|
Post by Azahul on Jul 31, 2017 2:11:11 GMT
Sure. assassination is always on the table (though it's immeasurably harder to assassinate when it's your only real play, and the opponent knows it's your only real play.) However, a list with RFP tech can pressure assassination just as much as one without, but doesn't have to give up the scenario/attrition game. Same goes for an anti-gunline list, or ANY hear check list - yeah, you can assassinate, but it's not good to go into a matchup with that being your only viable play. I don't disagree. It's always better to have more options, and to have the ability to hard counter your opponent's list. But there is a tendency to discuss match-ups as if attrition is the only way to win, but in my view there's as much player and counter-play involved there as there is in any attrition grind, and it can be easier to discuss too since it's a somewhat distilled and focussed part of the state of play. Even just having the threat can be a big help. If Deneghra can't afford to come within 14" of the leading elements of your army because you have a back-pocket assassination lined up, then Ghost Fleet is playing sans her feat and that can be manageable even without RFP.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jul 31, 2017 2:17:40 GMT
Also, in fairness, t's not like I can provide decent advice about every model in my factions. I try to play varied lists, but so do my opponents when it comes to pickup games. If you ask me how to beat X caster with Y list, especially if it's a fine-tuned competitive list, chances are I won't have 3 different answers if I want some actual experience backing them up.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jul 31, 2017 2:32:28 GMT
I understand what you're saying rowdy. But i feel like that comes with the territory of a game where a good portion of the players are mega competitive. Like it becomes less about strategy and more about optimization. The game has power level imbalances and optimization becomes important in the goal of getting the best possible. Like if you had perfect balance you would get a discussion on stratedy. Like chess or go. But even then the proper moves and responses have been figured out. And how do you counter this moves turns into do this or this or this. Yeah. I guess that's inevitable in any non-skill based game (As in randomizer as opposed to finger reflexes or the like). It would just seem kinda corrupt if there is more a focus on optimization than the utilization of skills to adapt to situations. Which is why I push for asymmetrical or weird scenarios (Preferably randomized). Ultimately the player skill is still there, but your not gonna know if its gonna be fog, or mud, so better account for all corners at least a little. Im a guy who says that competitive players that don't want to use more weird stages in Smash Bros, for instance, don't do it because of their competitive desire. Its that they only WANT the "Man Vs Man" aspect and don't want the environment to be another factor they must account for. Like more terrain had to be freak-in FORCED into the game. It had to be spelled out in HARD detail in order to force people to use it because people only want to mash their mans against one another (From my experience). And I guess with such binary conditions I can see just the game being won or lost at the optimization stage.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jul 31, 2017 2:33:25 GMT
Sure. assassination is always on the table (though it's immeasurably harder to assassinate when it's your only real play, and the opponent knows it's your only real play.) However, a list with RFP tech can pressure assassination just as much as one without, but doesn't have to give up the scenario/attrition game. Same goes for an anti-gunline list, or ANY hear check list - yeah, you can assassinate, but it's not good to go into a matchup with that being your only viable play. I don't disagree. It's always better to have more options, and to have the ability to hard counter your opponent's list. But there is a tendency to discuss match-ups as if attrition is the only way to win, but in my view there's as much player and counter-play involved there as there is in any attrition grind, and it can be easier to discuss too since it's a somewhat distilled and focussed part of the state of play. Even just having the threat can be a big help. If Deneghra can't afford to come within 14" of the leading elements of your army because you have a back-pocket assassination lined up, then Ghost Fleet is playing sans her feat and that can be manageable even without RFP. Or more likely, the Cryx player figures out what the main elements of your assassination plan are, and ensures that they get removed either before or on feat turn. Range 14 ghost shot rifles are pretty hard to hide key pieces from reliably. It's all about having a diverse array of threats. If you want to reliably threat an assassination, you have to present a threat to attrition, otherwise the Deneghra player is a lot more free to play conservatively and try to grind an attrition/scenario win. Denny's feat is big, but she can get plenty of work done with just just crippling grasp and parasite arced onto targets if the opponent can't keep the riflemen from being recurred (and they ALWAYS present an assassination threat, as long as Denny has one arc node left.) The feat is what lets her play into matchups that bring RFP and still have a very respectable shot of winning, not something you 'need' if your recursion engine can't be properly turned off. It's when you're pressuring the enemy on scenario or attrition that they tend to slip up on their placement, play their caster a bit too aggressively to try and catch up, or otherwise open up an assassination run on the caster. If the opponent recognizes that the only threat you pose is assassination, this won't happen (if your opponent is competent.)
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jul 31, 2017 2:38:26 GMT
I understand what you're saying rowdy. But i feel like that comes with the territory of a game where a good portion of the players are mega competitive. Like it becomes less about strategy and more about optimization. The game has power level imbalances and optimization becomes important in the goal of getting the best possible. Like if you had perfect balance you would get a discussion on stratedy. Like chess or go. But even then the proper moves and responses have been figured out. And how do you counter this moves turns into do this or this or this. Yeah. I guess that's inevitable in any non-skill based game (As in randomizer as opposed to finger reflexes or the like). It would just seem kinda corrupt if there is more a focus on optimization than the utilization of skills to adapt to situations. Which is why I push for asymmetrical or weird scenarios (Preferably randomized). Ultimately the player skill is still there, but your not gonna know if its gonna be fog, or mud, so better account for all corners at least a little. Im a guy who says that competitive players that don't want to use more weird stages in Smash Bros, for instance, don't do it because of their competitive desire. Its that they only WANT the "Man Vs Man" aspect and don't want the environment to be another factor they must account for. Like more terrain had to be freak-in FORCED into the game. It had to be spelled out in HARD detail in order to force people to use it because people only want to mash their mans against one another (From my experience). And I guess with such binary conditions I can see just the game being won or lost at the optimization stage. Your answer to randomness producing optimization is...more randomness? Adding in random assymetrical scenarios will do one of two things to the competitive scene: 1. It will concentrate the meta into whatever small subset of generally good casters play well in the largest number of scenarios (kind of like how having pathfinder in a list is a necessity these days - it's not always relevant, but when it IS relevant, it wins or loses you the game...so you'd better have it) 2. It will turn the game into Warhammer 40K, where the randomness is SO great, and SO tilting, it can't be adequately planned for or played around, and the game is decided at deployment rather than at list selection - competitive play dies, because optimization and consistency simply isn't possible.
|
|
|
Post by Azahul on Jul 31, 2017 2:45:55 GMT
It's when you're pressuring the enemy on scenario or attrition that they tend to slip up on their placement, play their caster a bit too aggressively to try and catch up, or otherwise open up an assassination run on the caster. If the opponent recognizes that the only threat you pose is assassination, this won't happen (if your opponent is competent.) I'm not disagreeing that being able to attrition wouldn't be nice. I've already said that. But I have multiple games against world class players that have proven to me time and again that anyone can be assassinated, at any time, if you build a list where that is a big part of the game plan. The battle over 'caster kill is every bit as dynamic and variable as attrition play, and all I'm saying is that it can be discussed as such. It's not as binary as an opponent "letting" you do it, anymore than they "let" you win by grinding through their entire army first.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Jul 31, 2017 2:48:54 GMT
Ghost fleet has a shelf life. As the meta finds answers to it cryx will move on to other things to answer what ghost fleet counters can't handle. The MK3 meta is finally begining to settle in and begin it's slow evolution. As more theme lists and new releases bring everyone closer together in a competitive sense we will see nee questions and new answers. Will every faction/pairing have an answer to all the dominate lists? Maybe not... but as long as 6/8 people at a small SR come teched to beat ghost fleet the odds of someone brining ghost fleet to the next event are probably pretty low.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jul 31, 2017 3:01:49 GMT
I'm kinda bothered by this. Nobody even asks what caster of stuff the player even has when giving suggestions for play into X. They just jump directly to counters you could use against X. I get that a player that has nothing but anti-infantry combat solos might be told to maybe spice it up with some armor crackers, but thats not what happens. Is anybody else bothered by this? No play tips just pure tech teching? Why do people do this? Because it answers the question that was asked. If someone asks "How do I beat Ghost Fleet", then we'll talk about all the possible solutions to Ghost Fleet. We will not talk about what possible solutions to Ghost Fleet that player owns, because we don't know that. And the person didn't ask that question. Sometimes I do ask what a player owns though. It does help when giving more specific answers. But people usually ask broad generic questions. So they get broad generic answers. If someone only wants answers to a problem from within what they currently own, then they should frame the question as such. Otherwise we'll just say what the possible counters are and let the person take it from there. Its also difficult to give specific play tips in a pure text based medium. To give the best advice possible we'd actually need to see some actual games. Perhaps someone's main pitfalls are in their positioning and order of activation. Which isn't something we can really do well in text form. Text form naturally lends itself to discussing raw numbers and counters.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jul 31, 2017 3:03:09 GMT
Ghost fleet has a shelf life. As the meta finds answers to it cryx will move on to other things to answer what ghost fleet counters can't handle. The MK3 meta is finally begining to settle in and begin it's slow evolution. As more theme lists and new releases bring everyone closer together in a competitive sense we will see nee questions and new answers. Will every faction/pairing have an answer to all the dominate lists? Maybe not... but as long as 6/8 people at a small SR come teched to beat ghost fleet the odds of someone brining ghost fleet to the next event are probably pretty low. I think you are underestimating how good Ghost fleet is/how resilient it is, even into the 'counters' some factions can drop against it. Deneghra gives it a lot of game, even if you can take away the recursion aspect, and some factions have weak enough recursion that they may either elect to try and dodge (which is a win for ghost fleet) or end up bringing a subpar list to compensate. I wouldn't necessarily drop GF into Ossyan or Circle, but that's what the off list is for, and it's probably worth having it IN the pairing for the difficulty Cygnar and Khador have in properly teching against it. Hell, even just bringing Ghost fleet to force your opponents to drop their ghost fleet drop (which may well be disadvantaged into your other list) is a huge meta-win for you. Ossyan isn't exactly happy to see a bunch of stealthed banes running at him from across the table, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jul 31, 2017 3:20:45 GMT
Your answer to randomness producing optimization is... A: That's not it. Randomness doesn't produce optimization, it's the lack of direct player skill input. You are correct to a point though. I AM of the opinion that the game could be more random and asymetrical and actually be better. B: 40K has more randomness at the unit element, not at the environment element.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Jul 31, 2017 3:21:25 GMT
Ghost fleet has a shelf life. As the meta finds answers to it cryx will move on to other things to answer what ghost fleet counters can't handle. The MK3 meta is finally begining to settle in and begin it's slow evolution. As more theme lists and new releases bring everyone closer together in a competitive sense we will see nee questions and new answers. Will every faction/pairing have an answer to all the dominate lists? Maybe not... but as long as 6/8 people at a small SR come teched to beat ghost fleet the odds of someone brining ghost fleet to the next event are probably pretty low. I think you are underestimating how good Ghost fleet is/how resilient it is, even into the 'counters' some factions can drop against it. Deneghra gives it a lot of game, even if you can take away the recursion aspect, and some factions have weak enough recursion that they may either elect to try and dodge (which is a win for ghost fleet) or end up bringing a subpar list to compensate. I wouldn't necessarily drop GF into Ossyan or Circle, but that's what the off list is for, and it's probably worth having it IN the pairing for the difficulty Cygnar and Khador have in properly teching against it. Hell, even just bringing Ghost fleet to force your opponents to drop their ghost fleet drop (which may well be disadvantaged into your other list) is a huge meta-win for you. Ossyan isn't exactly happy to see a bunch of stealthed banes running at him from across the table, after all. If people don't want to see Denny1 ghost fleet gain more ground it's not about dealing with recursion, its about cutting the head off the snake. Build lists that blow denny off the Firetrucking table. Nothing leaves a bitter taste in a players mouth more than being assassinated. 16/14 stealth is an abysmal stat line. She never camps much and if she does that means shes nit getting her spells out which severely hurts her armies damage output. Bring a list that threatens her and if she sits back somewhere safe and camps you take that turn to blow every arc node off the table. From that point forward you're playing her with one hand tied behund her back. Things you need to threaten her: eyeless sight, mage sight, true sight boostable guns, magic imunity etc. People will find their own ways to handle her and cryx will move on. Im not worried, ive got Ossyan in my pairing and ill play list chicken all day and have them drop their other list thinking im playing Ossyan. With my mercs I've got caine3 galleon A+H for magical guns and dougal for a 21" threat to blow her off the table. If she wants to hide further back than that ill feat and kill the wraith engine and all her jacks.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jul 31, 2017 4:05:33 GMT
I think you are underestimating how good Ghost fleet is/how resilient it is, even into the 'counters' some factions can drop against it. Deneghra gives it a lot of game, even if you can take away the recursion aspect, and some factions have weak enough recursion that they may either elect to try and dodge (which is a win for ghost fleet) or end up bringing a subpar list to compensate. I wouldn't necessarily drop GF into Ossyan or Circle, but that's what the off list is for, and it's probably worth having it IN the pairing for the difficulty Cygnar and Khador have in properly teching against it. Hell, even just bringing Ghost fleet to force your opponents to drop their ghost fleet drop (which may well be disadvantaged into your other list) is a huge meta-win for you. Ossyan isn't exactly happy to see a bunch of stealthed banes running at him from across the table, after all. If people don't want to see Denny1 ghost fleet gain more ground it's not about dealing with recursion, its about cutting the head off the snake. Build lists that blow denny off the Firetrucking table. Nothing leaves a bitter taste in a players mouth more than being assassinated. 16/14 stealth is an abysmal stat line. She never camps much and if she does that means shes nit getting her spells out which severely hurts her armies damage output. Bring a list that threatens her and if she sits back somewhere safe and camps you take that turn to blow every arc node off the table. From that point forward you're playing her with one hand tied behund her back. Things you need to threaten her: eyeless sight, mage sight, true sight boostable guns, magic imunity etc. People will find their own ways to handle her and cryx will move on. Im not worried, ive got Ossyan in my pairing and ill play list chicken all day and have them drop their other list thinking im playing Ossyan. With my mercs I've got caine3 galleon A+H for magical guns and dougal for a 21" threat to blow her off the table. If she wants to hide further back than that ill feat and kill the wraith engine and all her jacks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not worried. I play circle (which incidentally destroys ghost fleet with several casters/key models) and retribution (which has Ossyan, who is generally amazing and also wrecks Ghost Fleet.) I'm not convinced that Ghost Fleet will ever be 'countered' (barring additional releases) to the point where Cryx players stop bringing it in their pairing. You say threat Denny, and yeah...some factions can do it, with certain lists - Khador has a hard time bringing stealth-ignoring guns, and many of the Hordes factions don't have accurate, long range guns...and that's assuming there isn't a convenient piece of cover for her to camp in, or a forest to hide behind...what I'm saying is, it's not anywhere near as reliable a gameplan as you make it out to be.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Jul 31, 2017 4:23:25 GMT
If people don't want to see Denny1 ghost fleet gain more ground it's not about dealing with recursion, its about cutting the head off the snake. Build lists that blow denny off the Firetrucking table. Nothing leaves a bitter taste in a players mouth more than being assassinated. 16/14 stealth is an abysmal stat line. She never camps much and if she does that means shes nit getting her spells out which severely hurts her armies damage output. Bring a list that threatens her and if she sits back somewhere safe and camps you take that turn to blow every arc node off the table. From that point forward you're playing her with one hand tied behund her back. Things you need to threaten her: eyeless sight, mage sight, true sight boostable guns, magic imunity etc. People will find their own ways to handle her and cryx will move on. Im not worried, ive got Ossyan in my pairing and ill play list chicken all day and have them drop their other list thinking im playing Ossyan. With my mercs I've got caine3 galleon A+H for magical guns and dougal for a 21" threat to blow her off the table. If she wants to hide further back than that ill feat and kill the wraith engine and all her jacks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not worried. I play circle (which incidentally destroys ghost fleet with several casters/key models) and retribution (which has Ossyan, who is generally amazing and also wrecks Ghost Fleet.) I'm not convinced that Ghost Fleet will ever be 'countered' (barring additional releases) to the point where Cryx players stop bringing it in their pairing. You say threat Denny, and yeah...some factions can do it, with certain lists - Khador has a hard time bringing stealth-ignoring guns, and many of the Hordes factions don't have accurate, long range guns...and that's assuming there isn't a convenient piece of cover for her to camp in, or a forest to hide behind...what I'm saying is, it's not anywhere near as reliable a gameplan as you make it out to be. I haven't sat down and looked for ghost fleet answers in every faction. I took the time to make sure my bases were covered in the 2 factions I play. Ill leave it to better minds than mine to figure out their own factions. Off the top of my head though Lylyth3 seems good into ghost fleet, skorne has access to eyeless sight Plus krea and hydra animii, jaga jaga between spell piercer amd feat seems reasonable, trolls band of heros gives RFP...
|
|
marke
Junior Strategist
Posts: 187
|
Post by marke on Jul 31, 2017 4:34:18 GMT
B: 40K has more randomness at the unit element, not at the environment element. Not sure if I got what you meant, but WM/H is one of the most random games out there when it comes to a single game. Over the course of many games it evens out nicely though. WM/H is very random because some dice rolls have too big of an impact in the state of the game, and all the information is open. I also think this is why we talk about list building and meta; the actual gameplay of WM/H is often simply executing, remembering things by heart and relying on key dice rolls. The bigger game happens "outside".
|
|
|
Post by Azahul on Jul 31, 2017 4:55:14 GMT
I also think this is why we talk about list building and meta; the actual gameplay of WM/H is often simply executing, remembering things by heart and relying on key dice rolls. The bigger game happens "outside". Eh, I've always found the game is mostly decided by a combination of target priority and positioning. The former can be discussed if both lists are known, the latter is hard to talk about in any meaningful capacity. The way dice normally play out over the case of the average game is pretty unremarkable. "Heavy receives a buff, goes into another heavy, one-rounds that heavy" is by far the norm.
|
|