AoS Advice requested on a 1250 MPP against Tzeentch

[LizardWizard]

I don't agree with the part I've bolded, but only because we play with Maelstrom and tactical objectives. Which puts a great emphasis on secret objectives and movement, so you cannot play on camping and shooting. Ad IMO it's the way the game should be played.

Of course, it's different with the "classic" 40k

Agreed. Maelstrom and Tact Ob went a long ways to improving 40k.

 

[Canas]

I rather dislike this method. 40k movement is pretty moot. The range of units means you can pretty much just camp any section of the table with decent cover and provides very little intensives to make use of movement.

That has more to do with the obscene range of some units in 40K than it has to do with anything else. Deployment interacting with who goes first has little to do with that.

In AoS movement and Deployment is tactically crucial. A large part of tournament skill comes from concealing information and attempting to cause your opponent to place units favorably to you.

Placing all your junk in 1 move does the exact opposite of trying to convince your opponent of deploying badly though. I like the alternating deployement AoS has. And battalions deploying (potentially) at once is in this phase indeed something that can be interesting. However, who goes first has nothing to do with trying to hide information to gain a favorable position as it's just a matter of "I finished first". Even the potential for bluffing is increadibly limited as competitive lists don't have that much variation & gauging how many points the opponent has already put down shouldn't be too difficult either giving you a halfway decent chance of guessing what's not yet on the table anyway. And that's ignoring relativly common situations where you just get told their list before starting...

I find deployment to be one of the deeper tactical phases of the game. I would hate to see it go. Also, they would need to make battalions much stronger or much cheaper if they didn't reduce drops. On a side note, there would also not be much of a reason to ever take MaxSU with the exception of a few tarpits or to avoid a combat disparity (which is pretty minor).

Deployement itself I'm fine with. It's just the whole "who goes first" bit that I dislike. And that bit I'd argue takes away from the tactical depth as it encourages you to dump as much as possible on the table at once. Giving a bonus to who finishes first I wouldn't even mind. Or better yet, give both players a bonus (and mallus), that way you'l have to think about which one fits better with your army, being first or second, and if you should allow the opponent to get his preference. Now everyone just aims to be first cuz there's no real disadvantage and the advantage is rather massive.

Personally I think battalions should just be (almost) free. The "cost" of a battalion should be that you're forced into fielding a certain force composition which limits your options, certain tax-units that don't necesarly pull their weight, & limiting the synergy between battalions both by having overlapping units (of which you don't necesarly want multiple) or by having 2 battalions with wildly different focus that won't necesarly work well together.

As for max units; there's horde bonusses, buffs affecting an as large as possible unit, max unit cost & the potential of tarpitting. Units that don't really benefit from any of those already don't have much of a reason of building a maximum unit anyway so that wouldn't change much imho.

 

[LizardWizard]

That has more to do with the obscene range of some units in 40K than it has to do with anything else. Deployment interacting with who goes first has little to do with that.

It has a lot to do with deployment interaction. Where models are placed matter less when they can shoot across the field. Thus, the alternating deployment matters less because there isn't a great deal of tactical back and forth. This is evident by the change to deployment being a boon versus a detriment.

Placing all your junk in 1 move does the exact opposite of trying to convince your opponent of deploying badly though. I like the alternating deployement AoS has. And battalions deploying (potentially) at once is in this phase indeed something that can be interesting. However, who goes first has nothing to do with trying to hide information to gain a favorable position as it's just a matter of "I finished first". Even the potential for bluffing is increadibly limited as competitive lists don't have that much variation & gauging how many points the opponent has already put down shouldn't be too difficult either giving you a halfway decent chance of guessing what's not yet on the table anyway. And that's ignoring relativly common situations where you just get told their list before starting...

A battalion can be deployed in any number of drops at any alternation. If a 1 drop is being deployed correctly then you will only ever be one drop short of your opponent (unless they have massively more units in their list than yours). This is why I value low drop list. It allows you to gain the maximum amount of information and then decided who will take the first turn.

You should never have to guess how many drops your opponent has left. Both players should know exactly what is in their opponent's list and how many drops they will take to deploy.

I am not following your argumentation at all. Perhaps I have misunderstood your grievance with the set-up phase.

Deployement itself I'm fine with. It's just the whole "who goes first" bit that I dislike. And that bit I'd argue takes away from the tactical depth as it encourages you to dump as much as possible on the table at once.

This has never been my experience. Most of the tournaments I win are because of deployment. Deployment, movement, and foresight are what allow a player to score more objectives. Having control over the initial turn sequence is tactically valuable. A price can be paid to have a greater chance at gaining this advantage if you value it. Seems like a perfect system to me.

The "cost" of a battalion should be that you're forced into fielding a certain force composition which limits your options, certain tax-units that don't necesarly pull their weight, & limiting the synergy between battalions both by having overlapping units (of which you don't necesarly want multiple) or by having 2 battalions with wildly different focus that won't necesarly work well together.

This is currently the case for many super battalions. To field your average supper battalion you will be playing 300-500 MPP in models down. That is a big ask.

As for max units; there's horde bonusses, buffs affecting an as large as possible unit, max unit cost & the potential of tarpitting. Units that don't really benefit from any of those already don't have much of a reason of building a maximum unit anyway so that wouldn't change much imho.

In my experience this is not why people take MaxSU at the tournaments I have been too. There are plenty of maxed units that do see play often and have no unit size bonus, or are stacked well beyond the necessary mark for the unit buff. Big units hold objectives better than smaller ones and require less drops. That is why they are valuable.

My, how threads go off topic. Perhaps I will make a tread about the merits of battalions in the near future.

 

[Killer Angel]

My, how threads go off topic. Perhaps I will make a tread about the merits of battalions in the near future.

That would be an interesting debate

 

[LizardWizard]

That would be an interesting debate

Done!

 

[Canas]

It has a lot to do with deployment interaction. Where models are placed matter less when they can shoot across the field. Thus, the alternating deployment matters less because there isn't a great deal of tactical back and forth. This is evident by the change to deployment being a boon versus a detriment.

Which is due to the obscene ranges some units have, not due to deployement itself being a flawed mechanic. Hence you won't solve it by giving bonusses to the person who finishes first. It should be solved by not having units with guns that cover 90% of the battlefield.

You should never have to guess how many drops your opponent has left. Both players should know exactly what is in their opponent's list and how many drops they will take to deploy.

This takes out the entire tactical depth of the deployement phase where it considers who gets the priority advantage. I already know what stuff you have left and if I can put my stuff down quicker than yours. So there's nothing to play around with here. Once you've seen eachothers list it's already been decided who gets the priority anyway.

I am not following your argumentation at all. Perhaps I have misunderstood your grievance with the set-up phase.

​

This has never been my experience. Most of the tournaments I win are because of deployment. Deployment, movement, and foresight are what allow a player to score more objectives. Having control over the initial turn sequence is tactically valuable. A price can be paid to have a greater chance at gaining this advantage if you value it. Seems like a perfect system to me.

My point is that the price is fairly insignificant compared to the potential advantage, as well as that you pay for the price in a completly unintersting and often barely relevant way while list-building and not during the actual game. It is essentially a form of meta-gaming and picking a hard-counter (as in I happenend to pick the 1-drop list and you a 2-drop list so I win) during the setup of the game which is something I vehemently dislike. It limits competitive lists in a fairly significant way pushing them all towards low drop lists, preferably in combination with destructive alpha strikes or counters to a potential opponents alpha strike so you can pick to go first/second depending on what your list is good at.

​

This is currently the case for many super battalions. To field your average supper battalion you will be playing 300-500 MPP in models down. That is a big ask.

The super battalions I consider to be some of the better examples of how battalions should work in terms of costs and limitations. Though they obviously push it a lil bit by being so costly you can barely use them in smaller games. Another limitation/cost you could introduce is demanding that if battalion X is fielded you flat out can't field unit Y or battalion Z, with the fluff explenation being that there's rivalry between the troops or something.

In my experience this is not why people take MaxSU at the tournaments I have been too. There are plenty of maxed units that do see play often and have no unit size bonus, or are stacked well beyond the necessary mark for the unit buff. Big units hold objectives better than smaller ones and require less drops. That is why they are valuable.

I keep forgetting about the command abilities that stop battleshock which essentialy negate the biggest downside of a big blob for holding an objective. I wish those were made less reliable or more costly so you can't just dump say a max unit of liberators on an objective safe in the knowledge they'l fight to the last man...
Also I left out drops on purpose as I don't think that should count.

My, how threads go off topic. Perhaps I will make a tread about the merits of battalions in the near future.

Mwha, it's still in the vein of advice, so slightly on topic?

 

[LizardWizard]

This takes out the entire tactical depth of the deployement phase where it considers who gets the priority advantage. I already know what stuff you have left and if I can put my stuff down quicker than yours. So there's nothing to play around with here. Once you've seen eachothers list it's already been decided who gets the priority anyway.

I disagree. Setup is made much deeper by having a predicted out come than a random out come.

Knowing who has the choice of who goes first informs how you place units. As someone who often plays one drop list I frequently am still deciding who will go first or second through out the set up phase based on how my opponent and I place our units. The choice is a constant back and forth between placements.

If you know you are going to finish deploying second then you need to place units in such a manner that you can still make strong plays if you have first turn or not. If the non-decided player thinks they will be going second then they need to also consider how they might take advantage of a double turn.

 

[Canas]

I disagree. Setup is made much deeper by having a predicted out come than a random out come.

Knowing who has the choice of who goes first informs how you place units. As someone who often plays one drop list I frequently am still deciding who will go first or second through out the set up phase based on how my opponent and I place our units. The choice is a constant back and forth between placements.

If you know you are going to finish deploying second then you need to place units in such a manner that you can still make strong plays if you have first turn or not. If the non-decided player thinks they will be going second then they need to also consider how they might take advantage of a double turn.

I was refering specificly to how it interacts with who gets the choice. You cannot do anything clever to change that at this point. There are no unknowns to bluff with or to be afraid off. The moment you've read your opponents list it is a given who will get to choose the priority. This in itself can of course then affect other aspects of the game, and if you know your opponent has the choice then you can, say, try and bluff your way into getting the option you want. However, those interactions have nothing to do with the concept of lower-drop lists gaining the choice, and could similarly be achieved in other ways, like giving whoever finishes last the decision, or just rolling off for the decision.

Anyways long story short, I just really dislike having the decision being tied to the low drop as it's very gamey, not very interesting, encourages specific types of builds and armies, is a form of meta-gaming & basicly any positive effect it might have could be achieved in other, better, ways as well (e.g. roll-off for who gets to decide before placing your first model)

 

[LizardWizard]

Anyways long story short, I just really dislike having the decision being tied to the low drop as it's very gamey, not very interesting, encourages specific types of builds and armies, is a form of meta-gaming & basicly any positive effect it might have could be achieved in other, better, ways as well (e.g. roll-off for who gets to decide before placing your first model)

I still disagree. The drop mechanic creates more depth to list building. Sure, this mechanic could be done differently, but literally all mechanics in the game could be done differently. Is there a better option out there? Perhaps there is, but I haven't seen one and the current iteration works rather nicely. When Aos first released players would simply continue placing units until they felt they had enough on the table.

In short, the current mechanic works really well due to the random turn sequence. A major portion of the game's current strategy is attempting to gain the most out of turn sequences. Thus, having a mechanic tied to list building that allows a player greater odds of having an interactive choice in a portion of that turn sequence seems to be only of benefit to the depth of the game.

 

[Canas]

Fair enough, I just think list building's effects should be limited to just what you field.

Building a good list should be about including the tools necesary to deal with the possible objectives & threats you'l face in a game. Not about gaining a random disconnected advantage cuz your list happens to follow a certain arbitrary predetermined structure that has no connection to how effective your list may or may not be.