A Casual THIRTY-FIVE DAMAGE?! | Warcry WHEELCRY #5
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 05. 2024
- ✅ Subscrible to @OffMetaMusings
✅ Subscribe to @wargamesontoast
MISSION PACK ► warhammerworld.warhammer-comm...
JOIN ► / @offmetamusings
▬▬▬▬▬
00:00:24 My Listbuilding
00:13:28 Toast's Listbuilding
00:17:45 The Game
00:47:49 Post Game Discussion
▬▬▬▬▬
MORE BY ME ► www.offmetamusings.com/
TWITTER ► / offmetamusings
FACEBOOK ► / offmetamusings
#warhammer #ageofsigmar #warcry - Hry
Fun game, I like the post game analysis/chat as well
That was fun to watch as you both realized that, "damn, the other guy actually matched my super beefy warband", and then mayhem occurred!
It was super fun :)
That was a really fun game. Always great to see lots of casulties. And compliments to Toast for pulling out a draw.
Yeah super fun :)
Oof, Vexmor striking fear in to all.
Glad to leave him behind in this tier when me move on XD
just saying, ghulgoch + master moulder is much much better :) for some extra spice, you can add a chaos spawn with free reaction blessing so you have two beasts to whip, and a bloodpriest to trigger the spawns reaction
Thats a pretty nice idea
Loved the board set up, great game! This series is amazing!
Thanks a bunch!
Nice game! Off really deserved the win there!
I was robbed!
Hello, thanks for the content. Sorry to bring this up here because it's not really the topic of the video. After long tests of such gangs as: KHAINITE SHADOWSTALKERS, CYPHER LORDS, CORVUS CABAL, I noticed one pattern that, it seems to me, looks absurd. We have gangs of the conventional category “elves”, which have good mobility, but such units pay for this with their cardboardness and weak strength, but, most importantly, these are gangs that do not have many models, i.e. less than 10. At the same time, the key, strongest miniatures in the form of a leader and a conditional sergeant are trying to compensate for their weak strength with a large number of attacks, where, due to the crit rate, you should also contribute damage when you hit on 4+ or even more so on 5+. At the same time, the game design of conventionally “large, strong, fat” miniatures implies the opposite tendency, that they seem to have a weak move (3 or 4), but in the form of compensation they have high indicators of tafna and strength, but most importantly, and, it seems to me, the key is that they have few attacks, but a lot of damage per attack.
What does it mean? I propose to draw an intermediate conclusion. We have a game where the so-called “elves” have few miniatures on their team, and all these miniatures are glass. This means that any exchange in hth does not play in their favor, which is logical, but there is one very important nuance that, it seems to me, prevents such gangs from winning back theirs. Due to the fact that such gangs have few miniatures (8-9), you will most likely have to fight back in a model that has not yet been activated, which will be able to get a reaction, which can also be a parry. And we remember that the design of the “elves” implies many attacks, which supposedly compensate for the lower strength with a higher chance of crit rate. To summarize, we get a situation where our miniatures die very quickly due to their glassiness, plus we do not have 10+ miniatures, which does not allow us to consistently introduce a profile with a large number of attacks safely into an already activated enemy, as, for example, TARANTULOS BROOD, having 13 miniatures. Therefore, when we fight back for an “elf” with a “strong” profile into a counter strike or a similar ability, we receive a lot of damage, which makes our glass miniatures almost half dead and easy prey for the enemy, further reducing the number of our miniatures on the table, which in turn makes it even more impossible to activate safely into already activated enemy.
Perhaps a good balance solution would be to change the number of attacks/strength/one-time damage indicators in the game? Those. we have a fat miniature, but it hits a lot of attacks, which makes it possible for a mobile, but cardboard miniature to bring its value into the game through a counterattack, and just the same mobile units of the “elves” category could have few attacks, but with high strength and high one-time damage, which would enable gangs that already have few models in the roster, since they are also made of cardboard, to somehow survive in the current realities of the game.
It would be interesting to hear your opinion in one of the following videos, sorry for google-translate English.
So to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly you raise a couple of points;
1. The Aelf profile is overcosted and because of this, warbands whose core is that profile are normally under-sized because of that - Yes, that's normally correct because what those miniatures are actually paying for is their high movement characteristic which makes them more expensive in comparison to fighters with lower move but the same stats.
2. Aelfs usually have alot of attacks but low strength which makes them susceptible to counter - Yes this is also correct but one thing that the new restricted list has tried to do is reduce the amount of cheap counter targets in the game (by increasing the cost of units like skeletons, grageguard, shatterers, mortek guard, etc). We still haven't seen the overall effect of this just yet but it looks like warbands are getting smaller in general which should go some way to making those existing fighters look better in comparison.
3. Your idea is to have the aelf profile instead have fewer attacks but at high strength and damage, negating the counter weakness - This is an interesting idea that I haven't really seen yet; effectively making them a more swarmy version of something like the Askurgan Trueblades. On the face of it this could be interesting but something I would warn against is that big AoE attack buffs to these fighters (either through stuff like lead from the back, fight for profit or similar) might push them to being overly powerful especially as I've said; warbands in general are getting smaller - Alot of the competetive lists we have been looking at are in the region of 7/8 fighters which would be outnimbered by most Aelf warbands in general.
@@OffMetaMusings Thank you very much for taking your time and answering me directly.
Yes, you understood me quite correctly and very successfully gave an example with a more swarmy version of something like the Askurgan Trueblades. And also you are right that the average number of models in the game will drop to 7/8. However, I would suggest that you think more about this idea from this point of view. The average strength of the "elves" is usually 3/4, very rarely 5+, the average toughness in the game is 4-5, rarely 3 or 6+. This means that the “elves” will usually hit on 4+, a little less often on 5+, and almost never on 3+. At the same time, the enemy will almost always hit the elves on 3+, less often on 4+, almost never on 5+. Yes, you are absolutely right that there will be on average 1 less cheap models that can abuse a counterattack, however, the fact is that the attack profile of cheap miniatures on average gives less or approximately equal damage statistics to how much damage the same miniature can produce against the “elf”, using parry, because the “elf” will most likely hit on a 4+ or 5+, therefore, parrying will still be beneficial against the “elves”. At the same time, the enemy will hit the elves on 3+, very rarely on 4+, almost never on 5+, which prevents the elves from at least trying to pay off through parrying.
You know, I also re-read the reactions. It seems to me that this is the second thing that is absurd about the design of the "elves". We take conditional iron golems, demons of nurgle or soulblight gravelords, which have no problems with survivability due to high tafna or a large number of cheap miniatures, but reactions increase their survivability even more. You have a choice between parrying and increasing survivability. At the same time, the “elves”, who are cardboard, have reactions that are more of an offensive or aggressive nature, which is simply also absolutely contrary to any logic. If the developers for some reason don't want to give them defensive reactions, it might make sense to convert their reactions into some kind of passive effects, like PYREGHEISTS.
Therefore, summing up the game design of the “elves”, it is possible to rework them to the side, as you correctly noted, a more swarmy version of something like the Askurgan Trueblades and reworking their reactions are exactly the two things that could make them more playable.
Once again, thank you very much for your time, it was very nice to communicate with you like this, I wish you all the best and success in your endeavors.
Pulling for Off Meta to pull out a W.. Fingers crossed
Wait, wasn't khorne like A tier in your last tierlist, after the update?
This tier was recorded before the update went in :) Season 2 would definitely be updated
Toast offered you the win, but you declined - afraid to let him have Vexmor as an ally in the next game? 😉
I'm sure I don't know what you are talking about 🤣
Great game! Does this make you dislike Vexmor a little less?
Haha I don't hate Vex because it's bad, rather that it is swingy in all the worst ways; either does everything or nothing. No inbetween. In use though it's basically like a chaos version of an Annihilator Prime so I'm not onblard the 'Vexmor is Chimera levels of busted' train 😅
😂 haha yeahhhh ain’t he grand
Toast missed an easy W by not going for a Bloodreaver spam list, but seeing 3 Khorgoraths is way more fun
Bloodreaver spam in a largely kill mission?
@@OffMetaMusings I think cutting out a khorgi or two and replace him with reavers would have worked well, I would have used them to waste Vexmor's activations, but hey I'm just backseat gaming. It was fun watching my 2 favourite Compendium warbands go up against each other. Curious on the tier ranking placement though, I do think Khorne should be higher now that Shatterers are at 60 points and Horns don't have much apart from flame hurlers.
@@erykkrol1913 I think we pit them in A or B tier in our recent tierlist