1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AoS NEW *rumor*

Discussion in 'Seraphon Discussion' started by Logan8054, Jan 28, 2019.

  1. Killer Angel
    Slann

    Killer Angel Prophet of the Stars Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,997
    Likes Received:
    19,307
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, 40k it's 60' x 44'.
    But for that kind of game it was a good change, discouraging camping gunlines lists.
     
  2. Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl
    Slann

    Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl Eleventh Spawning

    Messages:
    5,264
    Likes Received:
    10,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, given that Broken Realms is pretty much AoS Psychic Awakening, and Psychic Awakening led to 40K 9th Edition, I’m still assuming Third Edition AoS is just around the corner. New Editions have always arrived around July time since the Warhammer Fantasy days, so I’m counting on that to happen again.

    Agreed. Given that Kragnos and his Centaurs are likely going to be a brand new Destruction faction, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are the ones who will appear in the boxed game opposite Stormcast. A small range for them will probably be introduced in the beginning with their rules available in the Broken Realms book, and this will likely be expanded upon with the boxed game models and perhaps a few more separate units when Third Edition comes round.
     
  3. Canas
    Slann

    Canas Ninth Spawning

    Messages:
    5,767
    Likes Received:
    8,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously they're going to be opposite aelves, but other than that. Yeah wouldn't be surprised if that woudl happen.
     
  4. Kilvakar
    Troglodon

    Kilvakar Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Not the biggest fan of this idea, to be honest. The board size changes for 40k made armies like Tau and Imperial Guard all but impossible to play, since melee is the primary focus of the game now.

    I know that we've been talking about how AoS is in a shooting meta for a while now, but shrinking the board size to the point where you can always get into melee in turn 1 will really wreck armies that want to have a turn of shooting and magic before getting into combat. And yes, I do think this will negatively affect us quite a bit, because we rarely get to pick who goes first and our opponents are going to be up in our faces before we get to do anything. This will just solidify FoS as the only viable army list because of the chance to get some overwatch, but even that will be neutered quite a bit if your enemy is getting to charge un-buffed Skinks...
     
    Tyranitar likes this.
  5. xoid
    Kroxigor

    xoid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    601
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Ah, thanks, nice to know I didn't just completely make that number up.
     
    Erta Wanderer likes this.
  6. Tyranitar
    Cold One

    Tyranitar Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I could see DT being decent in that case too, being able to hold our important units off the table to counterattack
     
  7. ChapterAquila92
    Skink Chief

    ChapterAquila92 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,530
    Likes Received:
    4,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bear in mind that the 60" x 44" is a minimum board size. Outside of tournaments, which I'm fairly certain most AoS or 40k players don't attend anyway, there's little that prevents you from continuing to play on 72" x 48".

    And really, far too much of any 'meta' that arises in AoS or 40k can be chalked up to a disproportionate number of battle reports involving people who optimize the fun out of the game, and the subsequent failure of the tournament organizers and game publisher to offer viable alternatives that are actually fun to play with and play against.
     
  8. Killer Angel
    Slann

    Killer Angel Prophet of the Stars Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,997
    Likes Received:
    19,307
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's true to a certain point.
    The old format is available because GW did not want to exacerbate everyone by tossing aside all those official boards (including costly things as the Sector Imperialis), but the intended format of 9th is 60"x44", and many players are going to play the game "as intended".
     
  9. ChapterAquila92
    Skink Chief

    ChapterAquila92 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,530
    Likes Received:
    4,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truth be told, outside of rules lawyers and tournament attendees, it would honestly surprise me if the majority of players actually go through the trouble of measuring that out every time they set up for a game, and not just play with the table size they're given.
     
    Wazz likes this.
  10. Canas
    Slann

    Canas Ninth Spawning

    Messages:
    5,767
    Likes Received:
    8,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I mean, a lot of em will at least try to get a table of roughly the right size. But yeah ultimatly most players won't have the luxury of getting a bigger if their dinner table is too small...


    General issue in competitive games... people are very good at optimizing the fun out of stuff. And that can quickly spiral out of control as it pushes out the "fun" playstyles.
     
  11. Putzfrau
    Skink Chief

    Putzfrau Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,729
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure why we feel the need to be a little critical of players who enjoy the game differently than you do, and certainly don't know why we are blaming tournament organizers who continually do the selfless service of putting on events often with little to no incentive for their time spent.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2021
  12. ChapterAquila92
    Skink Chief

    ChapterAquila92 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,530
    Likes Received:
    4,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed, to each their own. That's why tournaments, with a disproportionately loud demographic within the Warhammer community, practically take center-stage when it comes to dictating errata and other revisions pretty much at the expense of everything else.

    I would definitely like to be proven wrong, but based on the current state of GW's core games there's very little that suggests otherwise to me.
     
    Putzfrau and Canas like this.
  13. Putzfrau
    Skink Chief

    Putzfrau Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,729
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's odd to me that you're critical of the competitive community determining the competitive landscape of the game.

    The social contract inherent to this game maintains that fluffy/narrative driven games have a way of balancing themselves... nor is balance an inherent component of those style of games. Fluffy/narrative driven games are often intentionally imbalanced if the narrative dictates that.

    I also think it's a little unfair to criticize the tournament community as "dictating errata and other revisions" when the tournament community has more or less gone the entire existence of GW games without any semblance of competitive oriented balance changes.
     
  14. xoid
    Kroxigor

    xoid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    601
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Who said anything about fluffy/narrative driven games?

    The disconnect is between those who play to win at all costs, and those who play pitched battles in a more relaxed environment.
     
    Putzfrau and Canas like this.
  15. Putzfrau
    Skink Chief

    Putzfrau Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,729
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The amount of people that play win at all costs is exceedingly, exceedingly small and both of those groups are going to wait the same types of balance changes.
    The idea that there's this massive influx of WAAC players dominating local tournaments and crushing the fun out of the game at every turn is just not factually correct in my experience.

    Most hardcore tournament players i know bring WAAC lists in exactly 2 scenarios:
    1) they are practicing for a serious tournament against other like minded players
    2) they are at the serious tournament and have a realistic shot at doing well.

    A vast, vast majority of tournament gamers are bringing whatever list they like the most, have the models painted for, or simply enjoy playing. Most players are not going to do well at a tournament even with the nastiest of lists.

    I just think this problem is created and then exacerbated by the online community that throws off these drastic black and white opinions about competitive balance based on the copious amounts of warhammer information they consume but don't experience. For lack of a better term, the "hey whats the best list right now?" crowd and the ones that answer them. There's a whole host of players that probably are just regurgitating information they got elsewhere, but make it seem as the end all be all of any kind of warhammer experience. It creates this illusion of "WAAC" players that gate everyone's fun, but really its just the hyperbolic nature of the internet and the unfortunate result of giving everyone and their grandmother a soapbox.

    How often have you talked, read, or gotten the opinions of a player who is actively winning tournaments? How many people do you know personally that you'd consider a "WAAC" player?
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2021
    ChapterAquila92 and Tyranitar like this.
  16. xoid
    Kroxigor

    xoid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    601
    Trophy Points:
    93
    You are moving the goalposts again. The point, as I saw it, was it is the top level games that get the most coverage in battle reports and skews what people feel the state of the game is, and what issues exist.

    This is basically the argument you make in the second half of your post.
     
    ChapterAquila92, Putzfrau and Canas like this.
  17. Carnikang
    Carnasaur

    Carnikang Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,188
    Likes Received:
    3,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The first half of this statements I get, though I disagree with it. Meta is the state of the game all around, and can be developed without online connections/interactions. You just need to know how to read a book and understand how it goes together. As well as what the book does, how it fits in the meta. Optimization is just part of how you build an effective force.

    I find the second part of the statement hard to really take apart and understand without knowing what exactly is meant. What do you mean by tournament organizers and game publisher fail to offer viable alternatives, there are alternative modes of play? And why add 'actually fun to play with and play against'? Are you excluding said alternatives?
    Your perspective is appreciated on this.
     
    Putzfrau likes this.
  18. Putzfrau
    Skink Chief

    Putzfrau Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,729
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think very many people actually do get exposed to much top level gameplay. However, I do agree that the constant chatter and perception does skew how people at large view the game.

    I'd argue that's less a problem with the people producing content or playing those games and more a problem with a community that doesnt seem to have any capacity for nuance when it comes to this game. The original comment went out of it's way to blame tournament players and organizers for what is largely a misconception among everyone BUT those categories of players.

    I think the solution is a more educated, more discussion oriented community that focuses on tactics, gameplay and player agency, over regurgitation of black and white views on "what's better" with no context.
     
    ChapterAquila92 and Tyranitar like this.
  19. Canas
    Slann

    Canas Ninth Spawning

    Messages:
    5,767
    Likes Received:
    8,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The core of the issue is that competitive players try to push the boundaries of what's possible without outright cheating. Which is in itself fine. However, this naturally leads to them finding exploits, or otherwise broken or degenerate playstyles, every so often. That's simply what happens when you try to push to the extremes of what's possible; every so often you end up breaking things :p.

    A good developer/tournament organiser/game publisher/etc. will try to curtail the worst excesses of these exploits by fixing things. A bad one does not.

    What further complicates things is that competitive players might like a particular exploit, and start arguing it's a "genuine" playstyle. And since competitive players are a fairly vocal group, after all this is going to be one of the more passionate and active groups in your community, they are quite likely to get their way.

    Now this exploit might be accepted by the developers and introduced properly into the game. It might even be reasonably balanced, or well as balanced as the rest of the game. But even so the exploit turned "genuine" playstyle can end up breaking a (small) core part of the original game. Maybe it's just not very fun to face. Maybe it simply changes a core aspect of the game (e.g. teleports completly change the way movement works). Maybe it lead to an arms-race, where the only way to keep up is by joining in with the min-max nonsense. Or maybe it's counter is too difficult for regular players to reliably execute, while tournament players find it trivial. Or maybe it's so powerfull it quickly became the only legitimate way to play for that particular army/unit/whatever. Or it's only "balanced" because in a tournament it'l probably face it counter at least once, but it'l win every other match-up. Or maybe it causes another issue entirely. There's 100's of different small cascading issues it can cause.
    Regardless this will chase away some of players which came for the original game, while at the same time attracting more competitive players as the game turns more and more towards the competitive side. Making it more likely for the next exploit to be turned "genuine". And so the cycle continues on and on. And yes, one of these exploits turned genuine mechanic probably isn't going to break the game. But add in enough of these and eventually you're left with a husk of the original game as the fun and it's original core has been optimized away, while the developers did nothing to stop it and occasionally actively assisted the process.

    The developers/tournament organisers/etc. are the ones who can control the evolution of the game, and offer alternatives. Either by providing alternative rulesets (E.g. using tiers with approved units like the pokemon tier-system or different styles of matches like the formats in MTG) or by outright squashing the exploit by fixing whatever interactions broke the game (e.g. endless spells no longer benefit from range increases cuz Morathi broke them by doubling their range).

    And so far, GW has not done a particularly good job at that for AoS. Matched play is the only genuine official ruleset available. And a lot of their "fixes" have either been blanket fixes, that fix the exploit, but also hurt genuine playstyles, or simple small rebalances like point changes. Which ultimately don't fix the exploit, they merely make it fall out of favour until a future balance update makes that particular exploit efficient again. And in certain cases they've outright introduced new rules where they're just begging for problems since GW doesn't seem to uphold any sort of design guidelines for new stuff, they just throw together whatever seems cool at the time. So meh, not a brilliant track-record so far.
     
    ChapterAquila92 and Putzfrau like this.
  20. Putzfrau
    Skink Chief

    Putzfrau Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,729
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have any examples of this situation taking place in AoS? I can't think of a single "exploit" that falls into this category.

    I'd also argue with tournament players being the most vocal. Take this board for example. Are the tournament players even close to the most vocal?

    Just feels like that opinion is based off some pretty strong assumptions that don't necessarily line up with my own experiences.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2021
    Erta Wanderer likes this.

Share This Page