Jump to content

Exorcist - one too many anti-resurrectionists?


rigol

Recommended Posts

Pick faction, pick strategies, pick crew is all fine and dandy, and is a really neat way of doing htings, but it doesn't work. Why? Because that isn't how gamers are trained. You build your magic deck, that is the deck you are playing in your tournament. You can't switch from goblins to mono-black control just because your round 3 opponent is playing Caw-Blade. In warhammer you pick one or two lists, and those are the lists you play for the day. In D&D you build your character, and you play him till he's dead. You don't get to create a new character when the DM tells you what is in the dungeon. You pick a class in WoW. You don't get to change from warlock to death knight on raid night just because your raid leader would rather have a melee class.

We are taught to make a choice and stick with it. And that should always be a viable option. There are any number of reasons covered untold times in other threads why someone might not have every single model for their faction. And they shouldn't have to in order to have a fighting chance. It isn't so much that the game is balanced faction vs. faction but bank account vs. bank account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

now you are talking about the neverborn again, when you play tournaments, i agree, and still, on tourneys you can take that autocomplete only 1 time.

combat matters, sure, but you can perfectly win against neverborn, by picking the right scheme's,

when you play tournemants you always have people who found an overpowerd crew, and he/she has a perfect strategy

now you are saying that neverborn are supperior in completing everything and preventing that from his/her opponent, combat matters, strategies matter, schemes matter, but knowing your crew, knowing your opponents crew they count as much.

don't take me wrong, I'm not picking a fight or anything if i sound angry or if you think i try to insult you, i respect your opinion, but i think that you see things black and white,

like i said, you always have some strong crews, but to learn how to block them, is part of the game, to learn how to stop them, and make that strong list, like a normal one by making the right choices.

In a tournament you can pick the same scheme every single round if you want, at least according to gaining ground. Also, you flip for your strategy and THEN build your crew. There is no selecting, its random.

He is saying that yes, Neverborn can easily complete their strategy and schemes while standing the best chance of all the factions (looked at as a whole) of preventing their opponent from completing theres. This is even a larger issue in shared strategies, which is what gaining ground I believe also uses.

People can beat neverborn, don't get me wrong, but they are leaps and bounds above everyone else as a WHOLE. Im guessing that, and im not sure if the uk guys have it down to master specific info, but the top placing masters are.

Dreamer

Pandora

Victorias

Colette

Followed closely by

Lilith

Perdita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pick faction, pick strategies, pick crew is all fine and dandy, and is a really neat way of doing htings, but it doesn't work. Why? Because that isn't how gamers are trained. You build your magic deck, that is the deck you are playing in your tournament. You can't switch from goblins to mono-black control just because your round 3 opponent is playing Caw-Blade. In warhammer you pick one or two lists, and those are the lists you play for the day. In D&D you build your character, and you play him till he's dead. You don't get to create a new character when the DM tells you what is in the dungeon. You pick a class in WoW. You don't get to change from warlock to death knight on raid night just because your raid leader would rather have a melee class.

We are taught to make a choice and stick with it. And that should always be a viable option. There are any number of reasons covered untold times in other threads why someone might not have every single model for their faction. And they shouldn't have to in order to have a fighting chance. It isn't so much that the game is balanced faction vs. faction but bank account vs. bank account.

I don't understand what you mean,

we pick factions, pick crew, pick strategies, pick schemes, play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pick faction, pick strategies, pick crew is all fine and dandy, and is a really neat way of doing htings, but it doesn't work. Why? Because that isn't how gamers are trained. You build your magic deck, that is the deck you are playing in your tournament. You can't switch from goblins to mono-black control just because your round 3 opponent is playing Caw-Blade. In warhammer you pick one or two lists, and those are the lists you play for the day. In D&D you build your character, and you play him till he's dead. You don't get to create a new character when the DM tells you what is in the dungeon. You pick a class in WoW. You don't get to change from warlock to death knight on raid night just because your raid leader would rather have a melee class.

We are taught to make a choice and stick with it. And that should always be a viable option. There are any number of reasons covered untold times in other threads why someone might not have every single model for their faction. And they shouldn't have to in order to have a fighting chance. It isn't so much that the game is balanced faction vs. faction but bank account vs. bank account.

I actually disagree with you. Being a raid leader in many a game, I've had players switch from their mains to their alts if we needed a dirge, or a cleric, or a dreadknight to tank.

And if you want to be competetive at a tournament, in any game, you need to buy the best models. There is an option for single master events in gaining ground, but that is going to skew even more favourable to the Pandora, Dreamer, Colette, Victoria players of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a tournament you can pick the same scheme every single round if you want, at least according to gaining ground. Also, you flip for your strategy and THEN build your crew. There is no selecting, its random.

you have to reread Gaining ground,

Scheme usage:

scheme's are considered unique and can only be taken once

i know that they are flipped :)

if you take fixed crews, you can make sure that they have to change crews. and the neverborn can choose his crew, but the other as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a tournament you can pick the same scheme every single round if you want, at least according to gaining ground. Also, you flip for your strategy and THEN build your crew. There is no selecting, its random.

He is saying that yes, Neverborn can easily complete their strategy and schemes while standing the best chance of all the factions (looked at as a whole) of preventing their opponent from completing theres. This is even a larger issue in shared strategies, which is what gaining ground I believe also uses.

People can beat neverborn, don't get me wrong, but they are leaps and bounds above everyone else as a WHOLE. Im guessing that, and im not sure if the uk guys have it down to master specific info, but the top placing masters are.

Dreamer

Pandora

Victorias

Colette

Followed closely by

Lilith

Perdita

Gaining Ground specifically states that you can not reuse schemes in a tournament. Page 5 second paragraph.

"Schemes are considered unique in a Gaining Ground Tournament, meaning that each

player can select each Scheme only once during the tournament."

edit: ah, sephiroa beat me to it.

Edited by pgbsamurai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dreamer

Pandora

Victorias

Colette

Followed closely by

Lilith

Perdita

That's not what it looks like here and it quite surprises me that Viks or Perdita are even on your local list (maybe some very good players play them a lot and do well with them where you live?)

But in any case, it's telling that even in what is clearly a completely different environment, three of your seven top master picks - and half of your top four - are Neverborn.

Gaining Ground specifically states that you can not reuse schemes in a tournament. Page 5 second paragraph.

"Schemes are considered unique in a Gaining Ground Tournament, meaning that each

player can select each Scheme only once during the tournament."

I like how we are using Gaining Ground's scheme uniqueness to defend the fact that one faction has access to something that no other faction has access to. No one has even attempted to argue that Kidnap is OK.

No kids, it's not OK for a faction to randomly, arbitrarily have a blatant advantage. Not even if it can only be used once.

Edited by Calmdown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I do not think he is that bad. He hates Ressers, yup. He has crap movement, check! He nearly kills himself to get into position to do anything to anyone, check!

I plan to play him via Proxy sooner, hoping he is out by the big cons next year. He is anti-resser but he also has some nasty anti-neverborn stuff as well. He is gonna be a fun to play.

Personally I am thinking a DM themed list with AJustice is gonna be competitive this year. Just need to figure out the easiest way to get her to manifest. YEAR OF THE RAM! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what it looks like here and it quite surprises me that Viks or Perdita are even on your local list (maybe some very good players play them a lot and do well with them where you live?)

But in any case, it's telling that even in what is clearly a completely different environment, three of your seven top master picks - and half of your top four - are Neverborn.

well, where i play, the top players are playing,

sonnia, rasputina, lucius, zoraida

me being rasputina

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What amazes me the most is the level of denial some people are capable of when defending something that they love.

Is it possible to perfectly quantify 'equal', or 'balance'? Of course not. Is it possible, using empyrical evidence and that fact that we're all generally intelligent people that can analyse model stats, synergies, and other criteria, to see that something is not balanced? Absolutely.

Hey! Look! We're back into "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a denialist fanboi." I'll have to go back and check the post count, but that may be a new record. And if not, I think you're generally continuing to improve - keep working at it, and soon you'll be able to drop that one on the very first page every time!

You really should look up the definition of 'empirical' - to borrow and old quote, I do not think it means what you think it means. Nothing in gaming is even remotely controlled enough, or has a large enough sample size, to be considered empirical.

Nice to see we're back into the same people making the same complaints (and the same insults) all over again. Time to move on.

P.S. Dolomyte - as sephiroa says, take a look back through Gaining Ground again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it matters but from my tourney this weekend. It was single faction but a lot of people stuck to one master.

1st - Outcasts - Viktorias exclusively

2nd - Neverborn - AZoriada mostly

3rd - Resurrectionists - Kirai

4th - Guild - Perdita

Honestly if we are really looking at these stastics we need to consider tons of factors. For example no one has brought up what scoring method the tourney used. Maybe Neverborn dominated Domination format but suck at Accumulation or Disparity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how we are using Gaining Ground's scheme uniqueness to defend the fact that one faction has access to something that no other faction has access to. No one has even attempted to argue that Kidnap is OK.

No kids, it's not OK for a faction to randomly, arbitrarily have a blatant advantage. Not even if it can only be used once.

I never said it was a defense for Neverborn, was simply stating the rules quote above was incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! Look! We're back into "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a denialist fanboi." I'll have to go back and check the post count, but that may be a new record. And if not, I think you're generally continuing to improve - keep working at it, and soon you'll be able to drop that one on the very first page every time!

You really should look up the definition of 'empirical' - to borrow and old quote, I do not think it means what you think it means. Nothing in gaming is even remotely controlled enough, or has a large enough sample size, to be considered empirical.

Nice to see we're back into the same people making the same complaints (and the same insults) all over again. Time to move on.

P.S. Dolomyte - as sephiroa says, take a look back through Gaining Ground again.

Loosely, empirical means "based on observations and experience". To use a recently quoted quote, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Well done in bringing the thread down to a personal level because your arguments are failing, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how we are using Gaining Ground's scheme uniqueness to defend the fact that one faction has access to something that no other faction has access to. No one has even attempted to argue that Kidnap is OK.

No kids, it's not OK for a faction to randomly, arbitrarily have a blatant advantage. Not even if it can only be used once.

that's faction specific, why are you so frustrated with the fact that neverborn have a slightly better winning percentage?

do you realy enjoy having discussions like this?

you may think that it is unfair, but i don't think that,

in WH40k i play necrons, do you think i care that they are considdered the weakest race? i love the models and fluff, so i play with them, and I love the faces of the space marine player in the finale round when I'm playing 1st-4th place with them.

you always have some stronger crews and they don't need much exerience or good thinking to win.

i like winning, but i like winning in a strong good game as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how we are using Gaining Ground's scheme uniqueness to defend the fact that one faction has access to something that no other faction has access to. No one has even attempted to argue that Kidnap is OK.

No kids, it's not OK for a faction to randomly, arbitrarily have a blatant advantage. Not even if it can only be used once.

Fine, I'll take that bet.

Eliminate one target (secret): 1 VP

Eliminate one target (declared): 2 VP

Eliminate three targets (secret): 2 VP

How exactly is that a blatant advantage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's faction specific, why are you so frustrated with the fact that neverborn have a slightly better winning percentage?

do you realy enjoy having discussions like this?

you may think that it is unfair, but i don't think that,

in WH40k i play necrons, do you think i care that they are considdered the weakest race? i love the models and fluff, so i play with them, and I love the faces of the space marine player in the finale round when I'm playing 1st-4th place with them.

you always have some stronger crews and they don't need much exerience or good thinking to win.

i like winning, but i like winning in a strong good game as well

GW is not balanced, no one said it was, so I am not sure where that came from. I have not yet in those post, but when I talk about Balance I always go to Magic. Warhammer Fantasy is always in a state of flux, and they are they seem to be on a giant pendulum of chasing blance or chasing the newest bestest codex. Currently I think they are trying to balance out the armies. Regardless the first step is admitting you have a problem (the universal you, not you you).

Also if you can take 1rst place with the weakest 40k army, then it seems GW is doing ok with the balance issue. If you look at the spreadsheet that does not seem to be the case with Malifaux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loosely, empirical means "based on observations and experience". To use a recently quoted quote, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Then I just have a stricter definition - but I am an engineer... A bunch of anecdotes does not qualify as empirical in my world.

Well done in bringing the thread down to a personal level because your arguments are failing, though.

LOL? Seriously? You run around calling anyone who disagrees with you blind and ignorant, and I brought it down to a personal level?

Boggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also if you can take 1rst place with the weakest 40k army, then it seems GW is doing ok with the balance issue. If you look at the spreadsheet that does not seem to be the case with Malifaux.

Calmdown helpfully tagged the Guild as one of the weakest earlier in this thread. The Guild took first and second in our tournament this past weekend.

So, yeah, looks like it IS the case with Malifaux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a serious question?

Yes, it is.

+1VP for triple the number of targets doesn't seem like an unacceptable advantage, IMHO. Three secret targets for the same as one known target seems to be pretty equal as well. I can understand some disagreement around the edges on this, since it will of course be personal, but a game-breaking advantage? Hardly seems so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information