Discussion in 'Seraphon Discussion' started by LordBaconBane, Oct 22, 2020.
Is there a way to look the list the Seraphon players used? I'd be interested on what the "pros" use.
I'd say try the armies subcategory
IMHO There isn't a pros build. Up until the great shakeup as I call it. Salamanders were the best bang for ya buck next to the slann. Now well go a tidal wave of skinks with javelin and buckler and back it up with a bombardment from the slann. or oR OR Or or do whatever you feel because of the fact that you can run almost any style of army and give almost any other army a good run for their money
There's only one list and looks like something I'd bring to a tournament, to be honest. Kroaq, Astrolith, Sallys, a blob of Skinks and screens.
For tournaments yes, that's probably the best one.
In regular games, even midly competitive ones, there are plenty of other possible lists.
I mean you can already do a fair bit with having them nearby another unit for a -1 to hit or simply hide the hero behind terrain to break LoS. The issue IMO is that
1) The general output of shooting armies (us included) is too high, so even if you give heroes some kind of protection, it doesnt prevent the situation where 1/3 of the opponent's army is removed each turn.
2) The range is also incredible long - Sometimes it is pretty much impossible to deploy a unit outside of the opponent's shooting range. In the case of Skinks they get to move 11" first turn, potentially run for an extra 6" and then shoot 16". That's 33" threat range. LRL Sentinels get to move 6" and then shoot 30", ignoring LOS all together = 36" threat range. Even if you deploy outside of that, the unit is now doomed and wont do anything for multiple turns, so what was the point of even deploying it that far away in the first place?
3) They started introducing mechanics which you cant really do anything about with LRL Sentinels. Giving them -1 to hit from Look-out Sir or giving your guy +1 to save in cover is irrelevant if they deliver MWs on unmodified 5+ to hit. Giving them an ability to ignore LOS once again removes any counterplay by placing stuff behind terrain to break LOS.
The funny thing is that, on average, AoS shooting threatens a wider range than 40k... Bows and blowpipes vs bolters
That irks me a lot. AoS is filled with exceptions (even armywide) that trump the most basic rules.
Them Skinks are jacked up and got better lungs than any olympic gold medal winners.
I wonder if the range is due to a lot of melee units either being incredible fast baseline, or able to move twice or can run and charge. There are many melee units that can cover 20"+ no problem, so if shooting threatrange was a mere 20" range they would be significantly worse, unless the game is in a state where your units are slowly killing each other over multiple turns, which would allow the archers etc. to sit behind comfortably. The game state is just too explosive atm, so maybe thats why they figured you need to be able to shoot outside of melee threatrange.
While unique rules that "break" the core rules/game is pretty cool IMO and is a thing that makes factions interesting and unique, I really dislike when they introduce powerful mechanics with little to no counterplay, especially when said army list ontop of this has access to very low drops.
I don't understand why they haven't done this to begin with, it'd make saurus guard so much better and especially help our skinks who at 4-5 wounds and a 5+ save die to basicly anything.
The main issue with breaking the basic rules is that you very quickly run into power creep that spirals out of control because each unique rule that bends or breaks the basic rules can only really be countered by further bending or breaking the rules (e.g. the only thing that protects against LrL mortal wounds is a universal ward-save). So you end up constantly bending and breaking it just a little bit further. At a certain point you have to simply accept that a new mechanic just doesn't fit within the core rules, even if you'd give everyone a counter for it.
Imho, the biggest issue is the amount of damage. Because the damage is high melee units need to be fast enough to engage quickly, otherwise they get killed before reaching the enemy. Because damage is high, ranged units need to have a massive range because otherwise they only get 1 round of shooting before the melee unit engages them and rips them apart. And that just creates a feedback loop, because the further melee can run the further ranged need to be able to shoot to actually get a second round of shooting in.
Imho, one of the best things they could do for AoS is significantly lower the overal damage output of virtually everything. It'd reduce the need for absurd ranges & speeds, it'd allow support characters to actually survive without needing to LoS hide constantly, it'd allow minor melee heroes to actually enter combat without having to worry about immeadiatly dying (e.g. oldbloods, a megaboss on foot, or basicly every single SCE hero on foot). It'd remove the need for the absurd tanks like hearthguard or mortek guard with re-rollable saves on top of ward saves or for stuff like gargants with an excessive amount of wounds. It'd make behemoths, especially the squishier ones with 5/6+ saves, more useable instead of instantly getting deleted. It'd make the supportive firepower from MSU/minor support heroes actually meaningfull instead of how insignificant it currently is since it's just too little in comparison to even a bad damage dealer (e.g a starpriest's venombolt). It'd limit the advantage of a double turn as you're less likely to just table your opponent.
Basicly, there's quite a lot that'd improve if it was a tad more difficult to kill everything.
Fluff reasons mostly are the cause of unit profiles. Temple guard never leave their slanns. So that's why they don't work with anyone else. They are bred and trained from the moment they are spawned to be bodyguards, not elite infantry even though a lot of people see them that way.
Wouldn't a slann be able to just order them around and tell them to guard whatever he wants? Or do they outright refuse to leave the slann for whatever reason, including his own command? As far as I know they aren't just the guards of the slann, at least not in AoS. They're simply the guards of everything that's important enough to be guarded by them.
I mean sure, if they have to choose between catching a bullet for the slann or for a skink they'd catch the one going for the slann no questions asked. But if a slann ordered them to protect a skink priest imho they'd go and protect that skink priest until new orders arrive from the slann.
They don't leave their side. If a slann dies in combat it's because his guard are all dead. In the old fantasy game you had to have a unit of saurus guard surrounding your slann in base to base contact so that the slann would never be in melee. Ever.
I dont know if making heroes more survivable is really the right option. Armies that rely on buffing heroes need a weakness, generally thats the weakness. Seraphon, dok, and fyreslayers rely on those heroes and making them stronger just makes those armies more powerful.
I think shooting is just too cheap or there's too many ways to buff shooting in the armies that have it available. Honestly, seraphon are the biggest offenders IMO. Sentinels are dumb, but the army is so slow otherwise I dont know how LRL win without them.
I also think the meta will self correct. Shooting is overly powerful right now because people have thinned any screening from their list and hordes have dropped out of favor. Its just all toys and whoever gets the double blows the other dudes toys off the table.
DoK are about to be filthy again, and idoneth are already probably the best list in the game. I think those two and fyreslayers are gonna keep the shooting heavy meta in check, its just running a bit rampant at the moment cause no one wants to play those 3 armies anymore and all the new shiny stuff is shooting.
Basically, I think the problem is being overly exaggerated by the nature of the meta and as more people dip back into lists that play well into shooting itll feel more balanced.
meh, its not just shooting that does too much damage, nor is it just heroes being too fragile; in general there's just a lot of damage being done with very few units being able to tank that kinda damage. Making heroes more survivable also doesn't necesarly remove the weakness that relying on them brings. It just means that stuff like a Skink starpriest can actually be in LoS of enemies without immeadiatly dying and minor melee heroes like a megaboss can actually go into combat and bash in some skulls instead of being a glorified banner standing behind his boyz.
As for relying on the meta to correct itself; that works sorta. But relying on that is little more than just playing with statistics; stuffs still broken and if you happen to not play say idoneth when facing a shooting army it is still going to be just as frustrating, even if that army is considered "fair" overall. Imho they can't just rely on stuff like idoneth to keep shooting armies in check; the basic rules need to actually provide enough protection for every type of army to be a fullfledged opponent. It's fine to be at a a disadvantage in certain matchups, but it still needs to remain a fun game and you still need to stand a reasonable chance of succes (provided your list isn't utterly ridiculous of course).
Id argue it is, but we've had this conversation before.
Theres too much variance in the game to balance it in the manner you describe. In my opinion its perfectly reasonable to create a meta where any list thats skewed too heavily in one direction will eventually meet the paper to its rock. It encourages players to leverage more balanced lists in a competitive event, where you dont wanna necessarily risk drawing a bad matchup.
And if it was just idoneth you'd be right, but its not. Its one drop stormcast, its fyreslayers, its dok, its idoneth and its even SoB to a degree. Most of those armies just aren't super popular right now and shooting armies are, so you're seeing a lot of shooting armies and a lot of shooting armies doing well. Certainly broken is broken, but I dont think the state of the game is broken by any means. Just a few units that are particularly egregious offenders.
I think that the game should be balanced around itself. A shared set of rules with limited exceptions.
Excessive exceptions with unbalanced bonus that are compensated by other exceptions with a different kind of unbalanced bonus... it's not a good thing.
There's a difference between armies that are actually different and army X that is basically unstoppable by armies Y and Z but it's rotflstomped by armies A and B.
In the end army X may seem balanced with an equal number of victories / losses, but it isn't.
You caught me before my edit
I think its not armies, but lists. I think when strict list archetypes have hard counters it encourages variability in builds.
For example, KO is probably the only army in the game that has to shoot. But theres a huge difference between a KO list that maximizes damage or one that sacrifices damage for more bodies, or more buffing heroes, or whatever. If pure damage KO just auto loses to idoneth but a different list doesn't, then thats a healthy meta.
I just go back to when the game was "ruined" by activation wars and 400 point 4+ save monsters. Generally tweeking some units does a pretty okay job of fixing the problem. Maybe it won't and they will have to do something, but I dont think a 40k style LOS rule is just purely a good thing. It solves a problem while creating others.
Yeah, that's fair.
Imho, the core rules & limitations should already ensure that any given list can't skew too heavily in one direction. They define what are "sensible" list. And if the core design work on the assumption that you always field say 4-7 heroes, then a list with 10 of them is going to be wonky but similarly a list with only 1 shouldn't work either. Similarly, the core design should have assumptions about what is a reasonable amount of shooting, of magic, of movement speed, etc.
As an example take how shooting is handled in the LoTR game, that game has as a core design rule that only 1 in 3 models in your list can have a bow, with the exception of some shooty factions which can have a bow on 1 in 2 models. This ensures two things. 1) There's never going to be more than a certain amount of shooting in any given army. And 2) Even the shootiest of lists is going to have a reasonable amount of melee troops. This naturally stops armies from skewing too much in one direction or another without needing to rely on the threat of facing a specific opponent.
For soft counters I'd agree with this. Especially when all factions can actually vary their builds and noone needs to rely on gimmicks to stay relevant.
However, once they become hard counters you quickly run the risk of creating the situation @Killer Angel just mentioned, where X crushes A & B but gets crushed by Y & Z. The only benefit to limiting this to lists is that its slightly less obvious that a particulair thing is broken since there'l probably be multiple lists of one faction, so as long as they all have different weaknesses the faction as a whole appears to be healthier, even if every individual list still has this problem.
And I think that would make armies too similar. I like giving the players more freedom, and see it as a best of both worlds situation. In a more casual setting you can have that conversation with your opponent and agree to not skew to heavily, and in a competitive setting the existence of multiple games keeps most heavy skew lists off the table.
Yeah, heavy skew lists should be crushed by lists that heavy skew into their counter. That was my entire point. Players should then self correct and build more balanced lists if they want to win an event.
I think the system should give players a certain amount of control over their meta, since I think it creates an interesting evolution of playstyles and keeps the game fresh without needing to drastically change core rules. I also don't think these issues really exist in a casual setting unless you're literally incapable of having a conversation with your opponent.
That's just my preferred design philosophy. I want the community to have the options. I want that dude who wants to bring 80 sentinels to be able to bring 80 sentinels and if people don't wanna play him they dont' have to and if he wants to bring it to a tournament he's gonna get stomped as soon as he hits any of the armies we've mentioned. Just feels more fun that way.
Fair enough, though I very strongly disagree. Not in the least because this makes tournaments utterly uninteresting for me.
Freedom in games is massively overrated. Games are interesting precisely because they put limitations on what you can and cannot do. Giving you a limited toolset and your opponent a toolset that is the same or at least similar. And without good limitations/drawbacks to keep both your and your opponents toolset the same, or at least highly similar, you just end up with very basic games that are essentially just glorified variations of rock-paper-scissors, a matter of "who shoots first" , blind luck or just a matter of who brought the most and best stuff. Even if on the outside it looks flashy and complex.
I've found myself in that situation quite often, not necesarly for warhammer but in general, where either I could not really have that conversation or there simply weren't any other opponents. Leaving me with only the option of dealing with the heavily skewed nonsense.
Admittadly, more a circumstantial thing, but imho the basic design of any game should already be such that this conversation isn't needed to begin with.