|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jun 22, 2018 12:43:39 GMT
I also typically give my opponents exact numbers with my threat ranges because being vague is fishing for a gotcha and is a dick move. If you ask an opponent: How far does this thing threat? And his response is: Well it’s Spd 5.... Or just being vague in general you should ask more specefic questions and if he continues to be vague he’s being a dick and there’s are better players to play against. It gets iffy with non-linear threat ranges though. I usually say something like "base threat is [number], with [specific buffs] is max [higher number] and then with possible Hellmouth/Road to War/whatever." The distinctions might be important because your opponent can bait you into using resources by being outside base threat but inside buffed threat range.
|
|
mazog
Junior Strategist
Walking and talking
Posts: 748
|
Post by mazog on Jun 22, 2018 12:52:35 GMT
I also typically give my opponents exact numbers with my threat ranges because being vague is fishing for a gotcha and is a dick move. If you ask an opponent: How far does this thing threat? And his response is: Well it’s Spd 5.... Or just being vague in general you should ask more specefic questions and if he continues to be vague he’s being a dick and there’s are better players to play against. It gets iffy with non-linear threat ranges though. I usually say something like "base threat is [number], with [specific buffs] is max [higher number] and then with possible Hellmouth/Road to War/whatever." The distinctions might be important because your opponent can bait you into using resources by being outside base threat but inside buffed threat range. Likewise. In trolls I don't have as many silly movement tricks, but I try to give the best information I can. Base threat, then a list of buffs and how much they add, then we agree on the theoretical maximum. One thing I have had opponents do which I give them mad props for and intend to replicate, when he forgot a buff that meant my model was in his threat, he chose to play the threatening model as if that buff we not available. I have heard on podcasts from competitive players that they don't like the threat range question on the basis that they might screw it up, I'm not sure how I feel about that. I have learned, through painful experience, to specifically ask about a model's maximum possible threat, with a list of buffs involved. In some armies that value is ludicrously long, though, and isn't really useful.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Jun 22, 2018 12:57:48 GMT
I also typically give my opponents exact numbers with my threat ranges because being vague is fishing for a gotcha and is a dick move. If you ask an opponent: How far does this thing threat? And his response is: Well it’s Spd 5.... Or just being vague in general you should ask more specefic questions and if he continues to be vague he’s being a dick and there’s are better players to play against. It gets iffy with non-linear threat ranges though. I usually say something like "base threat is [number], with [specific buffs] is max [higher number] and then with possible Hellmouth/Road to War/whatever." The distinctions might be important because your opponent can bait you into using resources by being outside base threat but inside buffed threat range. Outside of Wurmy though Kruger is more straightforward. You have TK and Gallows. So as long as your opponent is willing to listen, explaining those interactions is pretty reasonable
|
|
snoozer
Junior Strategist
Posts: 467
|
Post by snoozer on Jun 22, 2018 14:43:43 GMT
I think it is Legion and Cryx for how well they represent them as these soulless (Pun intended!) psychopaths. And they do it so well! Tharn to some degree also for their purely destructive nature. And all of them have this dark ritual thing going (and in actual human history people were killed because of these, so I think this biases me). I think I can go with all more human like factions much better. Khador and Menoth do bad things, but you can understand their reasoning and then you go more into political conflicts, where things are more grey than black and white. Just how every actual conflict is.
|
|
joedj
Junior Strategist
Posts: 513
|
Post by joedj on Jun 22, 2018 15:07:22 GMT
Cryx, 'cause currently they have tactical combos that cheat like MK2 Legion did, AND they not only destroy my army, but steal all my fallen Trollbloods' souls! (Oh, and their recently updated blighted Trolls have superior rules! WT-CID!?!)
|
|
germanicus
Junior Strategist
No jokes round ear...
Posts: 358
|
Post by germanicus on Jun 25, 2018 3:52:56 GMT
I have heard on podcasts from competitive players that they don't like the threat range question on the basis that they might screw it up, I'm not sure how I feel about that. I have learned, through painful experience, to specifically ask about a model's maximum possible threat, with a list of buffs involved. In some armies that value is ludicrously long, though, and isn't really useful. And it's understandable how that can be a bit irksome to them. There's a theoretical max threat in terms of ALL THE BUFFS! but then there's also the practical max threat that the player is willing to invest the resources into (and whether that theoretical max threat is actually relevant and/or necessary). They consider the first when list building, but think through the second when actually playing. Say I play Rahn in Forges of War, how the hell am I supposed to answer the question: what's the threat range of the Phoenix? This is a bit of an extreme example, I'll admit, but it still demonstrates the general vagueness of the question, which can be matched by a similarly vague answer. IMO, with some fore-knowledge (regarding nature of feat and any push/pull capabilities), ask: what's the breakdown of the furthest one model in your list can move? Followed up by: how many models can do this in a single turn? Anyway, OP: none of them... I've gotten too used to losing and accept my reality as a rubbish player! Fluff-wise, Skorne... WE ALREADY TOLD YOU TO GET OFF OUR LAWN!
|
|
|
Post by claptrap on Jun 25, 2018 18:35:59 GMT
Fluffwise, if I'm playing CoC, it's Cephalyx or Circle. Keep out of our caves and leave the ley lines alone! Also, I do have a specific CASTER to whom I hate to lose, Mortenebra.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 25, 2018 21:08:39 GMT
Mercenaries: Anyone. I lose, I don't get to paid. Kind of defeats the point of taking the contract.
Skorne: Again, ANYONE. We're supposed to be the awesome fighters who dominate the battlefield. It's embarrassing to lose to an inferior. Outside of that, it would have to be the Iosans who shattered the land and totally screwed up the ancestors. Revenge must be had, and no one wants to lose out on revenge.
|
|
Juris
Junior Strategist
Posts: 578
|
Post by Juris on Jun 29, 2018 23:23:55 GMT
It gets iffy with non-linear threat ranges though. I usually say something like "base threat is [number], with [specific buffs] is max [higher number] and then with possible Hellmouth/Road to War/whatever." The distinctions might be important because your opponent can bait you into using resources by being outside base threat but inside buffed threat range. Likewise. In trolls I don't have as many silly movement tricks, but I try to give the best information I can. Base threat, then a list of buffs and how much they add, then we agree on the theoretical maximum. One thing I have had opponents do which I give them mad props for and intend to replicate, when he forgot a buff that meant my model was in his threat, he chose to play the threatening model as if that buff we not available. I have heard on podcasts from competitive players that they don't like the threat range question on the basis that they might screw it up, I'm not sure how I feel about that. I have learned, through painful experience, to specifically ask about a model's maximum possible threat, with a list of buffs involved. In some armies that value is ludicrously long, though, and isn't really useful. There are two types of questions in the game. The first, are simple, state-based questions such as "does that specific model have stealth right now?" or "what is that models current armor?" Your opponent must answer those questions because the game is open information and they are simple, non-compound questions. The second are what I call research questions. Research questions require that a player have a holistic understanding of more than one model, or require a player to consider the synergistic interactions of all the models in the game, as well as how they interact with the evolving board state, or require a player to take an inventory of all of their available models and abilities. These are questions such as "what is your maximum threat range?" and "which models have magical weapon?" Essentially, when you ask your opponent a research question, you are asking your opponent to answer a question which otherwise requires research on your part. In response to research questions, your opponent is under absolutely zero obligation to do anything besides hand you their cards. As amiable human beings, however, we almost always try to accommodate each other and short-cut the research process, as a courtesy, by answering the question. "I threat 15" with these models," or "I have these 7 models with magical attacks." The problem arises when you ask your opponent a research question and your opponent honestly but incorrectly answers your question. Your opponent had no obligation to do your research for you in the first place. They tried to save you time and energy by answering your question, but made a mistake. Why should they suffer any penalty for that? They should not. If you play in competitive games and want to avoid awkward situations, it's wise to answer all research questions with some variant of "I think 'x', but you should read my cards." Because mistakes happen, and a player should not be handicapped or penalized for sincerely trying to answer a research question for their opponent.
|
|
mazog
Junior Strategist
Walking and talking
Posts: 748
|
Post by mazog on Jun 30, 2018 4:07:49 GMT
There are two types of questions in the game. The first, are simple, state-based questions such as "does that specific model have stealth right now?" or "what is that models current armor?" Your opponent must answer those questions because the game is open information and they are simple, non-compound questions. The second are what I call research questions. Research questions require that a player have a holistic understanding of more than one model, or require a player to consider the synergistic interactions of all the models in the game, as well as how they interact with the evolving board state, or require a player to take an inventory of all of their available models and abilities. These are questions such as "what is your maximum threat range?" and "which models have magical weapon?" Essentially, when you ask your opponent a research question, you are asking your opponent to answer a question which otherwise requires research on your part. In response to research questions, your opponent is under absolutely zero obligation to do anything besides hand you their cards. As amiable human beings, however, we almost always try to accommodate each other and short-cut the research process, as a courtesy, by answering the question. "I threat 15" with these models," or "I have these 7 models with magical attacks." The problem arises when you ask your opponent a research question and your opponent honestly but incorrectly answers your question. Your opponent had no obligation to do your research for you in the first place. They tried to save you time and energy by answering your question, but made a mistake. Why should they suffer any penalty for that? They should not. If you play in competitive games and want to avoid awkward situations, it's wise to answer all research questions with some variant of "I think 'x', but you should read my cards." Because mistakes happen, and a player should not be handicapped or penalized for sincerely trying to answer a research question for their opponent. That is why I was so impressed with my opponent, they did not take advantage of having accidentally misinformed me when I should have done the research myself. I always qualify my answers because I have a terrible memory, and tend toward the listing of speed, range, and buffs and leave it to the opponent to do the arithmetic, although I will try to verify the number they come up with. I prefer to play a game where we agree that model X is in the that range of model Y but out of Z, then place the model and know what can get at it rather than have to measure everything all over again next turn and spring surprises on each other. The perfect information sharing nature of the game makes the research questions a debatable point. I try to answer them because it is faster than waiting for the opponent to do it themselves, but it does require trust on both parts. Huh. I've gotten off-topic, so I will be quiet now.
|
|
|
Post by macmac on Jun 30, 2018 21:23:39 GMT
It really sucks to loose against Cygnar with Trollbloods. It feels like they could and should be super good friends. They had to take our lands, and our jobs. See where it got them? We got a great CID and Kolgrima so I guess it feels more a bit better now.
It sucks to loose against Skorne because I imagine my happy, friendly guys might survive after battles they fell in. And I do think that might suck against skorne. Trolls are just so innocent! Same but opposite against Cryx.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2018 8:03:18 GMT
my most hated enemy to lose to would probably be circle and oddly enough CoC. something about CoC just rubs me wrong and i don't enjoy playing against them and i haven't ever put my finger on it. Circle i know exactly why. its a combination of them aiming to be as un-interactive as possible (see: bradigus, Krueger2, wurmwood) while simultaneously you can't ever discuss things with kreuger players. Their response, regardless of what happens on a table during a game is usually some combination of "krueger and the wolds TK+gallows until they win" in perfect dojoland where kreuger is undefeatable least bitter - hmm, probably cygnar or skorne. Reasons being are these are two factions i spent time playing so i have a soft spot for them None of those casters are uninteractive. And the reason why you're getting non-answer answers is because the specific thing that Krueger2 does (and to a lesser extent, Wurmwood) is to have millions of potential options each and every turn of game, via 3+ geomancers, TK, Feat, etc. 'Threat Range' isn't really a material concept when there's a potential, on any given turn, for one or more TKs, and 3-4 consecutive Gallows. On any given turn, if your caster is not playing extremely far back, there is likely SOME way for the Krueger player to get something onto them. The real question is whether it's worth doing, the likelihood of success, and the number of dice rolls involved (the more potential for failure, the less likely the Circle player is to go for it. macdaddy - My go-to with Krueger is to lay out all of the potential movement options I have at the start of the game, but follow it up by making it clear that the safety parameter for their caster is 'not being within 20-22" of a geomancer, within 21-23" of Krueger, or 15" of a gallows grove". Closer than that and there's always the potential to be randomly assassinated if they are not otherwise cognizant of the possibility and actively protecting themselves from it.
|
|