svnvaldez
-
Posts
708 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by svnvaldez
-
-
4 minutes ago, TimM85 said:
For a true analysis you would have to take out the scores of the top 10-15percent as they are better players and you will see people basically copying their lists and finish mid table you would also have to remove their wins from the opponents that they have beat records, also you would need to balance the the games and the factions, for example KO aren't that popular at the moment but you their was a sudden influx of KO players and they mostly matched up against khorne or slaanesh suddenly everyone would think them a higher tier than if they met constant match ups against SC anvils, Skaven, IDK. So you would need that an equal amount of factions playing against an equal amount of opposing factions with every faction represented with each allegiance type playing an equal amount of games.
Very true.
4 minutes ago, TimM85 said: My opinion on the ghb it's pretty good, being a primary khorne daemon player happy with the points drop still unhappy with the new khorne book, as my whole army got nerfed and mortals got made better bloodletters and blood crushers mostly aren't worth the points but they're painted so they see the tabletop.
As a destruction player I'm happy with it as well. Imo at beginning of next year, when most armies have an AOS2.0 book, the game will be in a great place and most armies can feel like they could win enough games to keep players of each faction happy.
-
9 hours ago, PJetski said:
I'm #2 on ITC, does that make my opinion more relevant to you?
Regardless of your ITC standing I promise you SCE and Seraphon are not top teir and will not be winning a 5 to 6 game GT. It is best if we all define our tiering definition since people often misunderstand each other.
T1 typically indicates that the list is so oppressive that unless the other player also has a T1 list ( or a T2 list that has been drawn into a good match up and battleplan and there is a differnce in player skill) the list will win. These T1 lists are what primarily win 5 to 6 game GTs.
T2 lists are solid. If you are a strong player and get placed into good match ups you could get lucky and win a GT.
T3 lists are decent. You can win quite a few games. But no... you will not be winning the GT. Other lists are just better and it is unlikely your player skill/match up will carry you through.
Below T3... forget it. you are going for fun. You don't have a real list. There isn't even a need to discuss where you will be placing because it won't be high.
Often a list can only beat a list of equal tier or maybe one tier above.
Here is a good example of MTGA tiering.
With a title like "Most powerful factions after GHB2019 & FAQs" this thread is going to be a mess of opinions. Again to redirect focus: http://podcast.justplaygames.uk/generals-handbook-2019-review-mega-episode and http://facehammer.co.uk/2019/07/13/episode-75-aos-6-nations-2019-and-round-table/ (second half) give a good state of the meta. The below image is pre FAQ and GH19 but still fairly accurate for those just skimming the thread and do not want to listen to the above podcasts.
Also it should be noted that each of these factions represent the best list in the book rather than the book as a whole. IDK is an eel list (not a list with 4 turtles) GS is 120+ grots (not 100% trolls) etc.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Mutton said:
Skaven units are still grossly undercosted. Slaanesh's summoning is broken.
Yes! broken is a strong word... but they are pretty bent lol
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, jhamslam said:
Huh This might be your personal experience but SCE are tier 1.5 to 2, being something of a powerfuly but again one trick pony. No battalions (playable ones atleast), no special artifacts (or extra artifacts) or special synergy beyond Anvils Shoot twice. Every "complete" feeling army i build with SCE comes out to 2300ish points. It feels like a "decent warscroll" army.
Yea everyone is going to have their opinion but there is no way this teir list isn't complete biased to this players local meta/experiances. Directed at everyone - definately give legit podcasts of active tournament players a listen rather than just throwing out your own teir list. Tournament players teir lists are by no means the end all be all but they are accurate to a .5 teir or so imo.
Here is the Justsaying Teir list before the FAQs and GH. Adjust up and down accordingly depending on your opinion post GH/FAQs
http://facehammer.co.uk/2019/07/13/episode-75-aos-6-nations-2019-and-round-table/
Second half of this facehammer episode talks about post change meta as well
-
1
-
-
Give this a listen: Skaven, DoK, FEC, and Slaanesh are all contenders. KO, Fryeslayer, and others are on the rise.
Death has been hammered
http://podcast.justplaygames.uk/generals-handbook-2019-review-mega-episode
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, TimM85 said:
Rampaging Beasts- it's a cool rule but not practical in a tournament scenario because you you would need x amount of monsters all at the same points cost,
It’s completely not practical. Thus a serious TO should never pick it. Not picking it fits in the standard way to run a tournament on pg 70-71 of GH19
-
44 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:
Personally I love that tweak by GW to the standard way scenarios have been handled for decades in Warhammer.
And they have removed some of the more problematic elements as well. By saying things like realm, realmscape, battleplan, and terrain layout are setup by the TO rather than rolled for they allow a TO to select non crazy things if that the event they want (everyone I talk who hates realms seems to forget 1 is no effect... have the TO pick that for big events. A TO would be silly to pick 8inch range or Ghur).
Also there are now 2 pgs 70-71 that can be used as a standard GW AOS matched play game. We can all play a very standard yet varied game (with realms and terrain, etc) no matter where we play.
I like the new layout as well.
-
9 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:
I think there is a subset that want AoS to be a highly defined standardized game where list building and skill trump randomness. There is a subset that are happy with AoS rules as written and a subset that want it with max randomness.
This is a nice summary
-
32 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:
"All terrain features will be scenery models from the Games Workshop range...". This doesn't say ideally, it says ALL which has a very clear meaning.
I guess I don’t understand you. Yes you should use all GW terrain imo. You should run your tournament as GW set out on pg 70-71.
If you can’t you should make as few changes as possible. One example is if you can’t afford GW terrain... then use the GW rules for custom/unique terrain.
-
Yes I would like to see full GW terrain.
But if needed GW provides rules for custom terrain. Size restrictions and a roll on the table.
What I read from point 6 is - TOs should set up the table and provide the terrain. Ideally they would use all GW terrain but there are GW rules on how to implement custom terrain if needed.
GW terrain would use rules from their scenery warscrolls. Other pieces you roll on the table.
-
4 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:
Right but that's directly counter intuitive to what you posted (and what I quoted).
Is it? The key take away I got was TOs should set up the table and provide the terrain. Ideally they would use all GW terrain but there are GW rules on how to implement custom terrain if needed.
GW terrain would use rules from their scenery warscrolls. Other pieces you roll on the table.
-
46 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:
How much money do you think TOs have to run events?
Here are pics of tables at LVO and SoCal Open. Some are GW some are not... it’s not a problem in GH19. There are rules for custom/unique terrain so I would recommend all TOs follow those.
-
16 hours ago, MrZakalwe said:
certain Ulgu result which was no fun for either player - so we dropped them. Realm spells and artefacts are nice, though.
Random terrain rules were a similar experience - one side getting a bit of magical terrain at the front of their deployment while the other gets a big block of deadly just messed with a game that already has a shed load of RNG in it.
I would never recommend a TO randomly determining the realmscape for an Event. See above
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, soak314 said:
A.) All realm effects followed INCLUDING Ulgu in all it's 8" limiting glory, and Ghur and the often violently ignored Rampaging Monsters rule.
B.) Terrain rules as per their relevant warscrolls. This includes stuff like full on LoS blocking, Obstacle rules, and Garrison rules, that supersede the scenery dice.
C.) Full terrain and board setup as seen in the new GHBI'd do the following (I'd like the TO to not pick Ghur and pick realmscape features of 1 ie no effect)
1 The tournament will use the
core rules – including those
pertaining to allegiance
abilities, warscroll battalions
and Realm of Battle rules –
and the Pitched Battle rules
and the rules for Hidden
Agendas from the latest
General’s Handbook. In
addition, it will use the rules
for endless spells, spells of the
realms, and artefacts of the
realms from Malign Sorcery.6 Terrain for the battles will be
provided and set up by the
tournament organisers. All
terrain features will be scenery
models from the Games
Workshop range, and will use
the rules from their scenery
warscroll (scenery warscrolls
can be downloaded from the
Games Workshop website).9 Fifteen minutes before the
start of each round, the
tournament organisers will
tell you which Pitched Battle
battleplan is to be used in that
round, in which realm the
battles in that round are taking
place, and which realmscape
feature from the Realm of
Battle rules for that realm will
be used in that battle round.-
1
-
-
Well look I don't want to fight about it. IN BOLD on top of pg 70 it says: They can be used as written in your own tournaments, or modified as you see fit so yes any TO can alter the game. But Realm rules are part of the Core rules of the game. Has nothing to do with Matched/Open/Narrative. I could hold a tournament and say I get 10k more points than my opponent. I personally would call that Open or Narrative but you could call it Matched play Pitched Battle with a modification if you wish.
-
41 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:
That's cute, very wrong but cute none the less. In case you missed it matched play is neither defined as using GW's suggested tournament format or using the realm rules sweetheart.
I don't want to get too much into it but why would you think "matched play is neither defined as using GW's suggested tournament format or using the realm rules."
Realm of Battle is on pg 16 of the 18 pages of core rules:
After picking a battleplan to use,
you can pick a Mortal Realm for
the battle to take place in. If you
do so, the Mortal Realm that you
pick will determine which Realm
of Battle rules you can use for your
game. If you can’t agree on the
Mortal Realm to use, roll off and the
winner decides.By the core rules (Open/Narrative/ or Matched) if the two of us wanted to play a game outside of an event (without a players pack) it would be a roll off and the winner would pick the realm.
Matched Play (not the same as tournament play or competitive play) is detailed on pg 52-83 of the GH19:
INTRODUCING
MATCHED PLAYThe main differences between
matched play and open play lie in
army selection and battleplan design.
Matched play games include rules
that allow players to pick armies of
equal power, and the battleplans
written for matched play games
are designed to provide tactically
challenging games where each side
has a more-or-less equal chance
of winning.The emphasis of matched play
gaming is on planning, tactics and
military nous, so it is the perfect
format for those who consider
themselves accomplished strategists
and savvy commanders. While
narrative and open play games can
vary greatly in scope and content,
presenting you with all manner of
scenarios to battle through, matched
play games are all about you and
your army, the models you select
and the tactics you use. They are
driven by every player’s desire for a
satisfying and well-earned victory.MATCHED PLAY RULES
Two types of matched play game are
featured in this section – Pitched
Battles and Meeting Engagements.
The Pitched Battle rules are intended
to provide as even a playing field as possible, ensuring that armies are
equally matched, battlefield terrain
is chosen and set up by both players,
battleplans offer no advantage to
either side, and victory conditions
are clear. A Pitched Battle is the ideal
place to start when playing matched
play games, and these rules are the
most commonly used in competitive
tournaments the world over.PITCHED BATTLE
TOURNAMENTSThe following rules are used for the Pitched Battle tournaments that we run ourselves. They can be used as written
in your own tournaments, or modified as you see fit – as long as all attendees are made aware of any changes.PITCHED BATTLE
TOURNAMENT RULES
The following rules apply to
Warhammer Age of Sigmar Pitched
Battle tournaments unless noted
otherwise in the tournament
rules pack:1 The tournament will use the
core rules – including those
pertaining to allegiance
abilities, warscroll battalions
and Realm of Battle rules –
and the Pitched Battle rules
and the rules for Hidden
Agendas from the latest
General’s Handbook. In
addition, it will use the rules
for endless spells, spells of the
realms, and artefacts of the
realms from Malign Sorcery.-
1
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:
Fortunately they won't
Yea you are right, they probably won’t.
And just to be clear I think 2 points for offering to shake someone’s hand is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
we just disagree with on what the TO/Player responsibility is when defining the rule set.
This is an extreme example and I understand it doesn’t get the point across... basically I would not want to enter a chess tournament and end up playing checkers
-
I said use pg 70-71. Bold on top of pg 70 says a TO can modify them. I’d prefer they didn’t and am happier the closer they keep it to pg 70-71.
I hope GW drops the BOLD line in the future as more players accept using a standard format.
Until GW does that TOs can do what they want and I have no real complaint... I would hope they see the gentle push GW is giving them with pg 70-71.
-
16 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:
So basically unless someone wins an event using an arbitrary rule set that you think is the correct rule set
So basically unless someone wins an event using an OFFICIAL rules set that GW thinks is the correct rule set.
Is how I’d say it.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, gjnoronh said:
Why?
Competitive play is competitive, winners should be respected for their legitimate achievement even if the rules aren't exactly the same from one event to the other.I wholeheartedly disagree but I understand my view point is not shared by all.
-
5 hours ago, SwampHeart said:
But GW themselves don't actually do this, to be very clear. They don't use Ghur at WHW events so they're full on admitting that all the realm rules aren't suitable for competitive play.
It's either bullet point 7 or 9 or something that says the TO will pick the realm and realmscape. It is my belief that by not picking Ghur and selecting reasonable realmscapes (you can always pick the roll of 1 ie none) you are still following pg 70-71 as intended.
-
I also should clarify that the top of pg 70-71 in BOLD says something along the lines that a TO can make whatever alterations they want as long as all players are informed. Thus anything is technically still a matched play tournament.
My preference is that no alterations are made simply so that we have a standard format.
-
Matched play tournaments should be ran as set out on pg 70-71 of the GH19 imo.
That doesn’t mean it the best, or that I like it all, but I do think that should be the official way to play and anything else should be classified as open/narrative play rather than a matched play pitched battle tournament.
-
1
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:
Format is fun, has a ton of issues (just look at the GHB FAQ), and isn't any better than 2k as a tournament game. It has its uses and its been helpful in getting more players up to speed faster for sure but thankfully it won't be replacing 2k as the major tournament standard.
On a more personal level I have 0 interest in the game, if I want to play small skirmish games there are loads of better options out there. Malifaux is fantastic, I enjoy Infinity, and if I want to keep in AoS Warcry is great fun as well. If I'm going to play AoS I want to, personally, play proper 2k games and practice for my next event or just enjoy getting to use my army as I've assembled it.I think ME is great for as you say getting players "up to speed". Its a fine gateway format imo and never should be taken to seriously despite it being in the matched play section right along standard 2k pitched battles.
I'd rather play ME in a tournament then 1k vanguard we had last year. Sometimes when a community is growing they would much rather play 1k then 2k, I live in LA (USA), there are lots of small stores in my area that only dabble in GW games and have held a 1k tournament (or doubles 1k each) tournament over the last few years.
For me 2k is the "real" game, but I see no issues with having ME as an alternative for smaller sized games.
A request to tournament organisers
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I would not support this. A request to GW in order to make changes to the game is something I fully support. Requests to TOs to selectively alter matched play and ignore published FAQs is not something i personally am interested in at all.