Mcthew

At the weekend I indulged in a AoS palate cleanser and picked up Dystopian Wars 2.0 for the first time in years, playing a soda and pretzels game with my eldest son. The experience was fantastic, probably the most fun I’ve had at the table-top in months, and because of that, quite revelatory. Here we were, playing a game that reintroduced me to table-top wargames again six years ago. And a game that I hadn’t played since Spartan Games unfortunately ‘rolled a double-one.’ These were out of date rules played with out of date models, with passion, and it was so much fun. And so little pressure to play. Less so than Age of Sigmar. So that got me thinking. It wasn’t that Dystopian Wars was a better game than AoS. It’s not, in my opinion. But it’s that lack of pressure on DW compared to AoS that made it more… fun. And what is a hobby if it isn’t fun, or relaxing? One of the comments made to me recently during my AoS 3.0 navel gazing, has been to step back from the hobby. Initially that made me think about hanging up my dice like many have recently, but there are other ways to step back. One of those ways to understand why I’m not enjoying my hobby, and make those changes... GW are, and for the most part since the late 80s, been completely driven as a business to get you to invest in the next new thing. Their priority is for profit, and getting you to buy more models and books is that thing. It’s capitalism dressed up as a hobby. That doesn’t bother me, nor does GW turning a profit; they make good models and product. What does bother me is the relentless marketing, promoting and pressure to buy a product. We are all responsible enough to step back from this, but it’s knowing when to. AoS 3.0’s relentless promotion, divisive rules and points changes, designed to rebuild armies rather than complement them has stopped me in my tracks, I’ll be honest. I’ve pre-ordered Dominion, but that’s with the knowledge that 3.0 will be the last edition I buy. In 4 years time it’s likely I will be doing something else, hobby-wise, once my kids have moved on to other things. I won’t be starting a new army, and I’m unlikely to rebuild the ones I have to fit AoS 3.0. I’ll just enjoy what I have now, and hope I get good games out of them. If not, then eBay will be a busy place for me. I’m at this point because of the aggressive practices from GW has meant an out of date game has been more fun to play (Dystopian Wars) rather than an up-to-date edition for what is supposed to be one of the most popular table-top games out there (AoS). I’ll still be playing AoS, but GW will get very little more from me (I’ve even discouraged my youngest son of investing in 40k – by telling him that an army will cost as much as a Ninetendo Switch and an Xbox!). But you know, the pressure on my hobby isn’t just coming from GW… I’ve said this a lot over the years, but my love of AoS is in the models, the lore, the mechanics of the game. The fun. And yet recently I’ve been embroiled in debates that have been interesting but actually pointless. For example, having debates with LRL players about broken warscrolls and odd points increases across the board, has, in hindsight been a waste of my time. None of my friends have an LRL army. None of them are interested in building one. It’s doubtful I’ll ever play one, so I’m asking myself why debate it? Does it affect me that I think some units are broken? Actually, really, no. Does it bother me LRL might get nerfed or not nerfed in the future? Actually, again, I shouldn't care less, as it it’s not something I intend to invest in. Do I think our debates will impact GW decisions? Again, that’s a no (see previous comments!). So why do it? While this forum has been a great place to get advice, and the debates have been interesting, I’ve found there have been more negative experiences than positive. I don’t mean just from those complaining about their factions being nerfed, but also from those who complain about players who have been on the sharp end of the changes, but whose own factions are sitting pretty. In some respects, behaviours have been entirely selfish, and it’s not something I will indulge further. I am a beer/soda and pretzels player essentially. I don’t do tournaments. I don’t play at the local store (to be honest, I do very little at the local GW store, including buying stuff). I play within a friendship group. However, debates and arguments seem to be driven by those who do play competitively, and like to be loud enough to shout down those who do not. I’ve even been guilty of doing that sometimes. But it’s exhausting trying to be objective when so many players are not even attempting to. Dystopian Wars 2.0 doesn’t have a forum that I know of, and even if it did, I wouldn’t join, for the reasons above. The hobby is more fun without others forcing their views onto you. That’s not a hobby. And it isn’t even interesting, if you really think about it. I’m not laying the blame entirely on the great and good here. GW’s methods are, as we know, divisive (and even when they are not, trust factors are quite low for them – it’s a reputational thing that they haven’t done enough to address). The division spills over here, whether it’s balance, the cost of models, points, rules, models or whatever. That negativity can often drown out the good because you are looking for likeminded people to share your troubles/sympathy/empathy etc. But equally there are those who won’t... Arguably, if this my last post, then really I could just leave quietly. But I'm posting this because some of it might ring true with others on this forum. They might take away something that will help them. Or others might find nothing of use in this post. I love the passion of the players here. This is a good forum if you are coming to it for the right reasons (and only you can decide that). AoS is also a great game if you deafen the clamour coming from Nottingham, to play and invest on your terms, not GW’s. So I wish everyone well with the hobby, whether you’re licking your wounds with AoS 3.0, or optimistic for the next tournament. May the ‘bones’ be kind to you all. Best wishes Mcthew

I agree that HoS are still strong just not as strong. Still reckon they will do well though despite points increases. Although it's gonna hit some lists hard.

How?

Why?

I can't think of any earth shattering combos (although I can think of handgunners needing a rewrite so they can't shoot twice when charged, and SCE Anvils command ability), so please give us some examples of 'horrifying army lists'?

I think this was the right thread to have as mostly its been constructive. Unfortunately you will always get players complaining if one faction is stronger than the other, even if only slightly, and not be able to bring a credible argument to say why. You'll also get very defensive players who have invested hundreds of pounds in LRL who don't want any of their fun nerfed, and if LRL are under a negative spotlight their fear is it will (because GW does listen). They also won't be able to construct a credible argument against because they ignore the bits that are broken. But what the thread does raise are good points about rules and presentation, and that attracts LRL players and other players to have a healthy debate on why LRL have attracted negativity and why some it is justified, and why some of it is not. My take is that LRL are not a broken faction, but some rules and models are. Sentinels for me were always a problem if they can dish out MWs to units they can't even see. Having cruise missiles on the table is not great for the game, in my opinion. Not even god-wizards can hit someone hidden behind a mountain, so why can elf archers? And they can still be viable battleline so reinforced easily, so sentinel blobs are viable in AoS 3.0 (even if it isn't a great tactic). Teclis was another model with so many auto/semi auto capabilities that most bat reps showed him OP in AoS 2.0. In 3.0 he now avoids miscasts, can regen in heroic actions phase, and has monster abilities. His points increase is measly for all of that compared to say a KoS. But... LRL do have some of the coolest minis in AoS in their 2nd wave, I still love the shining company mechanic (best new idea in the game IMO), and the first battletome was a lovely thing. Not so bothered about the recent lore though (flying mountains in Teclis was so baaaad). But overall, not broken. Just needs a few tweaks to make them a better faction. Other factions need similar changes. I'm a KO player and I think we need a melee-only battleline. I also think FlyHigh needs changing. But then I fall into the camp of being an open minded player and open to changes that make the game better, than taking unfair advantage of GW's occasional poor rules writing. Not everyone will, alas. But this is a good thread all the same👍

After playing first game of AoS 3.0 Nighthaunt vs KO, can definitely say KO are going to be hurt by the smaller board size. Turn priority is also a big issue still. Going second in turn 1 and then getting priority roll for a double turn is still massive even if you get 1 less CP. So double turn mechanics are not mitigated by the new CP mechanics. My NH army of 1500 got a bit mashed but took down 3 gunhaulers, a unit of skywardens, nearly a frigate and ran away with the objectives and all with some iffy rolls. CAs are better for KOs for sure, but unleash hell isn't that good for most KO units. (Last Word is much better). And triumphs are ok. Still, they weren't hit so hard by points so KO are still looking good. With Rally CA and All out Attack, NH are in a good spot. Heroic recovery every turn makes your heroes regen around 1-2 wounds per turn on average which is really annoying for your opponent. OP? Not entirely, but NH are stronger than before judging by this game. KO are no slouches either.

Not true. I'm normal and I like elves (I have an aelve-centric CoS force). So using this as an excuse not to listen to concerns about the faction you play is unhelpful at best. Most 'normal' people and players agree than some of the LRL synergies are downright broken and need to be nerfed. As they did for OBR pets elite. As they have with Changehost. It won't happen for a few months but at some point LRL will get nerfed because there is nothing more unfun than playing against cheese lists. Not an elf hater at all. I just love the game too much to sacrifice that for the faction I play. To note: I have the Ltd Ed version of the LRL battletome but was put off buying an army for exactly that reason after reading the rules and warscrolls. Still a great book though. 👍

Yeah, feel your pain. They probably think that clanrats being 20 min offsets this. But not everyone uses clanrats. I can kinda see why stormvermin would be 10, but plaguemonks are traditionally Pestilens horde meta. So why not give them a 20 min size? (Also would encourage some SC Skaven sales). Odd choices, but then a few odd choices all through the profiles. Definitely feels like a 'back of a cigarette*-packet' decision rather than anything meaningful.

Looking again at the points changes and faction rules, and they still have me scratching my head as to why GW has done this. On the one hand, they're pushing (or nudging) players with mixed Chaos or CoS lists into buying new models as their old ones are no longer battleline, or they are but battleline in a other faction. On the other they've upped the points meaning you take less. Across the board I have now surplus units when in some army builds I was quite limited about list shape. My Nighthaunt now have many variations while before I felt like a one trick pony. Likewise Sylvaneth. Looking at AoS 3.0, the only army I might invest in for the next 4 years would be an Orruk Warclans army (I know, shocking I haven't done this already 😆). Other than that, there's really little point adding to the grey pile of shame. New armies haven't interested me enough (I'm looking at you LRL and OBR, while I might have to strain my neck to look up at you SoB!). So I'm not buying that GW has a masterplan. Points increases means less models and less profit for GW, but I think that reflects a longer, slower game. A good thing? Will let you know after my first AoS 3.0 game today.

So as things are leaked, dribbling out from the GHB 21 like so much Nurgle goo, and that tourneys are likely to switch from 2k to 1.5k for the immediate future... Are we seeing a shift away from Matched Play and tournaments as a whole? Given that in most tournaments you'll be unlikely to field all those major monsters you wanted to play with (SoB apart) as battleline and monster tax will have increased making those options non-viable, are we more likely to see open play or narrative as the preferred methods of play? As someone with a couple of god models, the idea of having them just sat on a shelf gathering dust because they've gone up 200 pts or so leaves me a little annoyed. Open play allows me to field these. But then Matched Play are the rules that bind competitions together and encounters versus strangers. If that's your only means of playing AoS, and you don't have that local group of likeminded players, then doesn't that penalise your hobby too?

Wow, so looking at Yndrasta's warscroll, BoC and BoK (and let's face it, anyone with a monster heavy army) has just been seriously nerfed by this hero. I mean... A Cygor with no wounds allocated to it has its horn attacks halved just by being 3" from her. Man, against monsters she's 300 points well spent, considering she'll probably take down most 400-500 pt monsters in her stride.

So this weekend I'm playing my first AoS 3.0 battle. My Nighthaunt vs Kharadron. 1500 points at the moment as we've just moved house and we can't get a 2000pt table. But... Should get a better idea how NH work and what also works/nerfs KO. Expecting the hit on triumphs to have some impacts but Unleash Hell will be problematic. Just wish I had Kurdoss in my collection to steal pesky CPs from my opponent!

It's an odd one. I guess like everything else here, in the absence of the GHB and the new battletomes we're making assumptions about StD units. But if this is the case, then one of the cash-cows of Games Workshop has been sadly nerfed. Chaos god players will move away from investing in StD units (and big monsters like Archaon) that give them variety. While StD players won't bother investing in any other faction than StD. There really is little point giving them the Chaos keyword other than a flaky nod to the StD allegiance ability, which again seems weak when comparing them to the main faction allegiances. Sure, arguably you can add an allied unit or two of StD units to a Chaos faction, but outside marauders and warriors, who will bother when you've got a limit of around 400 points? Lore wise, it doesn't make much sense either. AoS 3.0 has become very restrictive and disheartening, and that's even when you're not playing OBR, BoC, Fyreslayers, Gitz, Khorne, etc. I do wonder if GW are actively trying to kill the tourney scene for everyone without deep pockets? I guess the answer is 'yes.' Not good for kids trying to start off playing competitive games though, is it? My eldest is hoping to play in school tournaments as part of the Warhammer School Clubs. Yet everything I've seen in AoS 3.0 is a disincentive to that, and that's even if restrictions are lifted to allow it to happen.

I hope this is cleared up! Otherwise I'll be holding off buying Archaon. All my allied points will be going on Chaos Warrior units. GW fail again...