• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS General's Handbook finally announced !!

The guy I play AoS with regularly and I just don't bother doing it anymore.
 
Aginor said:
Agree. But was that really a problem? There are, like, two options that allowed that? And one of them was a Seraphon ability and we don't see Seraphon ruling tournaments...
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe that wasn't such a big issue, but well... Be it small or big, now it simply is one less problem! :)
Ritual said:
Having played 40k for a few weeks now, rolling for turns is one of the more annoying things in AoS.

Double turns are stupid. There. I said it.
Click to expand...
I've seen on TGA an interesting thread focused exactly on the discussion if rolling for turns is nice or bad.
There are lots of clever opinions and alternatives proposed by users (alternate units' activations, for example), and it seems either you extremely love it or you extremely hate it, no options in the middle!
Personally I'm on the "Like it!" side of the conflit. :joyful:
 
I'm on the "love it" side.
I like standard, alternate turns, but I also like the fact that you cannot be 100% sure that you're going to act next. You must plan more carefully.
 
Sometimes I feel like the only person who often lets my opponent go first if I win the roll off, saves me having to get my Skink Priest's buff back up when I'm already sat on the objective or locked nicely in combat.

So yeah, I don't really mind not being able to reroll the initiative dice. :P
 
Same here, I kinda like it.
But I also read that thread over at TGA and I can understand that there are also good arguments against It, especially when playing competitively since there are builds that outright kill everything when they get the double turn, which isn't fun for anybody.
 
The problem is I feel like majority of the time, the initiative roll is fine and adds a nice layer to your thinking. The problem comes into the competitive side, which is the minority, where those nasty lists are running rampant and have that killing power to ruin someone in the double turn. I can see both sides of the argument and and can agree with both. But the super competitive are arguing with the super casuals and the argument will never end because in their respective worlds it is/isn't a problem. So i honestly don't know what my opinion is because I'm kinda in the middle of competitive and casual.
 
Killer Angel said:
regarding Tomb Kings (again).

Someone noticed that in the table of contents that they previewed, the Death points section is only two pages, which is the length of what it was last time without any of the TK stuff. They could well have dropped the TK stuff from the points listings altogether, even the stuff that they previewed points for. Remember, those points were a trial example and "subject to change."
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is good news, bad news or neutral. I guess TK will be still usable, but with less support?

DGFckqJVYAAHhto.jpg
 
Yeah, they are not going to ban them, but they will (logically) give no support, no bonuses, no incentives.
Armies as TK and Bret are going to slowly fade away.
 
Archkyrie11 said:
The problem is I feel like majority of the time, the initiative roll is fine and adds a nice layer to your thinking. The problem comes into the competitive side, which is the minority, where those nasty lists are running rampant and have that killing power to ruin someone in the double turn. I can see both sides of the argument and and can agree with both. But the super competitive are arguing with the super casuals and the argument will never end because in their respective worlds it is/isn't a problem. So i honestly don't know what my opinion is because I'm kinda in the middle of competitive and casual.
Click to expand...
Imo balancing around "competive" play is nearly always a hopeless cause anyway since it attracts the type of people who'l abuse anything and everything they can to get an advantage. Which frequently means they "ruin" otherwise fun mechanics by playing a specific build that heavily abuses some aspects. This nearly always results in the "wrong" aspects being nerfed, they nerf the "fun" aspect but leave the "frustrating" part. Usuallt cuz the "frustrating" aspext is seen as normal, and the "fun" one as abusing a flaw. E.g. in this case they remove the reroll for initiative, but leave the copious amouns of damage....

Also in general the critique from "competive" players focusses on bits that are fun, but difficult to account for in your strategy (e.g. rng is the devil in competitice videogames...). Remocing thise things tend to result in a very bland game focussed on one specific playstyle that is deemed optimal.. Its just not nice.
 
A few tournaments I know of have started weighting "best game / best opponent / best sport" very highly. So if you go and steamroll matches then no one is going to give that to you, if you have a fun game but get minor victorious, or only a couple of major victories, then you can still take the whole thing by getting 4 best match votes.

I've seen the multiplier for best sport be as much as 10x - can't win without them then.
 
Fun thing I noticed about what you can also do for tournaments:
At Pokemon tournaments (I know weird example but I found it intriguing) there are certain "banned" cards which in our case would probably be builds.
Certain things that are known to break balance are just not allowed. I've seen that on descriptions for AoS tournaments as well, but usually banning only a few selected units, abilities, or builds.
At Pokemon tournaments there are sometimes many more restrictions. And they are not necessarily banning OP stuff but just often-played stuff. There are tournaments banning the 100 most used Pokemon for example (there are lists rating Pokemon in categories based on how often they are played at tournaments).

I'd love to see if that could work for a tabletop wargame as well.
Banning armies with more than six Kurnoth Hunters or Skyfire, banning the use of Kunnin Rukk, or other much used builds, encouraging unusual builds. That will affect armies that are strong in the current meta much more of course, making other armies more viable. Over the course of several tournaments that might lead to interesting results. Of course for some armies you just cannot ban a build, that's when it is the only playable one. But then that's something the developer can - and should - do something about.
I thought about it because I noticed that some armies - despite having LOADS of options - still play the two 'strongest' ones.

I do that myself now and then. I noticed that the mass Skinks Shadowstrike basically rolls over @Mesandres Ironjawz build, so I just said "OK so let's see if I can win without it" and started to play Firelance and other unusual builds.

It might be an interesting idea to try. It would still be a poor substitute for a real balanced game, but it would make tournaments more diverse I guess.

Ban the winner builds of the last four big tournaments and see what happens. :D
 
Aginor said:
Fun thing I noticed about what you can also do for tournaments:
At Pokemon tournaments (I know weird example but I found it intriguing) there are certain "banned" cards which in our case would probably be builds.
Certain things that are known to break balance are just not allowed. I've seen that on descriptions for AoS tournaments as well, but usually banning only a few selected units, abilities, or builds.
At Pokemon tournaments there are sometimes many more restrictions. And they are not necessarily banning OP stuff but just often-played stuff. There are tournaments banning the 100 most used Pokemon for example (there are lists rating Pokemon in categories based on how often they are played at tournaments).

I'd love to see if that could work for a tabletop wargame as well.
Banning armies with more than six Kurnoth Hunters or Skyfire, banning the use of Kunnin Rukk, or other much used builds, encouraging unusual builds. That will affect armies that are strong in the current meta much more of course, making other armies more viable. Over the course of several tournaments that might lead to interesting results. Of course for some armies you just cannot ban a build, that's when it is the only playable one. But then that's something the developer can - and should - do something about.
I thought about it because I noticed that some armies - despite having LOADS of options - still play the two 'strongest' ones.

I do that myself now and then. I noticed that the mass Skinks Shadowstrike basically rolls over @Mesandres Ironjawz build, so I just said "OK so let's see if I can win without it" and started to play Firelance and other unusual builds.

It might be an interesting idea to try. It would still be a poor substitute for a real balanced game, but it would make tournaments more diverse I guess.

Ban the winner builds of the last four big tournaments and see what happens. :D
Click to expand...

I really like the idea of banning previous winning lists and then seeing what wins next tournament. Not only does it make for more diverse builds, but it also spurs creativity in list building. It helps list builders think outside the box, and chances are, what they develop with restrictions could help optimize previously banned list that looked like they couldn't be beat!
 
Aginor said:
Fun thing I noticed about what you can also do for tournaments:
At Pokemon tournaments (I know weird example but I found it intriguing) there are certain "banned" cards which in our case would probably be builds.
Certain things that are known to break balance are just not allowed. I've seen that on descriptions for AoS tournaments as well, but usually banning only a few selected units, abilities, or builds.
At Pokemon tournaments there are sometimes many more restrictions. And they are not necessarily banning OP stuff but just often-played stuff. There are tournaments banning the 100 most used Pokemon for example (there are lists rating Pokemon in categories based on how often they are played at tournaments).

I'd love to see if that could work for a tabletop wargame as well.
Banning armies with more than six Kurnoth Hunters or Skyfire, banning the use of Kunnin Rukk, or other much used builds, encouraging unusual builds. That will affect armies that are strong in the current meta much more of course, making other armies more viable. Over the course of several tournaments that might lead to interesting results. Of course for some armies you just cannot ban a build, that's when it is the only playable one. But then that's something the developer can - and should - do something about.
I thought about it because I noticed that some armies - despite having LOADS of options - still play the two 'strongest' ones.

I do that myself now and then. I noticed that the mass Skinks Shadowstrike basically rolls over @Mesandres Ironjawz build, so I just said "OK so let's see if I can win without it" and started to play Firelance and other unusual builds.

It might be an interesting idea to try. It would still be a poor substitute for a real balanced game, but it would make tournaments more diverse I guess.

Ban the winner builds of the last four big tournaments and see what happens. :D
Click to expand...
Pokemon has the whole tier system in whixh they rate various pokemon and then play tournaments in one of those tiers. Its akin to weightclasses in martial arts.

Only issue with that in warhammer would be that we field far larger armies than a team of 6pokemon and have (potentiallt) more complex interactions. Tiering individual units will be flawd, but so will tiering entire armies be. But assuming yoy can figure it out it might be interesting. Maybe tier it based on battalions?
 
Yeah, single units won't work. It is builds that _could_ work.
So certain combinations of units. Like this:

The following unit combinations are not allowed in lists for this tournament (Summoning included):
- More than 6 Kurnoth Hunters in a list
- More than 9 Tzaangor Skyfires in a list
- Kunnin' Rukk bataillon with more than 20 archers in a list
- Lord Kroak + Astrolith Bearer + Balewind Vortex in a list
- More than two Wight Kings in a list
- More than two giant Squigs (Mangler Squigs or Forgeworld Colossal Squigs) in a list
- More than one Mourngul in a list

...whatever. Such stuff. I am pretty sure it is possible to describe those builds in a few words. It would include, say, the key characteristics of the top 3 or top 5 placed armies of the last four big (official or something, there has to be some kind of "main tour" of events) tournaments. So a maximum of around 12-20 "locked" builds.

About Bataillons: I think there is not one bataillon that is super broken, it mostly is a combination of stuff that might be broken.
Kunnin' Rukk with melee Orruks is fine, but not with a big amount of archers.

Single unit spam can be a problem if units are undercosted, but doesn't have to be. Skyfires and Kurnoth Hunters aren't broken, but playing a list with 15 Kurnoth Hunters probably is.


And keep in mind, this isn't necessarily about broken lists, just about strong ones. If they did well they are not allowed for the next four tournaments so people have to choose others. If that kicks out broken lists that is just a positive side effect. You would recognize a really really OP list by it winning (placing in the top 3 or top 5) exactly every fifth tournament.


Would it work? No clue. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I'd like to try it and see but tournament hosts probably won't do it to avoid possible backlash by the competitive community.
 
Killer Angel said:
Yeah, they are not going to ban them, but they will (logically) give no support, no bonuses, no incentives.
Armies as TK and Bret are going to slowly fade away.
Click to expand...
upload_2017-8-2_9-44-35.png

I assume that armies from the Old World Compendiums include the Tomb Kings (I could be wrong though since I know little about AoS). If that is the case, it looks like TK are still getting matched play profiles. This might slow down their phase out (unless they nerf them).
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
View attachment 33905

I assume that armies from the Old World Compendiums include the Tomb Kings (I could be wrong though since I know little about AoS). If that is the case, it looks like TK are still getting matched play profiles. This might slow down their phase out (unless they nerf them).
Click to expand...

That's correct. I am kinda glad about it since that measn our Skink Chief is still safe to use, but yes, for you it means TK will not be phased out too quickly.
Since all others get buffed by the new book it will probably make them quite a bit weaker though, so that's still going to make them less popular, I am quite sure about that.
 
Aginor said:
That's correct. I am kinda glad about it since that measn our Skink Chief is still safe to use, but yes, for you it means TK will not be phased out too quickly.
Since all others get buffed by the new book it will probably make them quite a bit weaker though, so that's still going to make them less popular, I am quite sure about that.
Click to expand...

But can they play TK as Deathrattle?
 
Good question....
I would like to play skeleton archers and since TK Skellies are GW models and that would make them ok for official tournaments while Mantic ones are only OK for private use.

So I'd say it is too early for @NIGHTBRINGER to celebrate.
 
Aginor said:
Good question....
I would like to play skeleton archers and since TK Skellies are GW models and that would make them ok for official tournaments while Mantic ones are only OK for private use.

So I'd say it is too early for @NIGHTBRINGER to celebrate.
Click to expand...

If TK can be used as Death rattle I will defo start a small force again, I have an idea for them coming through a graveyard at night which is lit my torches so I was thinking paint them with the flame reflections.
 
I really doubt TK will be put into "counts as" mode for Deathrattle, because then they're essentially making them main product line again which isn't what they want.

The only thing we can hope for for TK being a real product again is for GW to rebrand them as something they can trademark and then them get a much expanded release of Deathrattle which brings in all the models.

They still wont be TK though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top