I’ve been really appreciating the “design a list to go 5 rounds” mindset, i think the game lends itself to going 5 rounds as well. Wish this was a longer show, thanks dudes!
I am much the same on that. Having a bag of hammers thrown at you that is trying to win turn 1-2 gets a bit boring, so many armies can do it too... /yawn In saying that, I love my turn 3 armies that have a mix of units and want to play a full game, and not just turn 1 alpha strike.
I have two memorable Warhammer memories, one is ~6 years old, the other even older. 6 years ago, a friend and I got into 40k and played a doubles tournament. Due to the odd number of pairs we had no opponents round 3 and so played against each other on the spare table. I only remember who won because I had been rolling awful, and I needed to roll three 6's to save on three dice to keep a unit and win. I rolled three 6's and yelled a bit louder than I should have. The older memory, is back in WHFB against another friend. He had Tomb Kings, I had Ogres. He flew his Hierophant out in front of my Gnoblars on his first turn. Gnoblars have a short range attack where they throw, well, actual trash. Dice were rolled really well by me, and not so well by him. Trash killed the Hierophant, and his army crumbled. Turn 1. I to this day remind of him the time his entire army died to trash and we have a laugh, with me laughing perhaps a bit harder.
Play like your opponent is your friend (especially if he is). Then, cheer your opponent's success to allow him to feel good. The best games seem to be when both players have a good chance to win at the end. The best result is "now, that was a good game", regardless of who won.
I think there is a lot to be said about playing longer games and not crushing an opponent on the scoreboard. I tend to have “close wins, close losses” quite often and I think that an opponent welcomes these as it becomes an appreciation of a game well played rather than a particular rule set or a bad npe. A positive experience irrespective of result will live long in the memory
I can think of one example of when a game ending in the first turn was an enjoyable experience. Hawk Wargames, former owner of Dropzone Commander, used to tournaments in Croydon, UK. Around 40 players attended, which included probably the best players in the world and people like me, who (at my first time) had never played a single game previously. It was accepted that there would be some wonky match-ups in the first round and things would sort themselves out later on. The particular game I'm thinking of took place in my second or third tournament (so was probably around the 15th time I'd played the game). Dropzone Commander uses alternate activations, but I remember during the first round, a sense of awe at how masterfully my army was destroyed by my opponent, how clever play (by him) and unrealised mistakes (by me) saw me completely taken apart. It was beautiful! Most of the time I was drawn against other players like me, who needed to remind each other of basic rules and how our own units worked, but it was fun seeing how clever the game was and what potential there was for playing strategically. That said... I basically agree with you: if a game is fun enough to be worth playing, it ought to last long enough for you to experience what the game can offer. It shouldn't (especially in an Igo Ugo system like Warhammer) be possible to win in the first round, or even the second.
I won my first game of AoS on Sunday. Skaven Skryre/Eshin list. However, in my retrospective I realised that in the activation that likely turned the game for me I misplayed (jumped ratling cannons out after running clanrats which isn't legal). I took no joy in this and ensured I apologised to my opponent. Insult to injury, the ratling cannons didn't even have the decency to blow themselves up when I more more warplead'd them.
Probably one of my best experiences, or at least the funniest, was playing my first game of Adeptus Titanicus. I had basically won, my friend had a single titan left on its last legs, I had 2 Titans and a Knight banner. I finished off his last titan in close quarters, it then fell onto my titan, which killed it and caused a magazine detonation, which vaporised my remaining titan and knight banner, leaving both of us tabled! I think one of the things that made it so funny was my friend was going to stop the game when I killed his Titan, but I said "wait we gotta roll for it's death", then again he was going to stop after my titan died (saying at least I took it with me), then I reminded him I had to make a death roll myself and proceeded to roll the worst result I could get (mag detonation). We were both almost on the floor laughing about how that game ended! But yeah you're right, I could have kept that rule quiet and took the win, but if I had not only would that have been underhanded but it would have also taken away a far more enjoyable experience for both of us and the moment that made it a game that we still talk about years later.
@@derekgehring2771 It is really fun, have not played as many games as I would like but despite me mostly being an AoS player tbh I think it is probably GWs best game system (also tbh I don't have much experience with most of the others so that is a pinch of salt opinion!). One of the reasons I am really excited for new Epic is that even if that game sucks at least AT is getting new plastic stuff with it!
As a seasoned OBR player, the next battlescroll needs to discourage the “double mortarch” builds in OBR. I would faction lock Katakros ability back into Mortis Praetorian rather than OBR in general to discourage running him in null myriad. Great episode btw!
I remember years ago watching a video about gaming, pretty sure it was about PvP online gaming but still relevant. The person said "Always remember if you are having an awesome game, that means other people are having a bad game. So when you are having a bad game you can at least be happy that the other people are having fun". I like it as it is basically saying that sportsmanship is important, don't ruin the experience by being a sore loser when it's going against you. I agree with most of the points in this video for what makes for a fun game of Warhammer. Helping each other with rules reminders (pre gotcha) makes the game more fun I find. Stating intention about important goings on also is a good idea, saying out loud "this unit should be just outside 9" of that unit" and letting them look and agree keeps the game flowing when later on them being outside 9" is super important. Not bringing your finely tuned and mastered super death machine competitive list, when you are asked for a fun casual game often helps lol.
I recently went to a teams RTT and brought a cockatrice allied in with my tzeentch and it had a field day on the battlefield. It wasn't something that anyone expected and I kept it a secret until the rtt, which was a really fun time overall with tag team wrestling themed games. It was the same feel of popping the verminlord out of a screaming bell, I just love it when the thing you bring does the thing that it does whether a smashy Timmy thing or a more Johnny planning thing, its always fun when the thing happens, it makes this game worth it so much more.
The feeling that you _can_ win is important. I'm perfectly fine with loosing turn 2 and even turn 1, if (when I put my models on the table) I feel like there is a prospect of winning the game before the dice say otherwise. I played 2 games in 1 night once, the same lists, the only thing that changed was priority, neither game made it to turn 3 - was a great night, but we felt like we could win depending on the dice. But, my last 2 games I've not felt like my list could compete - not enough tools to counter 4+ ward saves on units that will delete anything of mine they touch... and that's before we get into the stupidity that is the top of the pool at the moment. As to the "improbable event", those are fun, and do create cool moments and great memories. However they are a problem once an army (Seraphon, Gits, OBR, SBG leap to mind) reaches a state where "improbable" becomes "likely". This doesn't have an impact on experienced players focussed on competitive play usually (but the talk of "salt" suggests otherwise tbh), but it can be devestating for a new player or in a situation where one player has a competitive mindset and the other a casual one (see the feeling you can win).
The best stuff is usually from a combat that lasts ages and doesn’t just end in one round. Especially if it’s two named characters going at it. That or a character dying to something dumb. It’s hated at the time but always remembered afterwards.
For me, the most important factor to having a good game, is having a good opponent. By "good", I don't mean 'skilled', but a person who is willing to try hard, be open about their rules and not complain about dice rolls. Its all about remembering that it's a game, where you're supposed to have fun. To touch on what Tyler has mentioned, I go to tournaments and my experience on "having a clean game" has been VERY polarizing with some players. Some people are very chilled with a minor takeback, or will inform you about an aura, or will measure something to tell you about an ability, range etc... Others, as soon as you misplace a model in combat will inform you "okay, so here you moved your guy just 2.99 inch within my 3" reach hammer" AFTER you finished all your rolls into a fifferent unit, because they intended to catch you on it, didn't inform you when you finished your pile-in, and won't let you take it back or move your guy a millimeter. Which will have unintended, massive ramifications for the outcome of the game. Your opponent should never play the game for you, and neither should you for them, but someone being a dick about measuring milimeters will happen to you at some point, if you regularly play with new people. That is why the point of "stating our intent", and asking the opponent about theirs, which you guys touched on is I think the MOST important thing about having a good game where no one feels gotcha'd. And you don't want to get gotcha'd. As you play, you will develop habits and opinions on how you like to play, measure and allow takebacks. An opponent that plays or acts different to you in those regards, either because that's how they are, or they really want to win will really upset you, and get you out of the right headspace to think clearly and strategically. It will detract from your experience. Ask and answer questions, state and ask about intent, repeat ranges, think out loud. I think that's the key to having a good game.
I'm really keen to see Tyler give that silver and blue stormcast scheme a try. Having used it before, I can attest to how good the stormyboiz look in silver generally.
This is for Tyler. I had a single blissbarb archer bring down Arch-Kavalos Zandtos last night. Zandtos took 6 wounds on unleash hell and toasted the squad. But a single blissbarb archer rolled a 6 to hit which caused a MW, he made his ward and then I wounded and he failed his 2+ save and his ward. Lost the game by a couple points, but that was the standout moment of a well fount 5 round game.
Best game of AoS I’ve ever played was a few weeks ago in the final of a small local tournament. I faced a BoC list with my stormcasts and we went 5 rounds, and I felt I lost the game and won it back several time! We made mistakes, failed easy rolls, but also pulled out some things that seemed almost impossible! In the end I lost by one single point and had to applaud my opponent for my best game ever!
Last game my sorcerer exploded turn one and I failed the battletactic. Also lost the game. My opponent rolled bad spells aswell later in the game. The game was so chaotic and we really enjoyed the experience. Those kind of games are what makes these events and playing in general so enjoyable.
Alpha strike and/or turn two win lists are the main reason I wish both AoS and 40k were alternating activations. I don’t play competitive tournament games, so my perspective is casual play. I definitely prefer a cooperative approach to play. Tournament play? I’m not sure how much of a “gentle person” you should be. Maybe just explaining your units once, and honestly responding to reasonable questions is sufficient for fairness.
For me, a great game of AoS lasts the full 5 turns on a nail biter last turn and includes some cinematic and outrageous moments that people remember a week later! It’s got to look great too. Nice, fully painted armies and lovely terrain.
Hey vince me and my friends are into 2vs2 games and would love to know the rules you use. We usually justo go and smash each other but i think we could use more rules. Do you guys use BT? Grand strats? You share CPs? Great video as always
A big tension point for me having good games is that at events, you're incentivized towards that alpha strike/ alpha pin. I understand Veteran players snoozing at the lesser experienced player trying to figure out which battle tactic to go for, at the same time I've been to events where I'm stressing over 2 hr 30 min of game time including deployment.
The big one for me is agency, that the game was won/lost because of a decision me or m opponent made. Its also a big part of why i never got into 40k / whfb, where it often felt like i was playing against the game rather than against my opponent... i think aos is much better for that.
A good game of AOS is where neither I nor my opponent make any "colossal blunders", ie forgetting a major ability/rule, make an obviously and objectively bad move, etc. I like to win, but I want to win because I played well, not because either of us goofed.
I agree with your point in the late 40 minute section that one of the things that makes a great game, a memorable game, is when the randomness kicks off in an incredibly novel way. When you set up all the pieces and it pays off, critical failures of the utmost degree, and more. I think making the game too reliable or predictable makes for a more "fair" game but also makes it much more boring. In fact, I think GW's abandonment of the silly charts and interesting opportunities for critical success and failure has reduced my enjoyment of their games.
The biggest problem with current AOS design is that it's too front-loaded. Nearly every army these days has the ability to hit hard from T1 - it's not always the best strategy, but practically everyone can do it. The maneuver phase has therefore become effectively optional - and, for a surprisingly number of armies, going hard at the opponent T1, whether that is done via ranged damage or melee, is often IMO much too viable a strategy. On Murderlust...when I play Khorne, I always flag the ability at the start of the game, and then I flag it again any time I think my opponent is forgetting about it and doing something obviously stupid as a result, over and over again if necessary, until it sinks in. The ability breaks the basic rules of the game so fundamentally that in my view the only fair thing to do is to remind your opponent it exists whenever you think they may have forgotten about it. To say "oh well, too bad, you shoulda remembered I have murderlust" when e.g. someone picks a battle tactic that I know I can 100% deny simply by tagging a unit with murderlust at the end of their hero phase strikes me as not the way anybody should want to win a game. I also remind my opponent any time I think they forgot to do something - e.g. "you just started combat, didn't you want to try to do a monstrous action at the end of the charge phase?" Or "you didn't cast spells with X unit, was that intentional?" which I know a lot of players don't do, and I don't think you are really obliged to do in the same way that IMO you are obliged to remind the opponent of your rules. But it just seems like it makes for a better game. I don't like winning a game because my opponent forgot to do something there was no reason not to do.
A good game for me is where it felt decisions mattered and there were multiple outcomes for the match depending on player decisions and skill. This is why I never find it enjoyable to fight armies such as Sons and OBR etc. Sons effectively creates a non-game and it instantly becomes a damage check/damage thredshold I have to meet. OBR is the same to a degree. There is almost no dice involved because everything just happens and command points is not a real ressource for them. Both matchups are super predictable and if you played 10 different players with both armies Im certain you would have near identical games, where as this isnt the case for many other armies.
'memorable' is NOT necessarily a positive experience. if someone sees something they lovingly built crumble into tiny pieces right in-front of them, they remember that, but not fondly.
Listening on a Wednesday, not a Thursday - such luxury
I’ve been really appreciating the “design a list to go 5 rounds” mindset, i think the game lends itself to going 5 rounds as well. Wish this was a longer show, thanks dudes!
I am much the same on that.
Having a bag of hammers thrown at you that is trying to win turn 1-2 gets a bit boring, so many armies can do it too... /yawn
In saying that, I love my turn 3 armies that have a mix of units and want to play a full game, and not just turn 1 alpha strike.
I have two memorable Warhammer memories, one is ~6 years old, the other even older.
6 years ago, a friend and I got into 40k and played a doubles tournament. Due to the odd number of pairs we had no opponents round 3 and so played against each other on the spare table. I only remember who won because I had been rolling awful, and I needed to roll three 6's to save on three dice to keep a unit and win. I rolled three 6's and yelled a bit louder than I should have.
The older memory, is back in WHFB against another friend. He had Tomb Kings, I had Ogres. He flew his Hierophant out in front of my Gnoblars on his first turn. Gnoblars have a short range attack where they throw, well, actual trash. Dice were rolled really well by me, and not so well by him. Trash killed the Hierophant, and his army crumbled. Turn 1. I to this day remind of him the time his entire army died to trash and we have a laugh, with me laughing perhaps a bit harder.
We thank warhammer weekly for the continuation of salty Tyler..keeping the economy going with the salt mine (and fantastic takes)
lol :)
Play like your opponent is your friend (especially if he is). Then, cheer your opponent's success to allow him to feel good. The best games seem to be when both players have a good chance to win at the end. The best result is "now, that was a good game", regardless of who won.
I think there is a lot to be said about playing longer games and not crushing an opponent on the scoreboard. I tend to have “close wins, close losses” quite often and I think that an opponent welcomes these as it becomes an appreciation of a game well played rather than a particular rule set or a bad npe.
A positive experience irrespective of result will live long in the memory
I can think of one example of when a game ending in the first turn was an enjoyable experience. Hawk Wargames, former owner of Dropzone Commander, used to tournaments in Croydon, UK. Around 40 players attended, which included probably the best players in the world and people like me, who (at my first time) had never played a single game previously. It was accepted that there would be some wonky match-ups in the first round and things would sort themselves out later on.
The particular game I'm thinking of took place in my second or third tournament (so was probably around the 15th time I'd played the game). Dropzone Commander uses alternate activations, but I remember during the first round, a sense of awe at how masterfully my army was destroyed by my opponent, how clever play (by him) and unrealised mistakes (by me) saw me completely taken apart. It was beautiful!
Most of the time I was drawn against other players like me, who needed to remind each other of basic rules and how our own units worked, but it was fun seeing how clever the game was and what potential there was for playing strategically.
That said... I basically agree with you: if a game is fun enough to be worth playing, it ought to last long enough for you to experience what the game can offer. It shouldn't (especially in an Igo Ugo system like Warhammer) be possible to win in the first round, or even the second.
I won my first game of AoS on Sunday. Skaven Skryre/Eshin list. However, in my retrospective I realised that in the activation that likely turned the game for me I misplayed (jumped ratling cannons out after running clanrats which isn't legal). I took no joy in this and ensured I apologised to my opponent. Insult to injury, the ratling cannons didn't even have the decency to blow themselves up when I more more warplead'd them.
Probably one of my best experiences, or at least the funniest, was playing my first game of Adeptus Titanicus. I had basically won, my friend had a single titan left on its last legs, I had 2 Titans and a Knight banner. I finished off his last titan in close quarters, it then fell onto my titan, which killed it and caused a magazine detonation, which vaporised my remaining titan and knight banner, leaving both of us tabled!
I think one of the things that made it so funny was my friend was going to stop the game when I killed his Titan, but I said "wait we gotta roll for it's death", then again he was going to stop after my titan died (saying at least I took it with me), then I reminded him I had to make a death roll myself and proceeded to roll the worst result I could get (mag detonation). We were both almost on the floor laughing about how that game ended!
But yeah you're right, I could have kept that rule quiet and took the win, but if I had not only would that have been underhanded but it would have also taken away a far more enjoyable experience for both of us and the moment that made it a game that we still talk about years later.
Adeptus Titanicus is an amazing game that is criminally under played. I have had many games where events like that happened.
@@derekgehring2771 It is really fun, have not played as many games as I would like but despite me mostly being an AoS player tbh I think it is probably GWs best game system (also tbh I don't have much experience with most of the others so that is a pinch of salt opinion!). One of the reasons I am really excited for new Epic is that even if that game sucks at least AT is getting new plastic stuff with it!
Bless you for the early present
As a seasoned OBR player, the next battlescroll needs to discourage the “double mortarch” builds in OBR. I would faction lock Katakros ability back into Mortis Praetorian rather than OBR in general to discourage running him in null myriad.
Great episode btw!
I remember years ago watching a video about gaming, pretty sure it was about PvP online gaming but still relevant.
The person said "Always remember if you are having an awesome game, that means other people are having a bad game. So when you are having a bad game you can at least be happy that the other people are having fun".
I like it as it is basically saying that sportsmanship is important, don't ruin the experience by being a sore loser when it's going against you.
I agree with most of the points in this video for what makes for a fun game of Warhammer.
Helping each other with rules reminders (pre gotcha) makes the game more fun I find.
Stating intention about important goings on also is a good idea, saying out loud "this unit should be just outside 9" of that unit" and letting them look and agree keeps the game flowing when later on them being outside 9" is super important.
Not bringing your finely tuned and mastered super death machine competitive list, when you are asked for a fun casual game often helps lol.
I recently went to a teams RTT and brought a cockatrice allied in with my tzeentch and it had a field day on the battlefield. It wasn't something that anyone expected and I kept it a secret until the rtt, which was a really fun time overall with tag team wrestling themed games. It was the same feel of popping the verminlord out of a screaming bell, I just love it when the thing you bring does the thing that it does whether a smashy Timmy thing or a more Johnny planning thing, its always fun when the thing happens, it makes this game worth it so much more.
The feeling that you _can_ win is important.
I'm perfectly fine with loosing turn 2 and even turn 1, if (when I put my models on the table) I feel like there is a prospect of winning the game before the dice say otherwise. I played 2 games in 1 night once, the same lists, the only thing that changed was priority, neither game made it to turn 3 - was a great night, but we felt like we could win depending on the dice. But, my last 2 games I've not felt like my list could compete - not enough tools to counter 4+ ward saves on units that will delete anything of mine they touch... and that's before we get into the stupidity that is the top of the pool at the moment.
As to the "improbable event", those are fun, and do create cool moments and great memories. However they are a problem once an army (Seraphon, Gits, OBR, SBG leap to mind) reaches a state where "improbable" becomes "likely". This doesn't have an impact on experienced players focussed on competitive play usually (but the talk of "salt" suggests otherwise tbh), but it can be devestating for a new player or in a situation where one player has a competitive mindset and the other a casual one (see the feeling you can win).
The best stuff is usually from a combat that lasts ages and doesn’t just end in one round. Especially if it’s two named characters going at it. That or a character dying to something dumb. It’s hated at the time but always remembered afterwards.
I agree with you: "Always give the turn away - unless you can literally win."
Maybe add: "or you would lose" :D
For me, the most important factor to having a good game, is having a good opponent. By "good", I don't mean 'skilled', but a person who is willing to try hard, be open about their rules and not complain about dice rolls. Its all about remembering that it's a game, where you're supposed to have fun.
To touch on what Tyler has mentioned, I go to tournaments and my experience on "having a clean game" has been VERY polarizing with some players. Some people are very chilled with a minor takeback, or will inform you about an aura, or will measure something to tell you about an ability, range etc... Others, as soon as you misplace a model in combat will inform you "okay, so here you moved your guy just 2.99 inch within my 3" reach hammer" AFTER you finished all your rolls into a fifferent unit, because they intended to catch you on it, didn't inform you when you finished your pile-in, and won't let you take it back or move your guy a millimeter. Which will have unintended, massive ramifications for the outcome of the game.
Your opponent should never play the game for you, and neither should you for them, but someone being a dick about measuring milimeters will happen to you at some point, if you regularly play with new people. That is why the point of "stating our intent", and asking the opponent about theirs, which you guys touched on is I think the MOST important thing about having a good game where no one feels gotcha'd.
And you don't want to get gotcha'd. As you play, you will develop habits and opinions on how you like to play, measure and allow takebacks. An opponent that plays or acts different to you in those regards, either because that's how they are, or they really want to win will really upset you, and get you out of the right headspace to think clearly and strategically. It will detract from your experience.
Ask and answer questions, state and ask about intent, repeat ranges, think out loud. I think that's the key to having a good game.
I'm really keen to see Tyler give that silver and blue stormcast scheme a try. Having used it before, I can attest to how good the stormyboiz look in silver generally.
This is for Tyler.
I had a single blissbarb archer bring down Arch-Kavalos Zandtos last night. Zandtos took 6 wounds on unleash hell and toasted the squad. But a single blissbarb archer rolled a 6 to hit which caused a MW, he made his ward and then I wounded and he failed his 2+ save and his ward. Lost the game by a couple points, but that was the standout moment of a well fount 5 round game.
That's fantastic. :) Thanks for sharing.
Best game of AoS I’ve ever played was a few weeks ago in the final of a small local tournament. I faced a BoC list with my stormcasts and we went 5 rounds, and I felt I lost the game and won it back several time! We made mistakes, failed easy rolls, but also pulled out some things that seemed almost impossible! In the end I lost by one single point and had to applaud my opponent for my best game ever!
Have a great time at Gen Con!
Last game my sorcerer exploded turn one and I failed the battletactic.
Also lost the game.
My opponent rolled bad spells aswell later in the game.
The game was so chaotic and we really enjoyed the experience.
Those kind of games are what makes these events and playing in general so enjoyable.
Alpha strike and/or turn two win lists are the main reason I wish both AoS and 40k were alternating activations.
I don’t play competitive tournament games, so my perspective is casual play. I definitely prefer a cooperative approach to play. Tournament play? I’m not sure how much of a “gentle person” you should be. Maybe just explaining your units once, and honestly responding to reasonable questions is sufficient for fairness.
For me, a great game of AoS lasts the full 5 turns on a nail biter last turn and includes some cinematic and outrageous moments that people remember a week later! It’s got to look great too. Nice, fully painted armies and lovely terrain.
Hey vince me and my friends are into 2vs2 games and would love to know the rules you use. We usually justo go and smash each other but i think we could use more rules. Do you guys use BT? Grand strats? You share CPs? Great video as always
We play the standard missions, we have separate CP pools, complete one BT as a team. Pretty standard stuff but it's great fun. :)
A big tension point for me having good games is that at events, you're incentivized towards that alpha strike/ alpha pin. I understand Veteran players snoozing at the lesser experienced player trying to figure out which battle tactic to go for, at the same time I've been to events where I'm stressing over 2 hr 30 min of game time including deployment.
Can we Expect any Warhammer 40K 10th edition content on THE warhammer weekly?
Occasionally, especially a what can we learn from 10th, but I doubt too much. :)
The big one for me is agency, that the game was won/lost because of a decision me or m opponent made.
Its also a big part of why i never got into 40k / whfb, where it often felt like i was playing against the game rather than against my opponent... i think aos is much better for that.
A good game of AOS is where neither I nor my opponent make any "colossal blunders", ie forgetting a major ability/rule, make an obviously and objectively bad move, etc. I like to win, but I want to win because I played well, not because either of us goofed.
Fatemaster hand?
I agree with your point in the late 40 minute section that one of the things that makes a great game, a memorable game, is when the randomness kicks off in an incredibly novel way. When you set up all the pieces and it pays off, critical failures of the utmost degree, and more. I think making the game too reliable or predictable makes for a more "fair" game but also makes it much more boring. In fact, I think GW's abandonment of the silly charts and interesting opportunities for critical success and failure has reduced my enjoyment of their games.
Hi doggos!
Press like for the doggo in the chair
I don’t play AoS to “win” I play to try to create an error free game and applaud my opponents successes as well as be applauded for mine.
Like for Warhammer Weekly on Wednesday instead of Thursday 🇸🇪💪
The biggest problem with current AOS design is that it's too front-loaded. Nearly every army these days has the ability to hit hard from T1 - it's not always the best strategy, but practically everyone can do it. The maneuver phase has therefore become effectively optional - and, for a surprisingly number of armies, going hard at the opponent T1, whether that is done via ranged damage or melee, is often IMO much too viable a strategy.
On Murderlust...when I play Khorne, I always flag the ability at the start of the game, and then I flag it again any time I think my opponent is forgetting about it and doing something obviously stupid as a result, over and over again if necessary, until it sinks in. The ability breaks the basic rules of the game so fundamentally that in my view the only fair thing to do is to remind your opponent it exists whenever you think they may have forgotten about it. To say "oh well, too bad, you shoulda remembered I have murderlust" when e.g. someone picks a battle tactic that I know I can 100% deny simply by tagging a unit with murderlust at the end of their hero phase strikes me as not the way anybody should want to win a game.
I also remind my opponent any time I think they forgot to do something - e.g. "you just started combat, didn't you want to try to do a monstrous action at the end of the charge phase?" Or "you didn't cast spells with X unit, was that intentional?" which I know a lot of players don't do, and I don't think you are really obliged to do in the same way that IMO you are obliged to remind the opponent of your rules. But it just seems like it makes for a better game. I don't like winning a game because my opponent forgot to do something there was no reason not to do.
29:20 more anti-Fyreslayers propaganda. That's a grudgin'!
My name is well represented in the book.
A good game for me is where it felt decisions mattered and there were multiple outcomes for the match depending on player decisions and skill.
This is why I never find it enjoyable to fight armies such as Sons and OBR etc. Sons effectively creates a non-game and it instantly becomes a damage check/damage thredshold I have to meet.
OBR is the same to a degree. There is almost no dice involved because everything just happens and command points is not a real ressource for them.
Both matchups are super predictable and if you played 10 different players with both armies Im certain you would have near identical games, where as this isnt the case for many other armies.
'memorable' is NOT necessarily a positive experience. if someone sees something they lovingly built crumble into tiny pieces right in-front of them, they remember that, but not fondly.
3 rounds minimum, AND no gotchas.
I can’t stand turn 1 games, mostly because i play 4 times a year and its over an hour drive anywhere to play