend themselves well to this - polishing a diamond is more fun than polishing a roadside rock. For my competitive armies, I have never copied someone else's list, yet there always ends up being many similarities. If several people try to optimize the same faction, chances are they'll arrive at similar conclusions. As an avid tournament goer, I know some people that do copy other people's lists, and they tend to perform significantly worse than the players that actually design and perfect their own lists. There's also something to be said about daring to let go of all excuses and accepting that when you lose, the fault lies with you as a player and not your army. This is somewhat off topic, so no need to discuss it further. I just want to challenge the notion that trying to perfect your craft is "admitting you need help to take an advantage". That's a narrow-minded way to look at things.
  4. Yeah, of course. I'd prefer Witchbrew and Hagg Nar to be rewritten, but that won't happen. Hags up to 100 or so is a given, they are just far too good currently. Witches and Sisters losing their horde discount might be fine, if other units are adjusted down to compensate. Larger changes will remove them from contention. I think points can bridge the gap between DoK/LoN/Skaven/Slaanesh and others, but I don't think points can do anything to FEC. They just break some core mechanics of the game, and you either have access to an answer or you don't. The only thing that can be done is bringing FEC down, but that won't happen this year since the book is new.
  5. Yeah, sure. What's your point? What I'm saying is that I'd prefer them to remain strong, and for other factions to be brought up to their level. If you prefer them to be brought down instead, of course we'll have differing opinions on what should be changed in the faction.
  6. I think it's just a matter of where people want the army to end up. DoK are currently a top tier army. Some people want them to remain as such, and just want the internal balance of the faction to be improved. Other people want the army taken down a notch or two, to be in line with currently weaker factions. Depending on what they wish for, people have different opinions of what should change about the army. In the current meta there are several factions as strong as DoK. Since many of them are new, they will not be attended to in General's Handbook 2019. The options are to either nerf DoK (likely to happen), or to buff other factions up to their power level. Personally, I would much prefer the latter, since that would allow me to continue bringing my army that I've spent so much time on to tournaments with the chance of bringing home the trophy if I play my cards right. If they are nerfed instead, the odds of podium will disappear. In that case I'll have to bring something else to compete.
  7. AoS 2.1 stats are hardly relevant anymore, the 2.2 table is what you should be looking at. Either way, DoK are still a power house, of course, but they now have really stiff competition from FEC, Skaven, LoN and to some extent Slaanesh. BoC and Tzeentch builds with 12+ Enlightened on Discs are also extremely strong. In many ways, the top tier meta is rather healthy now, with many armies fighting for the top spots. This is in stark contrast to AoS 2.1, where DoK and LoN were extremely dominant. If DoK are to remain a competitive choice in the current meta, but be better internally balanced, some changes need to be made. Hags need to go up to 100 or 120 points. Blood Stalkers are useless and need to go down significantly. Even then, they will only be used if they work as an efficient combat unit, since their shooting is so subpar. Warlocks could probably go down to 140, and Lifetakers to 70. The Slaughter Queen should go down to 80. She will then primarily be a cheap priest unit, since noone in their right mind takes her as general. The Hag on Cauldron could go up to 330 to match the Slaughter Queen. The Avatar is a joke unit and will be competitively irrelevant regardless of price. Witch Aelves and Sisters of Slaughter should probably not have their horde discounts, but if they lose that the army is quickly approaching tier 2. The ideal change would be to fix the temples (Hagg Nar in particular), but that's not going to happen any time soon.
  8. The way I read it is that he attacks at the start of the phase, no matter what. If there is no valid target at that point, he doesn't get to attack at all.
  9. Not correct, the rule states that they can be selected to pile in and attack when they are within 6" of an enemy in the combat phase.
  10. I don't know which is my favorite, but I recently lost a game with my DoK against a Gristlegore army. I had all the tools necessary to take them on, and thought my Sisters of Slaughter would be safe when I deployed them 5" behind my screen. Sisters of Slaughter are a crucial unit in the matchup with their 6" pile-in. Since the Gristlegore general attacks at the start of the combat phase, they can position themselves 5-6" away, let him waste his opportunity to attack, and then pile in and kill him. However, for that to be possible I need them to survive. What happened was that my opponent took the first turn and charged my screen with two big guys. The first guy piled in and did lots of damage to my screen, and then the second guy killed it off with its first activation, moved 3" forward with its second activation and killed something like 15 Sisters with its maw attacks. Then a bunch more fled to to battleshock, leaving me with 11 or so out of the original 30. I still had a chance to claw my way back into the game, but was unable to due to losing every priority roll. It'd be easy to blame that, but if I had just deployed my Sisters better I wouldn't have needed to depend on winning priority. Since then, I have been thinking of how to counter Gristlegore. I have made some improvements to my list, making sure I start with a command point to reduce battleshock susceptibility turn 1. I have also figured out a way to deploy so that my setup becomes a death trap for the FEC-player, where he dies if he charges me and my Sisters are completely safe. Great loss, and I'm so happy it happened in a practice game!
  11. I'd do the BCR in the same scheme as the Gutbusters, for several reasons. First, regardless of which army I play it's nice to have access to allies that fit into the army. Second, it is very likely that a new Ogor Battletome comes out this year, and from what I hear it will include both Gutbusters and BCR. Therefore, you'd do yourself a disservice that you might regret by painting them differently. I totally get what you say about variety though. I'd suggest starting up another army as a small side project, and doing that in a completely different theme.
  12. Just move your monster on top of it, and insist on actually putting the model itself up there and not a marker. Feel free to add some extra force as you put it there 😃
  13. I do think a global ranking system is very far off, and I don't think that would be a reasonable way to include international players in the near future. However, one thing you could do is having a play-in tournament to select the final participants. Assuming you keep the 16 player Masters format, you invite the top 12 British players directly into the knockout bracket and players ranked 13-16 into the play ins. You then allow international players to compete with ranks 13-16 for the final 4 spots. In the event that no internationals manage to show up, you still have your full 16-man roster of players for the knockout stage. You could run the play ins on the Friday, and the knockouts on the Saturday as per your original plan, and this would be a great event to visit for us foreigners. Worst case scenario we get eliminated from the play ins, participate in the GT and get a great weekend of Warhammer. Cheers Ben, and thanks for all the hard work you put into this hobby! Samuel, Swedish ETC captain
  14. Sorry if I wasn't clear guys, the list is submitted and cannot be changed. I'm looking for general advice and tactics for the army, rather than specific suggestions for how to change my list. Steed of Shadows for the Medusa shooting is a neat idea which I never considered, so I'll think about how to incorporate that into my future builds. For the time being I want to focus on the gameplay though, because the list is set.
  15. Hey guys! Bringing my Daughters to a tournament for the first time soon! Hit me up with your #1 top tips for playing the army competitively Here's my list, for reference:
×
×
  • Create New...