|
Post by Azuresun on Jul 31, 2017 12:09:27 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. On the other hand, look at Haley2, Lylyth2 and everything else that started off broken and meta-warping in Mk2, and stayed that way (pretty much unbothered by new releases or meta changed) until the actual rules got changed.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Jul 31, 2017 12:13:24 GMT
The undeniable truth is that we are back in MK2 where we have to build list to counter certain matchups who are otherwise to difficult to overcome outside of the right strategy or dice rolls. I really thought PP would have avoided this with the introduction of MK3 but here we are again... My meta is dying and we are not even able to attract new players because of the bad rep this game is getting. 40K 8th edition is suddenly surging again... PP better watch out and hopefully MK4 will usher in a new era. It probably has a bad rep in your area because you cry about things you can't handle. Please, go away with the " sky is falling" nonsense.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Jul 31, 2017 12:17:21 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. On the other hand, look at Haley2, Lylyth2 and everything else that started off broken and meta-warping in Mk2, and stayed that way (pretty much unbothered by new releases or meta changed) until the actual rules got changed. Lylyth2 meta warping? Haley2 was too strong but you could beat her if you had enough experience against her/ weathered her feat. Ghost fleet is being hyped up to be a bigger boogeyman than it really is. Brandon Andrews only dropped it once at L&L...
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Jul 31, 2017 12:25:48 GMT
On the other hand, look at Haley2, Lylyth2 and everything else that started off broken and meta-warping in Mk2, and stayed that way (pretty much unbothered by new releases or meta changed) until the actual rules got changed. Lylyth2 meta warping? Haley2 was too strong but you could beat her if you had enough experience against her/ weathered her feat. Ghost fleet is being hyped up to be a bigger boogeyman than it really is. Brandon Andrews only dropped it once at L&L... I think the point people are making about Ghost Fleet is not that it is this broken unbeatable list, but that unless you have planned an answer for it you will just get rolled hard, personally I don't have a problem with lists that mean their existence demand a specific answer, I think it is unavoidable so just don't worry about it. But I can see how some people feel like their list making decisions are being dictated by a couple of lists, and that they would resent that.
|
|
|
Post by Azahul on Jul 31, 2017 12:49:29 GMT
Funny you should mention that. Not more than two years ago (if I recall correct), certain moops got diced on a World Championship deciding match, and "my" country won. I'm not saying he couldn't have played it better, but there was a concrete example how big effect a dice roll or two can have. He already practically won, but then he decided to throw bad dice 'cause relying on a high percentage success rate. Not a lot of strategy & whole lot of bad luck, and all his work on previous turns was made completely pointless. Also I think we're looking the thing in a different way. I agree WM/H is a good and complex enough vessel to measure player skill in a course of few games. However, I don't think it's nearly as good at that as it could be, or some competition and other games can. And yet Australia has repeatedly and consistently performed well in every WTC it has attended, the worst performance by a looooong shot being my team at last year's WTC languishing at 22nd or 23rd or something. And, well, we always knew we were the C-listers Us aside, that's a pretty small sample size with remarkably consistent performance. I'd expect to see a mite more variation in results over the years if the games were being decided by random luck, but those games seem to be very much the exception rather than the rule.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jul 31, 2017 14:23:56 GMT
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. That's why it's smart to make terrain matter, to help make tactics matter.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Jul 31, 2017 14:57:48 GMT
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. That's why it's smart to make terrain matter, to help make tactics matter. For the most part the two metas ive played in used enough terrain. If anything we just had to make sure there was a LOS blocking piece near the center. I think including terrain in the packet was more to ensure a more level playing field amongst metas. If you played in a meta with very little terrain and went to a major event or another meta you would be at a disadvantage to others.
|
|
Fire Step
Junior Strategist
Everyday I'm Wrastlin'
Posts: 334
|
Post by Fire Step on Jul 31, 2017 14:59:15 GMT
Strategizing is difficult in a text based medium, and I must admit I would like to see more debate on positioning and "unpacking" the army, especially in the crucial first turn.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Aug 1, 2017 1:59:12 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? It bothers me also, I hate people trying to skip playing the game and going straight for the hard counter silver bullet. But the thing is, people react VERY poorly to any comment that has a hint of "git gud", no matter how well intentioned and polite said comment could be. Until people mature enough to take criticism on their actual play and not their list, people will just default to looking/giving hard counter advice.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 1, 2017 2:17:24 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? It bothers me also, I hate people trying to skip playing the game and going straight for the hard counter silver bullet. But the thing is, people react VERY poorly to any comment that has a hint of "git gud", no matter how well intentioned and polite said comment could be. Until people mature enough to take criticism on their actual play and not their list, people will just default to looking/giving hard counter advice. Funnily enough I have found this to be true.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Aug 1, 2017 2:31:21 GMT
Woah, there, fellas. The way you're talking, it almost sounds like WMH is a game of skill.
But that can't be true. Haley2 has a rule on the back of her card that says "the player playing this model automatically wins the game. GG".
So you guys are crazy.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 1, 2017 4:13:31 GMT
"git gud" isn't a good argument over a text based medium because you have no idea if the person actually needs to do that. You can't really say that someone needs more practice unless you can actually see them play and then make that judgement call. So unless the person says they've just started the game you can't really default to "git gud". Plus it often really is insulting to just tell a player "You need to play better". It's not constructive to just say "play better and git gud!".
So really outside of a player admitting that they are a poor player, or showing a video of them playing, or someone admitting they're a total newb, you can't truthfully say "git gud". Which is why people get insulted.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 1, 2017 4:34:16 GMT
"git gud" isn't a good argument over a text based medium because you have no idea if the person actually needs to do that. You can't really say that someone needs more practice unless you can actually see them play and then make that judgement call. So unless the person says they've just started the game you can't really default to "git gud". Plus it often really is insulting to just tell a player "You need to play better". It's not constructive to just say "play better and git gud!". So really outside of a player admitting that they are a poor player, or showing a video of them playing, or someone admitting they're a total newb, you can't truthfully say "git gud". Which is why people get insulted. False. If someone talks about a matchup being unplayable while there are plenty of strategies for a matchup that they aren't seeing then helping them play better through suggesting those strategies is quite applicable. If they say "that doesn't work" back based on nothing but saltiness then what else can you do? Everyone needs to get better at the game, strategy is hard and not every tactic is obvious. I didn't realise how strong Alexia 1 was in mk 2 when I was starting to play in a more competitive meta until I saw her adding risen to the front of her command rather than just adding them to the unit like a bank as I had been doing before that. I was taught by a friend how to use her and on that day I had truly gotten gud. I then showed that same tactic to people online who also hadn't seen it. They also then got gud. This is more than just putting models into lists because of direct synergies, it's using those models on the table for maximum effect. Sometimes people just aren't using pieces well enough. One night at the game store Chris Davies said words that I have learned to Dread. "Let's try out this dumb list and see if it works". The list in question was Mad Dog spam. We'd been hearing about it a little bit but we just couldn't fathom Karchev running it so we put pButcher there instead and some rifles because rifles are good. We played the game with me running stryker 2 and eventually I ground it out to the point where butcher had to try to kill a full health stryker camping 2. A pair of extremely unlikely obliteration later he won. We worked out that the list is scary, but doesn't seem that world ending. A few weeks later, Chris spoke with some people, especially Bubba Dalton, he comes back with Karchev Mad Dog spam. He goes on and wins the WTC with it and then Warmachine Weekend. The caster choice was part of it, but so was the play on the table, getting maximum value from those mad dogs, putting the fear of counter charge into people's minds. Realising that counter charge can be a passive threat extender, etc etc. Even fantastic players need to git gud sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 1, 2017 4:45:10 GMT
Which doesn't invalidate my argument. You're talking about stuff that isn't obvious over text. You'd need to really be in-person to show most of those things.
Some can be talked about over text, like putting Risen at max command forward instead of back. But other stuff can't really be explained without visuals.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 1, 2017 4:47:59 GMT
Which doesn't invalidate my argument. You're talking about stuff that isn't obvious over text. You'd need to really be in-person to show most of those things. Some can be talked about over text, like putting Risen at max command forward instead of back. But other stuff can't really be explained without visuals. Nah, the human imagination is a pretty good thing, turns out.
|
|