Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2019/06/27 20:08:11
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
Has anyone had a chance to try these? Again, they sounded like such a cool idea but from the previews I saw (I haven't bought GHB2019 since I don't really play AOS anymore) it didn't look like it changed up enough between the weird army dispositions, no change to summoning and the odd table size rather than just 4x4.
If anyone's given it a try, how did it actually work?
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/06/27 21:10:07
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
They are easy to bust if you are trying to bust them. However if both people go at it with the spirit of fun instead of trying to break it, it is entertaining.
2019/06/28 01:15:48
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
They have to do that anyway right now. If they take BCR or Kharadron and the opponent has anything like a tuned tournament list, they'll have the same degree of a blow out as if they didn't tune the smaller meeting engagements point lists to match. Same goes for a non-tuned stormcast army vs a tuned one.
The current state of affairs for pick up games is you have to take the time to bring a list of equal competitiveness to your opponent or you get blown out. It's just as true at 2000.
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
2019/06/28 11:46:39
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
frozenwastes wrote: They have to do that anyway right now. If they take BCR or Kharadron and the opponent has anything like a tuned tournament list, they'll have the same degree of a blow out as if they didn't tune the smaller meeting engagements point lists to match. Same goes for a non-tuned stormcast army vs a tuned one.
The current state of affairs for pick up games is you have to take the time to bring a list of equal competitiveness to your opponent or you get blown out. It's just as true at 2000.
Which nobody wants to do because the entire point of a pick-up game is to NOT have to discuss what sort of game you want, just roll up to the game store with your list, pick an opponent from the other people there, and start setting up the table.
Sad to hear that about the Meeting Engagements; when they mentioned it I had great hopes for a solid 1k point sub-game since I don't like 2k games. A shame that they added just enough nonsense to make it a hassle to build for while not really removing any of the game-breaking problems that rear their ugly head even more so at lower points.
Guess AOS stays on the shelf for me for now.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/06/28 11:56:18
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
frozenwastes wrote: They have to do that anyway right now. If they take BCR or Kharadron and the opponent has anything like a tuned tournament list, they'll have the same degree of a blow out as if they didn't tune the smaller meeting engagements point lists to match. Same goes for a non-tuned stormcast army vs a tuned one.
The current state of affairs for pick up games is you have to take the time to bring a list of equal competitiveness to your opponent or you get blown out. It's just as true at 2000.
Exactly; if they are doing it anyways they'd rather not deal with a bunch of new restrictions that don't actually help.
Tomorrow I'm heading to my friend's club day (he rents a room and we split the cost). We're doing some Path to Glory missions for a grow league and doing some Meeting Engagement later on. No "adepticon meta" lists. No real combos. A bit of summoning I'm sure (Khorne should be able to make a good show of the final turn of the game).
When the game works so well for us because we actually will get on the same page, I wonder how many people will go on having crappy games because they refuse to be social or think they shouldn't have to make sure the opponent's and their approach lines up.
frozenwastes wrote: They have to do that anyway right now. If they take BCR or Kharadron and the opponent has anything like a tuned tournament list, they'll have the same degree of a blow out as if they didn't tune the smaller meeting engagements point lists to match. Same goes for a non-tuned stormcast army vs a tuned one.
The current state of affairs for pick up games is you have to take the time to bring a list of equal competitiveness to your opponent or you get blown out. It's just as true at 2000.
Exactly; if they are doing it anyways they'd rather not deal with a bunch of new restrictions that don't actually help.
I think it will probably help a bit.
At the very least they can have their blow out from mismatched lists and have it all be done in half the time and then either figure out how to make the next game work or pack up their stuff.
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
2019/06/29 07:36:03
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
They don't need meeting engagements to do that; they can just do 1000 points with normal matched play. Balance will be messed up either way so local players would rather deal with that normally instead of managing a new set of restrictions on top. I should be fair and say there were some mentions of trying it out because the scenarios seemed like they could be fun as a novelty, but no one takes Meeting Engagements seriously.
You don't see any value in more scenarios and an an interesting way to have forces arrive on the battle field? As just more gaming content you can use when you want? Strange.
Yes, it is true that the smaller size offers the bad games are over more quickly "feature" (lol) but I think there is something to the army restrictions and the way the army enters in terms of increasing balance. The times I've tried it and what I'm hearing from others who tried is that summoning isn't the game breaker in meeting engagement that everyone claimed it would be.
On an unrelated Open Play note, I had a game using the open war generator yesterday. Full on armies generated, terrain placed, reinforcements arriving turn after turn, everything.
I just assumed that the mission generator was just another table version of the open war cards but there's this interesting thing where you don't start with your army on the table. It arrives each turn based on a roll of the army generator.
So it's more accurate to say "models from your collection" arrive each turn rather than army. We made sure to bring at least one of each type of unit the army generator could put down with a few additional options. And because you are basically pulling from your available models as you roll for them on the chart, my opponent at one point just deployed a unit he brought to summon rather than summon them.
I was actually a little surprised at how it all works out in play as in my initial read through I didn't really notice how the mission and army generators are integrated when you play in that mode. The deployment maps have these interesting little lines on them and they're actually surprisingly important in game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/30 14:40:53
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
Real reason why some people don't want to play meeting engagements isn't about balance - it has more to do with the fact they don't have their full army turn one and can't control which contingent will be on the table, thus breaking their synergies they so carefully "planned" while building their list.
And it is indeed the real interest of these games - the fact you have to divide your army in three parts, that came at different turns depending on the battleplan you pick up. It brings a different way to build your list and to use it in game.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/30 19:49:20
Sarouan wrote: Real reason why some people don't want to play meeting engagements isn't about balance - it has more to do with the fact they don't have their full army turn one and can't control which contingent will be on the table, thus breaking their synergies they so carefully "planned" while building their list.
And it is indeed the real interest of these games - the fact you have to divide your army in three parts, that came at different turns depending on the battleplan you pick up. It brings a different way to build your list and to use it in game.
Yeah, I tried a basic AOS game at 1k points as a "try it out" just before GHB2019 came out, and then tried a couple Meeting Engagements today...gotta say, I love it.
It felt like the 1k game I had my planned combo (Tanky eels sitting in front of a big turtle giving them unbreakable 3+sv and then everything hits turn 2) and it just kind of went off and the game was done.
Meeting engagements I had to at least semi-plan for getting my forces in any order and couldn't rely nearly as heavily on cheesy idoneth alpha strikes. Well, I didn't plan around the 1/12 chance of having my rearguard stuck on the table at deploy, I figured if I got that I'd just play super defensively T1 as you're kind of supposed to.
The biggest way I think you could break it is by having an army that just kind of relies on having either main body or spearhead at deploy and tries to wipe the enemy turn 1 to get an advantage. and you have like a 70% winrate on all missions you get that condition, 30% when you don't.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Sarouan wrote: Real reason why some people don't want to play meeting engagements isn't about balance - it has more to do with the fact they don't have their full army turn one and can't control which contingent will be on the table, thus breaking their synergies they so carefully "planned" while building their list.
And it is indeed the real interest of these games - the fact you have to divide your army in three parts, that came at different turns depending on the battleplan you pick up. It brings a different way to build your list and to use it in game.
Wow, I am so glad you were able to tell me not only why I don't like it but why other gamers at my flgs that you have never interacted with don't like it as well!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/01 01:13:06
I do like the idea of breaking the "everything is planned out in listbuilding" synergistic approach since IMHO that's one of the worst things about AOS currently.
In an ideal world, people playing Meeting Engagement would keep that in mind and build more balanced/varied lists rather than the typical wombo-combo. In the real world though, people don't want to change up their listbuillding-is-king approach and just decide not to use it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Wow, I am so glad you were able to tell me not only why I don't like it but why other gamers at my flgs that you have never interacted with don't like it as well!
You're welcome. After all, you were one to dismiss Meeting Engagements without even having the full rules, weren't you ? I'm pretty sure you didn't even bother to try it seriously, anyway.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/01 17:10:12
NinthMusketeer wrote: Wow, I am so glad you were able to tell me not only why I don't like it but why other gamers at my flgs that you have never interacted with don't like it as well!
You're welcome. After all, you were one to dismiss Meeting Engagements without even having the full rules, weren't you ? I'm pretty sure you didn't even bother to try it seriously, anyway.
I didn't, but I see lying about what I said remains a favorite pastime for you. Do you lie about others in your day to day life or just online?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I didn't, but I see lying about what I said remains a favorite pastime for you. Do you lie about others in your day to day life or just online?
I do not lie here. You were one to be, IMHO, quite dismissive of Meeting Engagements when it was revealed on Warhammer Community in the rumor section, because of the balance you talk about regularly here. I told you you didn't take into account the way the battleplans will use the contingents (which was true, you only talked about balance and how the restrictions wouldn't be enough), and you dropped it there. It did happen, I didn't make it out of nothing.
But I guess you would rather attack the person online when it doesn't go in your favor rather than actually argue.
To be honest, there is nothing wrong not playing Meeting Engagements. But I do believe people do not bother with this way to play more because of how you build your list and the fact you don't play with your whole army from the start of the game than balance itself. Fact they do not have always control about what part will be on the board at the beginning (because of the battleplan/random nature) is also quite abhorrent to competitive players : they do like to have full control on their list.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/01 17:57:36
2019/07/01 17:54:44
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
To be fair, I haven't tried them yet but I can see how some people may indeed not like the combo-breaking thing of splitting up armies into 3 waves. I know that I've definitely seen folks concede a game (granted, more back in Warmachine) when their mega-combo failed to go off, thus they felt they had no chance anymore with their one-trick pony list.
I can't really comment on how common that may be, though, as I almost never play with rando folks at the LGS and AOS in particular is one I usually only play with friends.
Of course, that's certainly not the only reason for someone to not like the Meeting Engagements. Likewise, there may be some reasons (including that one) that makes other people like them. There's no "one right way to play" (regardless of what tryhard tournament players may tell you; though yes, if you want to be in the tourney circuit, you will probably have to adjust to that particular style of gaming...).
Sarouan wrote: Real reason why some people don't want to play meeting engagements isn't about balance - it has more to do with the fact they don't have their full army turn one and can't control which contingent will be on the table, thus breaking their synergies they so carefully "planned" while building their list.
And it is indeed the real interest of these games - the fact you have to divide your army in three parts, that came at different turns depending on the battleplan you pick up. It brings a different way to build your list and to use it in game.
Wow, I am so glad you were able to tell me not only why I don't like it but why other gamers at my flgs that you have never interacted with don't like it as well!
I don't see them mentioning you or your flgs at all.
As for meeting engagements themselves some people maybe disappointed to hear that, it does not magically fix the game's balancing, nor does it make all the issue of standard 1000 point games disappear. It is however a fun alternative way to play the game, with a different meta, thanks to certain restrictions some units may preform better in this format that they do in the base game. Also, I don't know if its because your army arrives piece-mail, that fact that there are only 4 rounds, or because of the board is smaller board, the game seems faster in my opinion.
To those that say there is no stupid questions I say, "Is this a stupid question?"
NinthMusketeer wrote: I didn't, but I see lying about what I said remains a favorite pastime for you. Do you lie about others in your day to day life or just online?
I do not lie here. You were one to be, IMHO, quite dismissive of Meeting Engagements when it was revealed on Warhammer Community in the rumor section, because of the balance you talk about regularly here. I told you you didn't take into account the way the battleplans will use the contingents (which was true, you only talked about balance and how the restrictions wouldn't be enough), and you dropped it there. It did happen, I didn't make it out of nothing.
But I guess you would rather attack the person online when it doesn't go in your favor rather than actually argue.
To be honest, there is nothing wrong not playing Meeting Engagements. But I do believe people do not bother with this way to play more because of how you build your list and the fact you don't play with your whole army from the start of the game than balance itself. Fact they do not have always control about what part will be on the board at the beginning (because of the battleplan/random nature) is also quite abhorrent to competitive players : they do like to have full control on their list.
Well I quoted you lying about what I said, and you just did so again. I can't respond, because you are making up a position I do not have. It isn't an attack to say that a lie is a lie. If you want to discuss then provide a response to what I actually said rather then lying about it. I dropped it before because I didn't want to drag out the topic but apparently you cannot stop lying about my position, creating a fictional tale where I am completely unreasonable.
So do you want to discuss things based on reality or fiction? I can make up an ridiculous position for you to have, then accuse you of attacking me if you call it out as such. I assure you, it is extremely frustrating.
Sarouan wrote: Real reason why some people don't want to play meeting engagements isn't about balance - it has more to do with the fact they don't have their full army turn one and can't control which contingent will be on the table, thus breaking their synergies they so carefully "planned" while building their list.
And it is indeed the real interest of these games - the fact you have to divide your army in three parts, that came at different turns depending on the battleplan you pick up. It brings a different way to build your list and to use it in game.
Wow, I am so glad you were able to tell me not only why I don't like it but why other gamers at my flgs that you have never interacted with don't like it as well!
I don't see them mentioning you or your flgs at all.
As for meeting engagements themselves some people maybe disappointed to hear that, it does not magically fix the game's balancing, nor does it make all the issue of standard 1000 point games disappear. It is however a fun alternative way to play the game, with a different meta, thanks to certain restrictions some units may preform better in this format that they do in the base game. Also, I don't know if its because your army arrives piece-mail, that fact that there are only 4 rounds, or because of the board is smaller board, the game seems faster in my opinion.
He said the "real reason" people didn't want to play it. I had just been explaining why myself and my flgs community did not want to play it. We were included in the statement, intentionally or no. I meant to poke fun at how he said it but gave the wrong impression, which re-reading it in hindsight it should have been obvious how what I said was not the right way to do so. I was posting on my phone and didn't recognize the username (I usually go by the avatar) which made things even worse, and was again my mistake.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/01 18:59:37
I'm really looking forward to seeing the results...
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2019/07/02 07:22:51
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
I think it will be okay. I'm already noticing a pattern than those who claim the format won't or can't work because of some powerful list idea that seems obvious to them will just break the game haven't played a meeting engagement yet. A different subset of the available units in a given army will likely work out to be the best list for the format than for 2000 point pitched battle. Maybe it will even be such that the distance between the top and mid tier armies won't be as big as in 2k picked battle-- though that's no real accomplishment as the difference there is already pretty huge.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/02 10:56:17
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I didn't, but I see lying about what I said remains a favorite pastime for you. Do you lie about others in your day to day life or just online?
I do not lie here. You were one to be, IMHO, quite dismissive of Meeting Engagements when it was revealed on Warhammer Community in the rumor section, because of the balance you talk about regularly here. I told you you didn't take into account the way the battleplans will use the contingents (which was true, you only talked about balance and how the restrictions wouldn't be enough), and you dropped it there. It did happen, I didn't make it out of nothing.
But I guess you would rather attack the person online when it doesn't go in your favor rather than actually argue.
To be honest, there is nothing wrong not playing Meeting Engagements. But I do believe people do not bother with this way to play more because of how you build your list and the fact you don't play with your whole army from the start of the game than balance itself. Fact they do not have always control about what part will be on the board at the beginning (because of the battleplan/random nature) is also quite abhorrent to competitive players : they do like to have full control on their list.
Well I quoted you lying about what I said, and you just did so again. I can't respond, because you are making up a position I do not have. It isn't an attack to say that a lie is a lie. If you want to discuss then provide a response to what I actually said rather then lying about it. I dropped it before because I didn't want to drag out the topic but apparently you cannot stop lying about my position, creating a fictional tale where I am completely unreasonable.
So do you want to discuss things based on reality or fiction? I can make up an ridiculous position for you to have, then accuse you of attacking me if you call it out as such. I assure you, it is extremely frustrating.
Of course it's frustrating, which is the same for me when you're implying I'm a lying person online and in real life as well (just read your own quote above in bold, the smiley a bit below doesn't change what you wrote). That's you attacking me on a personnal level, mind you. You can always hide behind the smiley, sure, but I think you do know what was your real intent here and what you were trying to get me to answer.
Like I said, you only focused on balance given the restrictions only and while I argued about the battleplans possibly making it not that important given the time the contingent can be on board, you eventually decided it was not worth it. Since it was at the time about rumors on how it would play, I don't think it was off topic nor would drag it down.
To me, it felt like you already made your mind about it. You said you didn't try Meeting Engagements, and that is your choice you have the right to have. What you give me as intentions is a thing, but that doesn't make it what I really think, even if you apparently believe I want to go after you specifically.
My first intervention wasn't about you and your group in particular : I just said what I believe is the real reason people didn't try this way to play for 1000 points isn't a question about balance, but more about the way your list is used in game. Dividing your army was never a favorite for competitive players who rely on combos and synergies to crush your opponent - they know their army works less efficiently if they do. Waiting to regroup and charge forward can be actually a disadvantage since the opponent can focus on objectives and have the lead first, which can be decisive enough to end the game in his victory. Also, since in pick up games you're likely to roll for the scenario and you can never be sure about which part of the army you will begin the game with, this is a serious issue for some players as well.
Back to Meeting Engagements, here is a battlereport about Kharadron Overlords vs Daughters of Khaine in Meeting Engagements. You would assume in normal game, the duardins wouldn't stand a chance at all against this list.
I'm indeed interested about what will be the result of that GW tournament. And yes, of course there will be powerful lists for this kind of games, like in all competitive scenes, but the real interest here is changing the habits of players and vary the way they're playing. I do think GW did a fine work here, but I would understand if it didn't meet the success with some players.
2019/07/02 11:16:54
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
Interesting anecdote. I'm not going to say this behavior extends beyond the local scene where I am pulling it from simply because I have not seen anyone outside of my local scene state this so I see no patterns beyond that.
However - our gw manager was discussing having a meeting engagement tournament. To which most of the competitive AOS players were kind of meh on it.
A stated reason that was echo'd by a few was that their 2000 point lists that they owned models for could not make a competitive 1000 point list in that format, and that they were uninterested in buying 1000 points of models just to play in a format that they felt would not be supported outside of a couple months.
I think this format, like all formats, lives and dies in the crucible of whether or not things like adepticon or LVO adopts it for an event.
2019/07/02 11:23:26
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
auticus wrote: Interesting anecdote. I'm not going to say this behavior extends beyond the local scene where I am pulling it from simply because I have not seen anyone outside of my local scene state this so I see no patterns beyond that.
However - our gw manager was discussing having a meeting engagement tournament. To which most of the competitive AOS players were kind of meh on it.
A stated reason that was echo'd by a few was that their 2000 point lists that they owned models for could not make a competitive 1000 point list in that format, and that they were uninterested in buying 1000 points of models just to play in a format that they felt would not be supported outside of a couple months.
I think this format, like all formats, lives and dies in the crucible of whether or not things like adepticon or LVO adopts it for an event.
Ah yes, the old "I specifically bought this 2k list because it smashes face at 2k, and I never want to play below 2k because I can't use the list exactly how I bought it!" argument. I love seeing that one from people. Rather than you know, buy an army and build a list off of your collection as intended, its build a list, buy exactly that list and then hate on anything which doesn't let you use the full list. I've seen people flat out say (this was 40k but still applies) that they had zero desire to ever play below 2000 points because it meant they had to drop things from their 2k list.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/07/02 11:34:09
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
I like the format, although I still prefer to play on 6' x 4' table.It shakes the standard format a bit. It will have its own faults when played competitively.
>_>
2019/07/02 18:00:56
Subject: The General's Handbook 2019 - Meeting Engagements (1,000 pt game rules)
auticus wrote: Interesting anecdote. I'm not going to say this behavior extends beyond the local scene where I am pulling it from simply because I have not seen anyone outside of my local scene state this so I see no patterns beyond that.
However - our gw manager was discussing having a meeting engagement tournament. To which most of the competitive AOS players were kind of meh on it.
A stated reason that was echo'd by a few was that their 2000 point lists that they owned models for could not make a competitive 1000 point list in that format, and that they were uninterested in buying 1000 points of models just to play in a format that they felt would not be supported outside of a couple months.
I think this format, like all formats, lives and dies in the crucible of whether or not things like adepticon or LVO adopts it for an event.
Ah yes, the old "I specifically bought this 2k list because it smashes face at 2k, and I never want to play below 2k because I can't use the list exactly how I bought it!" argument. I love seeing that one from people. Rather than you know, buy an army and build a list off of your collection as intended, its build a list, buy exactly that list and then hate on anything which doesn't let you use the full list. I've seen people flat out say (this was 40k but still applies) that they had zero desire to ever play below 2000 points because it meant they had to drop things from their 2k list.
Given the expense of building an army I find it difficult to fault people for it. And if they designed a list they wanted to play then want to play that list rather than something else, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: I think this format, like all formats, lives and dies in the crucible of whether or not things like adepticon or LVO adopts it for an event.
That is a very good point I think.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/02 18:01:17
NinthMusketeer wrote: I didn't, but I see lying about what I said remains a favorite pastime for you. Do you lie about others in your day to day life or just online?
I do not lie here. You were one to be, IMHO, quite dismissive of Meeting Engagements when it was revealed on Warhammer Community in the rumor section, because of the balance you talk about regularly here. I told you you didn't take into account the way the battleplans will use the contingents (which was true, you only talked about balance and how the restrictions wouldn't be enough), and you dropped it there. It did happen, I didn't make it out of nothing.
But I guess you would rather attack the person online when it doesn't go in your favor rather than actually argue.
To be honest, there is nothing wrong not playing Meeting Engagements. But I do believe people do not bother with this way to play more because of how you build your list and the fact you don't play with your whole army from the start of the game than balance itself. Fact they do not have always control about what part will be on the board at the beginning (because of the battleplan/random nature) is also quite abhorrent to competitive players : they do like to have full control on their list.
Well I quoted you lying about what I said, and you just did so again. I can't respond, because you are making up a position I do not have. It isn't an attack to say that a lie is a lie. If you want to discuss then provide a response to what I actually said rather then lying about it. I dropped it before because I didn't want to drag out the topic but apparently you cannot stop lying about my position, creating a fictional tale where I am completely unreasonable.
So do you want to discuss things based on reality or fiction? I can make up an ridiculous position for you to have, then accuse you of attacking me if you call it out as such. I assure you, it is extremely frustrating.
Of course it's frustrating, which is the same for me when you're implying I'm a lying person online and in real life as well (just read your own quote above in bold, the smiley a bit below doesn't change what you wrote). That's you attacking me on a personnal level, mind you. You can always hide behind the smiley, sure, but I think you do know what was your real intent here and what you were trying to get me to answer.
Like I said, you only focused on balance given the restrictions only and while I argued about the battleplans possibly making it not that important given the time the contingent can be on board, you eventually decided it was not worth it. Since it was at the time about rumors on how it would play, I don't think it was off topic nor would drag it down.
To me, it felt like you already made your mind about it. You said you didn't try Meeting Engagements, and that is your choice you have the right to have. What you give me as intentions is a thing, but that doesn't make it what I really think, even if you apparently believe I want to go after you specifically.
My first intervention wasn't about you and your group in particular : I just said what I believe is the real reason people didn't try this way to play for 1000 points isn't a question about balance, but more about the way your list is used in game. Dividing your army was never a favorite for competitive players who rely on combos and synergies to crush your opponent - they know their army works less efficiently if they do. Waiting to regroup and charge forward can be actually a disadvantage since the opponent can focus on objectives and have the lead first, which can be decisive enough to end the game in his victory. Also, since in pick up games you're likely to roll for the scenario and you can never be sure about which part of the army you will begin the game with, this is a serious issue for some players as well.
First off I respect and appreciate you taking the time to explain, regardless of my opinion on your position.
which is the same for me when you're implying I'm a lying person online and in real life as well (just read your own quote above in bold, the smiley a bit below doesn't change what you wrote). That's you attacking me on a personnal level, mind you. You can always hide behind the smiley, sure, but I think you do know what was your real intent here and what you were trying to get me to answer.
You are right; I was angry and treated you the same as you were treating me. It was wrong of me to do that.
I did not attack you. I asked you to justify your expressed position that anyone who had a balance concern was not worth listening to, because they did not know what they are talking about. That is an attack on a whole group of people in which I was included, and an unjustified one since the evidence has borne out those predictions as being true more often than not. You then followed in your next post to state that balance concerns were only so "if you convince yourself" and again stating that I did not know what I was talking about. You had no evidence to justify that repeated claim; it amounts to a baseless attack on my credibility.
My first intervention wasn't about you and your group in particular
That is not a defense. Me and my group were included within your statement; you stated why we (and others) did not like meeting engagements in a dismissive manner:
Real reason why some people don't want to play meeting engagements isn't about balance - it has more to do with the fact they don't have their full army turn one and can't control which contingent will be on the table, thus breaking their synergies they so carefully "planned" while building their list.
Given that this post comes right after me speaking on my community not liking it, the association is rather clear whether you intended it or not.
And finally, getting to my claim that you are lying and your response that it seemed my mind was already made up. I went and dug up every single post of mine in response to the initial meeting engagements rules:
Spoiler:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Nifty and fun for casual use. But they are pushing it for tournaments, which is going to make me much more critical. Maybe there are some additional rules not mentioned in the article which address the massive balance issues.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Nifty and fun for casual use. But they are pushing it for tournaments, which is a joke. Maybe there are some additional rules not mentioned in the article which actually address the massive balance issues.
frozenwastes wrote: Also, if there is some obviously best build for this format, then you can just agree not to do that. Games are played by people and if the sheer variety of point sizes, missions, synergy, terrain layout, etc., means that some combinations break the game, you can always just not intentionally break things.
This is my view in that context as well, and even without any additional balancing I think it will work great along these lines; I seriously doubt any restrictions we haven't seen will make things worse on this front. The problem comes when they are pushing this as a tournament format. The dynamic is completely different as min-maxxing needs to be assumed as the baseline, because that is what tournaments are.
frozenwastes wrote: It take a bit for the slaan to get the summoning points built up. Without things like astrolith bearers, even if the slaan goes full summoning points with its spells, it's probably not going to be too bad on turn 1.
The point being it already begins to store up those summons round one; it is not summoning less than it would at 2000 points. Lack of an astrolith bearer (until round two) only deprives the army of d3 summon points, compared to the slaan which is already banking 10. Round two he can pull an 18-point summon guaranteed with some leftover, so by the time both armies have gotten their whole force on the field the seraphon are already rocking ~1200 points, a 20% advantage that will only get worse in subsequent rounds. In a casual game it is entirely reasonable to expect/demand people not to cheese out like that, but in a tourney setting it that level of power will be the standard, locking out the overwhelming majority of armies and potential builds that cannot compete at such a level from doing well. And to be clear, that is just one example.
Which is why I am hoping there will be additional restrictions we have not yet seen, because as it stands what we have seen does not produce a tourney setup that is viable for most armies. It is worth noting GW does not even push 2000 point matched play as a tournament setup (as far as I have seen, maybe someone can correct me). But, and I want to emphasize this*, I am not passing judgement on the system yet because we have not seen all of it; just explaining problems that are in play should what we have seen be the end of it.
*Not as a response to you specifically; as seen above I have had issues with people putting words in my mouth.
Note how in every post I detail that I am responding based on what we had seen and not on the system as a whole. So when you claim that I passed judgement before seeing all the rules, that is a lie. Further, I was quite clear that I was commenting on a tournament setting specifically and stated that the rules looked great for casual play.
frozenwastes wrote: It take a bit for the slaan to get the summoning points built up. Without things like astrolith bearers, even if the slaan goes full summoning points with its spells, it's probably not going to be too bad on turn 1.
The point being it already begins to store up those summons round one; it is not summoning less than it would at 2000 points. Lack of an astrolith bearer (until round two) only deprives the army of d3 summon points, compared to the slaan which is already banking 10. Round two he can pull an 18-point summon guaranteed with some leftover, so by the time both armies have gotten their whole force on the field the seraphon are already rocking ~1200 points, a 20% advantage that will only get worse in subsequent rounds. In a casual game it is entirely reasonable to expect/demand people not to cheese out like that, but in a tourney setting it that level of power will be the standard, locking out the overwhelming majority of armies and potential builds that cannot compete at such a level from doing well. And to be clear, that is just one example.
Yes, and like I said before, you don't take the battleplans into account.
The army body where the slann will be actually plays a big part for that. If you want to begin summoning at turn one, with the example shown on Warhammer Community with Meeting Engagements deployments, that means he must be in the Spearhead. Because spearheads begin the game on the board turn 1, and thus will have a hero phase (mind you, the Seraphon gather summoning points during their hero phase). But by doing so, your slann will also be more exposed, because the spearhead doesn't have the same defensive capacities as the others talking about number of units starting on the board and their size. Main body only comes on the table at the end of turn 1, thus after the hero phase has passed and without the possibility for a slann in the main body to summon anything. I don't think I need to tell you that putting a slann in the rearguard is a bad idea for summoning for the simple fact it will come on the board end of turn 2 (thus only gathering points in turn 3 hero phase).
So, when you're saying their summoning will be the same problem in that format, that's not true - it depends of the deployment and where you will actually put your summoning characters. The opponent can also try different tactics to alpha strike an exposed important character in Spearhead - or, if those characters are in others bodies, to deal with what is on the board and maybe take advantage of that to gather victory points before the main cheese is coming.
I have won enough games in AoS by playing objectives even against very cheesy lists to know that it's still possible. You seem to dismiss this too easily, IMHO.
Which is why I am hoping there will be additional restrictions we have not yet seen, because as it stands what we have seen does not produce a tourney setup that is viable for most armies..
More than restrictions, I think that's the battleplans and deployments that may be different and thus completely changing the strategy of your own list, shifting the balance from one scenario to another while having the same list. I know, it's an alien concept for people only focusing on list building, but it's not a hazard if in tournaments, the battleplans played are very important to take into account while building your list. Remember, restrictions don't only come from the number of units/min or max size.
Which is why I am doubting people only talking about one part of the game while claiming the whole system is completely bonkers. Most of the time, I found they're just looking at the small picture, not the big one.
Was first because it demonstrated a lack of knowledge on Seraphon rules; you mentioned the Slaan being exposed as a downside, something entirely negated by the Slaan being able to teleport every turn and makes the rest of it irrelevant. Second, your final sentence re-iterated the claim that I was passing judgement on the whole system after I had explicitly stated I was not. It was clear to me at that point that you had no interest in a good-faith argument with me, because you were simply lying about what I said.
This is getting really toxic and is not adding to the discussion, so I am not going to discuss the matter further.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/02 19:21:47
