AoS What is the Meta?

[IggyStarhost]

Hi Guys,

Sorry I’ve been very busy with corona last couple of months. Also bummed out that we waited on a book for 5 years,. And werent able to play face to face.

Anyhow, I’m back on the hype train and will participate in a GT in september. But does anyone know what the current meta was just before the GHB2020? Of course meta will change due to some changes in the GHB. But not everything got nerfed. So wanting to know what I possibly have to counter in the GT. Any tips?

 

[Erta Wanderer]

this was the last big tournament before every thing shut down

 

[Erta Wanderer]

this was before tzeench hit the big time so you do have to ajust for them but over all that should be a good start

 

[ILKAIN]

damn... we only average 2-3... gotta step up those numbers when this all opens up again.

 

[IggyStarhost]

Thanks for sharing! I’ve heard there has been a lot of TTS also with tournaments. Seraphon actually smashing those with salamander spam. But cant find any current results.. so if someone know where, hit us up!

 

[Putzfrau]

Shooting and magic heavy armies are the meta right now. Chaos ascendant, seraphon, tzeentch and KO are all probably top of the heap.

It's the "oh did i get the double? I guess i'll just table you." meta... with the exception of Chaos ascendant which just laughs and spawns more horrors.

Not that it really matters unless people are going for a tournament podium. You don't need a cutting edge, tuned to the teeth army to mess around in the mid tables (or even do well, depending on matchups and # of people.)

 

[IggyStarhost]

Thanks! Wonder how the points changes will affect these. I havent seen the rumoured pointchanges on Lustria yet. But kharadron got some nice pointdrops, salamandeds up 30.... and flamers and pinks up 20.

did anyone else hear them too?

 

[Putzfrau]

Thanks! Wonder how the points changes will affect these. I havent seen the rumoured pointchanges on Lustria yet. But kharadron got some nice pointdrops, salamandeds up 30.... and flamers and pinks up 20.

did anyone else hear them too?

I saw the rumors, I'd take them with a grain of salt. I would imagine Salamanders and potentially Kroak will go up. They'd have to absolutely hammer tzeentch for them to fall out of favor. If KO get any drops they will be absolutely crazy.

 

[IggyStarhost]

I saw the rumors, I'd take them with a grain of salt. I would imagine Salamanders and potentially Kroak will go up. They'd have to absolutely hammer tzeentch for them to fall out of favor. If KO get any drops they will be absolutely crazy.

i thought everyone was crying about the new book being a set back. What made them good? I thought the allegd pointdrops where well deserved in first glance

 

[ILKAIN]

i thought everyone was crying about the new book being a set back. What made them good? I thought the allegd pointdrops where well deserved in first glance

they were crying about the changes. there are "set backs", per say but the biggest one was that the BT was written for money not the game. its sole purpose was to sell models that were underperforming. all of the models that are now good are SPECIFICALLY the ones that were bad before. for example Salamanders over Razordons, Terradons over Ripperdactyls. the second "crying" was about the laziness/rushed feeling. shared spells across warscrolls, no mount traits, battalions not making sense for the subfaction they are in, no mention of the shields whatsoever outside of the Skink warscroll.

but that is a separate issue from "what made them good". IMO anyone claiming we are any rank, good or bad, is not making an honest statement... TTS might be fun and a decent substitute for IRL for purposes of playtesting and practicing, but its not the same thing. Our tier and ranking cannot be honestly given until after several in person tournaments are completed under the new book

as I re-read your comment I realize you may have meant the KO and not us... if so disregard the above, I am not familiar enough with KO to make a comment about their army.

 

[Putzfrau]

they were crying about the changes. there are "set backs", per say but the biggest one was that the BT was written for money not the game. its sole purpose was to sell models that were underperforming. all of the models that are now good are SPECIFICALLY the ones that were bad before. for example Salamanders over Razordons, Terradons over Ripperdactyls. the second "crying" was about the laziness/rushed feeling. shared spells across warscrolls, no mount traits, battalions not making sense for the subfaction they are in, no mention of the shields whatsoever outside of the Skink warscroll.

but that is a separate issue from "what made them good". IMO anyone claiming we are any rank, good or bad, is not making an honest statement... TTS might be fun and a decent substitute for IRL for purposes of playtesting and practicing, but its not the same thing. Our tier and ranking cannot be honestly given until after several in person tournaments are completed under the new book

as I re-read your comment I realize you may have meant the KO and not us... if so disregard the above, I am not familiar enough with KO to make a comment about their army.

TTS is absolutely a good representation of the tabletop, and i've yet to hear one good explanation as to why it isn't. It's certainly not a one to one, but if you think top tables are going to be drastically different then what is currently performing well on TTS i think you'll be disappointed.

The current meta is very favorable to KO but my wild guess is that I think people cried initially for the same reason that people cried when the seraphon book initially came out. Most people simply don't know how to judge the strength of a book. Look at Lumineth, people were absolutely losing their minds about Lumineth and while they are a strong army they are hardly ripping everyone apart with ease. Everyone I know who's played with or against them hasn't felt like they were overly oppressive.

And then you have a book like warclans which was podiuming left right and center, but no one had a bad thing to say about it.

 

[Tav]

TTS is absolutely a good representation of the tabletop, and i've yet to hear one good explanation as to why it isn't.

The current meta is very favorable to KO but my wild guess is that I think people cried initially for the same reason that people cried when the seraphon book initially came out. Most people simply don't know how to judge the strength of a book. Look at Lumineth, people were absolutely losing their minds about Lumineth and while they are a strong army they are hardly ripping everyone apart with ease. Everyone I know who's played with or against them hasn't felt like they were overly oppressive.

And then you have a book like warclans which was podiuming left right and center, but no one had a bad thing to say about it.

i agree, you use the same units, the same mechanics. its not like comparing real war to call of duty.
outside of seraphon coming in and people wanting to run meme lists it all went as you'd expect by the looks of the tournaments played.

 

[ILKAIN]

TTS is absolutely a good representation of the tabletop, and i've yet to hear one good explanation as to why it isn't. It's certainly not a one to one, but if you think top tables are going to be drastically different then what is currently performing well on TTS i think you'll be disappointed.

The current meta is very favorable to KO but my wild guess is that I think people cried initially for the same reason that people cried when the seraphon book initially came out. Most people simply don't know how to judge the strength of a book. Look at Lumineth, people were absolutely losing their minds about Lumineth and while they are a strong army they are hardly ripping everyone apart with ease. Everyone I know who's played with or against them hasn't felt like they were overly oppressive.

And then you have a book like warclans which was podiuming left right and center, but no one had a bad thing to say about it.

one simple reason... simulations are not the same thing. they do not take into account the travel, stress, fatigue, the transport of models, the affects of others actions (bumps that break models for example).

I have helped develop combat simulators for UH-60's for the USARMY as an expert advisor or "subject matter expert". I assure you... simulations are great for practice... but do not prepare for the real thing as much as the real thing. its not even close.

 

[Putzfrau]

one simple reason... simulations are not the same thing. they do not take into account the travel, stress, fatigue, the transport of models, the affects of others actions (bumps that break models for example).

I have helped develop combat simulators for UH-60's for the USARMY as an expert advisor or "subject matter expert". I assure you... simulations are great for practice... but do not prepare for the real thing as much as the real thing. its not even close.

I agree, combat simulations probably aren't the same as combat. But an online combat simulation and a tabletop combat simulation that are both dictated by the same exact rules are probably pretty close. And having played dozens and dozens of TTS games against powerful lists run by great opponents, I can say with confidence that the experience is extremely similar to the table top.

Travel, stress, fatigue, transport are all things that can certainly play a role, but enough to drastically change the look of top tables? Hardly. Top Table players don't play "easy armies" just because fatigue might set in by round 8 in the LVO. They play the army that they think gives them the best opportunity to win and then practice with it until those other variables dont matter.

I'd be interested in what about your TTS experience has shaped this opinion.

 

[xoid]

The meta is the same as always, roll sixes, except for battle shock, then roll ones.

 

[ILKAIN]

I agree, combat simulations probably aren't the same as combat. But an online combat simulation and a tabletop combat simulation that are both dictated by the same exact rules are probably pretty close. And having played dozens and dozens of TTS games against powerful lists run by great opponents, I can say with confidence that the experience is extremely similar to the table top.

Travel, stress, fatigue, transport are all things that can certainly play a role, but enough to drastically change the look of top tables? Hardly. Top Table players don't play "easy armies" just because fatigue might set in by round 8 in the LVO. They play the army that they think gives them the best opportunity to win and then practice with it until those other variables dont matter.

I'd be interested in what about your TTS experience has shaped this opinion.

Nothing particular stands out, other than noticing the "sterile environment" as I said in my earlier post. TTS is like a controlled lab experiment of Warhammer, while F2F events are the real world occurrences. nothing I have said should be taken as not advising people to play TTS, but rather to simply understand the differences between it and F2F games. the rules being the same doesn't make it a good comparative. the rules of physics are programmed into flight simulators, but you cant generate the same adrenaline rush of actually being in the acft. same thing with TTS... it removes the human aspect and the unknown. sure it might get you a rough idea of how your army will perform.... but it wont tell us how YOU will perform. and that's simply to big a piece of the equation to negate as unnecessary for tier evaluation in my own personal opinion. the human element of real world interactions cannot be ignored in the making of any simulation... and is very hard to account for.

 

[IggyStarhost]

Thanks for the replies. Im back on track now!

Really doubting how much I must invest is screening units tbh. They are valueble vs shooting meta, but with the ranges of KO, screening is as tough as it gets..

 

[Putzfrau]

the human element of real world interactions cannot be ignored in the making of any simulation... and is very hard to account for.

I'm not trying to ignore it, I just think you're completely overestimating the impact. Like I said, it's not as if i'm unaware of the ins and outs of TTS. But as someone with extensive experience both online and off against competitive players, its my opinion that you're drastically overestimating the impact of those events.

No one is out there saying that online chess is DRASTICALLY different than tabletop chess. It's a similar concept. Is there differences? Absolutely. Does it matter when we are talking about the top players dictating the meta and formulating those top lists? Hardly.

I think i'm just working off the assumption that if two good players are taking TTS seriously, those human elements are mitigated massively.

 

[Putzfrau]

Thanks for the replies. Im back on track now!

Really doubting how much I must invest is screening units tbh. They are valueble vs shooting meta, but with the ranges of KO, screening is as tough as it gets..

They make it even more important because otherwise that big ass ironclad is going to charge right into your important stuff.

Also, you have to keep in mind that you asked what "the meta" was. That only matters if you think you'll be competing for a podium. If you aren't, there are usually bigger concerns than what lists are meta.

edit: didn't mean for that to come across snobby, so i'll apologize but leave as is for clarity.

 

[IggyStarhost]

They make it even more important because otherwise that big ass ironclad is going to charge right into your important stuff.

Also, you have to keep in mind that you asked what "the meta" was. That only matters if you think you'll be competing for a podium. If you aren't, there are usually bigger concerns than what lists are meta.

edit: didn't mean for that to come across snobby, so i'll apologize but leave as is for clarity.

haha no offense taken! I am a competitive player but only play on 3 tournaments each year. Actually I havent lost a game with Seraphon on tournaments. But went with LoN for some tournaments and now back to Seraphon. Anyhow, this wil be a GT with a new book and no practice games in... so I need al the info for the theoretical playtesting in my mind

And on the topic of TTS vs real life, totally agree it would not differ much. Only difference (besides hurting legs of all the standing) I can think of is that on TTS people have much more the ability to test ‘crazy’ lists with expansive models. Eg 200 skinks or 4 KoS etc. Or the amount of people spamming 12 salamanders, while everyone who plays a bit competitive knows the banhammer will drop. So that might vary in the amount of each list we see, but not the top performing lists.