The first version of the PPC Comp has been released. It adresses how the PPC handles things in Age of Sigmar, such as summoning, measuring, shooting into melee and more.
Remember that this is a work in progress, so it's never a better time to voice your opinions on it than now!
My take on this (as we tested your points system last saturday) :
1) Force Org can be nice, and I think intersting in scenario play, but I feel that there is no real need for it. Characters are generally force multiplier and not combat powerhouses. Monsters are nice but can be easily tarpited or reduced in power with a few wounds. War machines are powerful, but also vulnerable.
Globally, a combined arms army will always be more powerfull than one focused on a single kind of troop.
2) We tested one variant where a wizard could only sustain a single invocation per castable spell he has. Killing the summoner kills the summoned units. We also state that summoned units cannot cast spells the turn they enter play. Adding the possibility to display at 18" of the caster or summoned unit may be interesting too.
3) Shooting into melee : we tested a heavy shooting army (Skyre skavens) and this never struck us as overpowered. Ranges are usually on the low end of the scale, and having some unit (like a heavily wounded cygor) unable to shoot (range 3") would really make shooting for normal units (outside of warmachines) pointless. On the other end, a lot of warmachines have minimum ranges, which makes them unable to shoot at the unit in their 3".
When you value the shooting, do not forget that you only shoot on your turn, while melee attacks works also on your opponent's turn.
4) I don't find retreating that powerful. Yes you can disengage easily and then what ? you get out with your move, and do nothing else during the turn. Most of the time, the mortal wounds would be anectodical, and would close the door to some nice warscroll power that would be the same.
5) Base to base. Freedom of basing as long as it is not obvious modeling for advantage. We are also pretty permissive on the measurement.
6) No opinion on those. Usually, just apply the rule everytime in the most powerful meaning and price accordingly.
7) Screening sounds good, Systematic look out sir cheapen the ability of units that have it (like necromancers). Heroes are not that powerful that they need to be sniped in preference to actual units.
8) Rolls of 1 : comes rarely enough (with non-stacking buffs) that it's not a necessity. Effect on games would be negligible imho (and so is unnecessary). Also, when you manage to build such a situation, I find it rewarding to be reliable for once in a GW game.
9) Casting limitation : Depends on the kind of buff/malediction. For the ones lasting until the next hero phase of the player, I find stacking of the same spell exploitable (multiple mystic shield). However some spells have permanent effects (the one from Festus for exemple) and I find it interesting to allow them to stack.
This thread is for discussing comp for Age of Sigmar. While it might be somewhat specifically related to the PPC, it should be helpful however you play. Please voice your opinions on the following, and come up with your own:
1) FORCE ORGANISATION Do we need limitations to list builing? Should we go the 40k way and have a few slots for different keywords (1-3 Heroes, 0-3 Monster etc) or the old WFB way and use percentages (Up to 25% or 50% Heroes etc)? Or is there even a better alternative?
[size=12][size=18] Yes but it doesn't need to be insane restrictive. We have been using 50% max heros and 25% max warmachine, monsters. [/size][/size]
2) SUMMONING LIMITATIONS
So far, each summoning costs alot of points, and can only be bought as upgrades to one of your wizards. We would like to make summoning cheaper, but add that you can dispel a summon while being within 18" of the wizard OR the summoned unit.
So far we have found it to be decent, its very strong now but we have been house ruling all summons can be dispelled regardless if a enemy wizard in in range. If not we have seen it is far to easy to hang back with Nagash and suffer no consequences.
3) SHOOTING INTO MELEE
The rules states you can fire freely into melee (and out of), and unless this proves to be extremely powerful we would like to keep it this way. It feels wrong, but its the rules as is... What do you guys think? Keep it as is, and make points accordingly, or keep it but limit it, or not be able to fire into melee at all?
We have a hard rule no shooting into or out of melee. Also no magic missiles.
4) RETREATING
We think that the rules for retreating can be abused - it's far to easy to leave combat and do so without any risk. We propose that retreating can only be done in a straight line away from an enemy, and that you roll a dice for every model retreating. On every roll of 6, the unit retreating takes a mortal wound.
We haven't seen this really get abused all that much I cannot rightfully comment on it.
5) MEASUREMENTS
What we'd prefer is the old measuring base to base, with models put on the base they came with. For converting squares to bases, it's a simple 20mm square goes on 25mm round, 25mm square goes on 32mm round. We really hate overlapping our bases, and when measuring model to model, the larger bases becomes to much of a burden.
Base to base.
6) "SILLY" RULES
So far, the points costs in the PPC has been made from the assumption that the "silly" rules such as dancing while rolling dice, riding imaginary horses etc are always active. No need to dance if you don't want to (but kudos to you if you do!).
I refuse to acknowledge these rules....
7) SCREENING AND LOOK OUT SIR
We play so that staying behind other units gives you cover, but we don't use any "Look Out Sir" rules to transfer shooting hits from heroes to units. How do you guys play, and what do you prefer?
We have been playing cover as well but no look out sir.
8) ROLLS OF "1"
Although it does not say so in the rules, we play the usual that there are no auto-successes, so any rolls of 1 to hit, to wound, and armour saves are always a failure. If you buff a unit to 1+ saves, a roll of 1 is always a failure anyway. For charging, and other rolls that involve more dice to be rolled for a single test, all dice must be 1s to fail.
1's auto fail unless you have a rule for reroll. [b]
[b]7) CASTING LIMITATIONS
We think that you should not be able to cast the same buffing or hexing spell twice on the same target. For example, cast Mystic Shield one time to improve save rolls, but no casting a second one on the same target to improve it even further.
On the same subject, should unbinding need line of sight to the casting wizard, or be able to be done anyway?
We have allowed it. Mainly due to 1's auto failing.
I will update this first page with whatever results we get from our discussions.
Haldir wrote:
I've been thinking about a tournament type packet. 3 rounds using the 3 standard deployments in the rule book. Each scenario has 12 points of objectives with a bonus point for killing the enemy general and another bonus point for a fully painted army.
I.E. first deployment (which is like dawn of war) -- 1 obj. In table center and 1 18" to the left and 1 18" to the right. -- each worth 2 pt.
2 more obj. Each one 12" behind the obj. In the center of the table. These would be worth 3 pts. each.
So everyone has a decent chance to at least accrue a few points each round , hopefully! This should make list building and maneuver pertinent to the overall game. Hopefully tactical decisions as well. Suggestions?
Forgot to mention deployment would be up to 12" on your table side.
That scenario could surely fit inside a comp pack, as its a pretty basic scoring one. We've always found it fun to have the closest objective worth less to your own side, and the enemy one worth more, maybe that's an idea for this scenario as well?
- Should we add classics such as slay the general for extra points? Any extras for killing off enemy units, or should this one be strictly objectives-based?
- I also think we need to point out that a unit retreating during its previous turn can not claim an objective.
I like the rule for heroes getting a cover save behind friendly units. I also like the way you've handled summoning by putting in the extra point cost. Also I think all units should be limited to receiving only one blessing/ability from a hero or spell caster. Allowing stacking will lead to broken combos. The retreating from combat , I kind of like the idea of a straight line and perhaps being removed on a roll of a 6?
Thanks lobbywatson and Haldir for your replies. A few more and we can start compile a list.
Here's another thought: would it be good or bad to have all ranged attacks have -1 on hit roll when shooting at single infantry-sized (non-monster, non-mounted) models? That would be an easy way of making the hero sniping abit harder. That and the possibility to be screened to get +1 save as well, of course.
1) Percentage, not force org. 50% Characters (this is hero hammer again and they aren't that spectacular)
2) I'm more a fan of only being able to control as many units as you can cast spells and tablewide dispel.
3) I'm fine with shooting into and out of melee. I say leave it alone. I know you can shoot if in melee and then fight but considering how bad most of the shooting units are in CC I don't think it's a concern.
4) Retreat is fine as is from what I've seen and heard.
5) Measure base to base. Much simpler than inacting other rules.
6) They automatically take effect (or never happen in Greasus and Settras case)
7) Good with cover and I don't think you need a look out sir. If people are pumping into the heroes they'll get shredded by your infantry. Plus wounds went up to compensate for this.
I'm not a fan of shooting into CC , just doesn't feel right. I think a FOC is much cleaner and easier than a comp system. I wonder if obj. Secured for troops might be a good idea? Physic phase is waaay OP in 40K. for my taste. From what I've seen of magic here so far , Is it adds flavor to the game without dominating it. Which is a good thing! Just don't allow stacking on units and I actually think it's pretty good.
Attilla wrote: Thanks lobbywatson and Haldir for your replies. A few more and we can start compile a list.
Here's another thought: would it be good or bad to have all ranged attacks have -1 on hit roll when shooting at single infantry-sized (non-monster, non-mounted) models? That would be an easy way of making the hero sniping abit harder. That and the possibility to be screened to get +1 save as well, of course.
Disagree with the save bonus. On a regular table, there's enough terrain to hide your hero / general behind it. Heroes are very powerful on their own and the weaker ones usually come with in-built protection (e.g. Goblins).
I think a plus 1 save from ranged weapons for your heroes/characters should suffice. That seems like a decent trade off.
Also last night I was setting up the 3 standard deployments with obj.'s . I think a 7 turn game should work well . That will give infantry time to advance , set up charges etc. and prolong the fun! After discussing with friends they don't like the roll off each round. Could,be a bit heavy , perhaps just do the IGYG like 40K.
This thread is for discussing comp for Age of Sigmar. While it might be somewhat specifically related to the PPC, it should be helpful however you play. Please voice your opinions on the following, and come up with your own:
1) FORCE ORGANISATION Do we need limitations to list builing? Should we go the 40k way and have a few slots for different keywords (1-3 Heroes, 0-3 Monster etc) or the old WFB way and use percentages (Up to 25% or 50% Heroes etc)? Or is there even a better alternative?
I would say go for a percentage system, that way it scales well with games anywhere from 500 points to 2500 points.
2) SUMMONING LIMITATIONS
So far, each summoning costs alot of points, and can only be bought as upgrades to one of your wizards. We would like to make summoning cheaper, but add that you can dispel a summon while being within 18" of the wizard OR the summoned unit.
I'm actually going to go with Lobbywatson on this one, you can reduce the summoning costs if you just allow wizards to dispel each other no matter where there at on the board. Simply choose the wizard you wish to dispel with and remember/use a marker that he used up all his dispels for that turn, rinse and repeat if theirs more wizards.
3) SHOOTING INTO MELEE
The rules states you can fire freely into melee (and out of), and unless this proves to be extremely powerful we would like to keep it this way. It feels wrong, but its the rules as is... What do you guys think? Keep it as is, and make points accordingly, or keep it but limit it, or not be able to fire into melee at all?
Leave it as is, most ranged units have short ranges like 18 inches and fair poorly in melee combat. High point costs can balance out those few units that excel in both melee and ranged
4) RETREATING
We think that the rules for retreating can be abused - it's far to easy to leave combat and do so without any risk. We propose that retreating can only be done in a straight line away from an enemy, and that you roll a dice for every model retreating. On every roll of 6, the unit retreating takes a mortal wound.
I'm on the fence about this one, I don't see what you can really do after retreating seeing as how you cant do anything after pulling back. Perhaps a compromise can be made, like having them move in a straight line towards your board edge but not have them take any wounds?
5) MEASUREMENTS
What we'd prefer is the old measuring base to base, with models put on the base they came with. For converting squares to bases, it's a simple 20mm square goes on 25mm round, 25mm square goes on 32mm round. We really hate overlapping our bases, and when measuring model to model, the larger bases becomes to much of a burden.
While I don't like the idea of overriding a RAW rule in the game I just can't think of a simpler and more efficient way to play the game without going back to bases. When we host tournaments were looking for a way to prevent arguments between the players, and this will help towards that, so I have to choose the basing method. On a note though I think that units should be able to mix into each other in combat, just as long as no bases are overlapping.
6) "SILLY" RULES
So far, the points costs in the PPC has been made from the assumption that the "silly" rules such as dancing while rolling dice, riding imaginary horses etc are always active. No need to dance if you don't want to (but kudos to you if you do!).
This is a good way of approaching it, so I don't think any improvement needs to happen here, just my opinion though.
7) SCREENING AND LOOK OUT SIR
We play so that staying behind other units gives you cover, but we don't use any "Look Out Sir" rules to transfer shooting hits from heroes to units. How do you guys play, and what do you prefer?
Ah this is perfect, I was wondering what a good medium between protecting heroes but not making them overpowered going up the battlefield would be like, and I think I found it. Definitely can get behind a soft approach like this.
8) ROLLS OF "1"
Although it does not say so in the rules, we play the usual that there are no auto-successes, so any rolls of 1 to hit, to wound, and armour saves are always a failure. If you buff a unit to 1+ saves, a roll of 1 is always a failure anyway. For charging, and other rolls that involve more dice to be rolled for a single test, all dice must be 1s to fail.
Another rule I can completely get behind, at first I didn't think it would be that big of a deal but theirs just some army's that don't have a lot of rending in there army lists, and they shouldn't be penalized for fighting what would be AoS "deathstars"
7) CASTING LIMITATIONS
We think that you should not be able to cast the same buffing or hexing spell twice on the same target. For example, cast Mystic Shield one time to improve save rolls, but no casting a second one on the same target to improve it even further.
On the same subject, should unbinding need line of sight to the casting wizard, or be able to be done anyway?
I would go the Lobbywatson way and say allow it since ones always fail under the new comp (hopefully). You can always just focus the mages buffing up one unit to a 2+ also.
8) BATTLE SCENARIOS
How many, and how different, should scenarios be. I've always found it good to have at least a few basic ones inside a comp pack for players who doesn't want to make up their own.
Probably 3 to 5 scenarios for your average tourney depending on turnout. There should be some that are somewhat similar (King of the hill/Control two points) to way different (Zone Control/Regicide) those are just examples though.
I will update this first page with whatever results we get from our discussions.
So that's my two cents on it, thanks for posting this in another thread so we can discuss comp and point costs separately, and keep up the good work Attilla, we appreciate it.
I just released the v0.1 version of the PPC comp document at our blog now. It was hard defining many of the aspects, since you all made very good points in many different directions. I've talked to the rest of the group here, and this is what we feel is a "bare minimum" change requirement for the PPC, as we strive to be as close to RAW as possible.
The rules changes of this document will take effect with army points cost lists v0.4.
Also, this is still very much a work in progress document, so its not too late to re-define things and add stuff. So fire away with all those creative minds of yours!
Haldir wrote:Did anybody see the points list on BOLS? I was checking the points , theirs seems higher? Any thoughts?
Didn't see any, would appreciate a link as its always interesting to see.
Attlila Im sorry I don't know how to do a link. One of the few things 24 years of police work hasn't taught me! It's on the first or second page of BOLS. Their points our higher than ours? They seemed a little off but I'm not really an expert.
Hi guys , we will be play testing on Thursday night -- I`ll be using Elfs and Eternals from the last 2 starter sets while my friend will be fielding Orruks and Goblins.
We will be testing the following changes:
1: Any unit with the hero or Wizard key word and at least 50% obscured by a friendly unit targeted by a ranged attack receives a +1 to their armor save
2: Any unit with the hero or Wizard key word and at least 50% obscured by a friendly unit targeted by a magic or special attack gets a 5+ invulnerable save
3: Any unit traveling through any area defined as rough terrain (ruins ,forests , streams , hills) has their movement & run moves reduced by 2"
4: Any unit retreating out of CC must do so in a straight line , said unit can take no further action that turn , each model in the unit must roll a die , on a 6 it takes a D3 mortal wounds , a unit can`t claim an obj. on the turn it retreated
5: No shooting into CC of any kind.
6: Measuring is from the models base
7: No rolling for imitative at the end of the round , IGYG
8: No stacking of buffs received from magic spells (1 per unit).
9: No stacking of buffs from special abilities (1 per unit). ------ At most a unit can have 1 buff from magic and 1 from a special ability given by another unit.
10: The game will end at the end of the seventh turn
We will be playing with obj.`s missions (worth a total of 12 pts.) using the standard deployments from the rule book. There with an additional point for slaying the enemy general plus another point for bringing a fully painted army.
These 10 tweaks and Attilla`a points have me very excited to get some games in
Honestly, with your rules, I don't see why I would invest in shooting troops like archer. They would be utterly useless by turn 2 if the opponent has any kind of fast troop. Given the range of most units, it is next to impossible to keep them from being in danger range without putting them in a high risk situation.
The type of missions I`m working on will have 5 obj.`s so plenty of room for maneuver and hopefully time to shoot.
I.E. -- Dawn of War deployment -- 1 obj. in center of table -- 1 obj.15" to the left -- 1 15" obj. to the right -- 2 obj.`s each 12" behind the center one
-- center obj. is worth 4 pt. the others each worth 2 pt.
I`m thinking that this should avoid the scrum in the middle and provide for ranged shooting and maneuver. But again I won`t know for sure as these rules and missions are in the play test mode and open to change. My friend will be bringing a mass horde of Goblins so I will need ranged shooting to help.
The thoughts behind the no stacking were because if not someone will always find a broken combo. I`ve seen this in 40K where through the use of magic/physic phase someone always finds something broken that takes the fun out of the game.
At some point I think even using some form of modified Maelstrom might be worth considering.
Not rolling for initiative makes the ranged units somewhat more reliable, as you can measure and advance where needed without the risk of having your opponent have two turns in a row. I fear the cost of ranged units might be slightly too high though, since they are calulated for being able to fire in melee. Going to be real fun hear what happens in your battle! If you have the oppurtunity to take some pictures it would be great as well!
My group has played some games recently using a slightly modified version of your scenario, and it was great fun! When the comp document 0.2 is released I will include it as one of the three "standard" PPC scenarios.
I'm glad to hear you found them helpful , you are doing a lot of good work here. I'm happy to be able to contribute something. The other scenarios I was working on as part of a tournament packet.
Hammer and Anvil deployment -- 1 obj. In center -- 1 obj. 12" to the left -- 1 obj. 12" to the right -- 2 obj.'s 12 behind center one
-- center obj. worth 4 pts. all others 2 pts.
Bonus point for brininging a fully painted army and another for killing the enemy general
Table quarters -- opponents deploy in opposite table quarters
1 obj. In table center (4 pts.) 1 obj. In each table quarter 15" in (short table edge)and 12" up (long table edge) -- 2 pts. Each
Again bonus point for fully painted army and killing enemy general. Must deploy at least 12" from table center.
Over 3 rounds each player can generate up to 42 points. This type of format can help people at least accrue some points each round (no one likes coming away with zero). As well as semi-nerf Death Stars . You could have the most brutal unit in the game but it can still only claim one obj.
After more play testing I would still not be averse to some type of FOC. Hope all this helps.
Also these deployments are almost the exact same as the ones listed in the rules . Trying to stay as close to the original rules as possible with a few tweaks to put in some form of balance.
Besides adding three scenarios, I'll be changing the screening to provide cover instead of -1 to hit, as that feel more in line with the rules in general.
Shooting into melee will still be -1 to hit, though.
I like the cover save. The shooting into combat I'm open either way , not at all or a minus 1. Also does the minus 1 count for shooting through friendly units? Also true line of sight is important , that's why I put the 50% obscured. To be honest I think the minus 1 or not at all could both work. Might just come down to play testing.
Haldir wrote: I like the cover save. The shooting into combat I'm open either way , not at all or a minus 1. Also does the minus 1 count for shooting through friendly units? Also true line of sight is important , that's why I put the 50% obscured. To be honest I think the minus 1 or not at all could both work. Might just come down to play testing.
Well, shooting through a friendly unit (other than members if your own unit) would count as screening for the target, i.e. the target has +1 save from being in cover. If you are firing inside a melee, into a melee, or out of melee, you get -1 to hit.
When we have playtested, it felt that ranged units didn't really do much dmg even by firing inside their melee, so maybe some of the ranged units are abit overcosted. We'll have to play more to be certain.
When was it you had your game? Eager to find out how it went
My buddy forgot his Goblins in NY! So we put off till Friday. My wife built all the Eternals from the starter set and I've ordered a box of Judicators another of Liberators and both special characters!! I read all the fluff in the book that come with the starter ,fun stuff. Now I will need more overtime after seeing the sneak peaks from the WD!!
Read through the new rules for Stormcast Protectors...damn they will go well with our screening rules:
GW wrote:Subtract 1 from the hit rolls of enemy shooting attacks that target a unit of Protectors, or which must cross a unit of protectors to hit a model that lies beyond them
So, a unit behind a Protector unit will gain +1 save from being screened, as well as providing a -1 penalty to hit for the unit shooting at them. Good protection for wizards and the like! Pretty cool!
I just got the new White Dwarf and read that. That`s great , maybe GW is listening!
On another note for new people entering the game. My buddy had a Golden Daemon winning Goblin Army that he put a lot of effort into. He had reservations about how different AOS was from Fantasy. After people realize that AOS is not Fantasy and a completely new game hopefully they`ll become more receptive to the new game.
Also for wound allocation , there seems to be very different views on how to allocate. Perhaps we should post here how we will do it with our comp and points adjustments.
Looks very familiar !! I`m hoping to get an event at the LGS sometime in late September or early October. I can also host an event for up to 6 people at my place.
Managed to post another scenario today, this time its a pretty standard kill points one with Slay the general and Linebreaker for some bonus victory points.
Tell me if you think we should change or tweak something. It is supposed to be around the same level of total victory points as the Capture scenario when playing around 2000 pts. This is only important in tournaments, for casual play any scenario will work with any total points.
Haldir wrote: Again I think the work you did on summoning was really good stuff. I'm thinking of using it for my next 40K event.
I think it could prove nice as well, the idea originally came to me from Andreas 2.0. I think we might need to tweak the points costs up and down until we reach a good value, but that can only be done from extensive playtesting.
Yes the summoning system seems to be working at the moment. The only problem I see with it right now is that it is a feature you need to use every turn, if you want it to be worth the point. It's not a huge letdown, but the Caster loses some flexibility in that no other spell is quite as good. On the other hand, with the regular summoning system, you were absolutely going to summon every turn, whereas now there is a slight chance that some other spell is more suitable for a certain situation at some point.
Attilla , I was reading the screening rules. It might not be a bad idea to consider the 50% obscured rule I mentioned in one of the threads. We don't want people trying to break the game having clan rats provide screening cover for monstrous creatures. Other than that I saw a lot of good work in there . Well done!
Haldir wrote: Attilla , I was reading the screening rules. It might not be a bad idea to consider the 50% obscured rule I mentioned in one of the threads. We don't want people trying to break the game having clan rats provide screening cover for monstrous creatures. Other than that I saw a lot of good work in there . Well done!
I honestly thought this was the case already But if it isn't, I'm with Haldir. There would be too many nasty little tricks otherwise.
1) FORCE ORGANISATION Do we need limitations to list builing? Should we go the 40k way and have a few slots for different keywords (1-3 Heroes, 0-3 Monster etc) or the old WFB way and use percentages (Up to 25% or 50% Heroes etc)? Or is there even a better alternative?
I like the percentage idea, but am also wondering if the GW suggested restrictions might not work:
1-2 Heroes
0-2 Monsters
No Hero duplication
Maybe we just add in 0-2 Warmachines?
But that kind of system then really calls into question the battalion WarScrolls, since in the start set alone, those Battalions allow the player to bring more than 2 Heroes. I feel like outlawing Battalion WarScrolls probably isn't the way to fix this, but if we are limiting the number of Heroes, how will that work with Battalion WS?
Secondly, if we are doing percentages, then how does that work with Battalion WarScrolls? Do we consider each individual choice within the Battalion to still be added into the percentage of Heroes/Monsters you can bring?
Finally, if we are going to limit Heroes/Monsters, is there any reason not to include Wizards on that list or are all Wizards also Heroes in the game so far? I've only looked at Daemons/Skaven and the new starter set so far, so I fear I might be missing something.
2) SUMMONING LIMITATIONS
So far, each summoning costs alot of points, and can only be bought as upgrades to one of your wizards. We would like to make summoning cheaper, but add that you can dispel a summon while being within 18" of the wizard OR the summoned unit.
I like dispelling from anywhere on the board, personally too, so that you don't just hide your Wizard in the back. The points cost does seem high. I'm wondering if the whole maintaining summoning thing someone else mentioned here might not be the way to go? It changes summoning from spamming more units than your opponent to just overwhelm them to choosing the right unit for the right time and having to let the first summoned unit go to summon another. I think that might actually work best.
Second point on summoning, so far in our playtesting, we've learned that summoning CORE single wound guys is a waste since those wounds count towards you being tabled, so people are only going to summon multi-wound models. With that in mind, the points cost to summon should probably be at least the cost of the lowest cost multi-wound model that can be easily summoned (i.e. on a 7+ on two dice).
3) SHOOTING INTO MELEE
The rules states you can fire freely into melee (and out of), and unless this proves to be extremely powerful we would like to keep it this way. It feels wrong, but its the rules as is... What do you guys think? Keep it as is, and make points accordingly, or keep it but limit it, or not be able to fire into melee at all?
Initially I was very concerned about shooting into/out of melee, but after a few playtest games, it became pretty clear that Ranged units locked in melee are in some serious trouble, so I don't see any reason to limit them shooting out of melee. As for shooting into Melee that they aren't involved in, it didn't seem nearly as overpowered as I thought. If you put in the plus one cover save thing, then I think this might be balanced. If you are shooting into melee, after all, with all the blades moving and such, there should be a higher chance of deflection, right? I feel like completely removing the ability to shoot into/out of melee will seriously nerf ranged units and again we should try to stay as true to the original rules as possible. I don't think this is as broken as we think it is. As others have pointed out, it's just new to us, so we are freaking out about it.
As for actually playing games, it feels super heroic and awesome when Elvish Archer guys are shooting people in combat and swinging their swords too. After all, all of the models in the game are supposed to be warriors ready to fight and die on the battlefield. Why wouldn't they be able to shoot and fight at the same time? If I were in close combat, I wouldn't lay down my hand gun to just fight hand to hand. I'd use every weapon I could to try to survive.
4) RETREATING
We think that the rules for retreating can be abused - it's far to easy to leave combat and do so without any risk. We propose that retreating can only be done in a straight line away from an enemy, and that you roll a dice for every model retreating. On every roll of 6, the unit retreating takes a mortal wound.
Since when retreating, unless if you have a special rule, you cannot shoot or charge that round, I don't feel this rule is broken and needs changed at all. Running from combat removes you from that combat that round, but your opponent can still shoot at you and/or charge you next round. Secondly, since movement+run is on average going to be MOVE+3 and MOVE plus Charge of the unit chasing you down is going to be that units MOVE+7 (2D6 roll to charge) they are pretty likely to just catch you again if you retreat, so once more, no need to nerf this, imo.
5) MEASUREMENTS
What we'd prefer is the old measuring base to base, with models put on the base they came with. For converting squares to bases, it's a simple 20mm square goes on 25mm round, 25mm square goes on 32mm round. We really hate overlapping our bases, and when measuring model to model, the larger bases becomes to much of a burden.
Base to base. --Ditto. I realize that the squares vs. round base thing might be a minor issue, but really, base size isn't that big of a deal here, is it? And overlapping bases that have actual basing work on them is simply not something we can promote. That's just a bad idea. Let's just measure base to base.
6) "SILLY" RULES
So far, the points costs in the PPC has been made from the assumption that the "silly" rules such as dancing while rolling dice, riding imaginary horses etc are always active. No need to dance if you don't want to (but kudos to you if you do!).
When I was doing calculations still for points myself (which I have discontinued to instead playtest your system since you seem to be doing pretty much exactly what I was doing, so kudos! :-D), I just assumed that all of those silly rules would auto go off. I agree that that is the best way to do it. And if you want to act like a horse or shout funny things, just like Orks in 40k shouting Waaagh!, then you go for it! Haha!
7) SCREENING AND LOOK OUT SIR
We play so that staying behind other units gives you cover, but we don't use any "Look Out Sir" rules to transfer shooting hits from heroes to units. How do you guys play, and what do you prefer?
I like cover saves of plus one, but I do NOT like Look Out Sir. The rule is just too easy to abuse. I'd cut it from 40k if I could. In fact, just not allowing Heroes/single model characters to join units seems to fix all the issues with characters in 40k. If I can't hide my super awesome Wizard in AoS in a huge unit of single wound models, then that Wizard has to protect himself. At the same time, screening seems to make sense to me. I would agree with later comments that it should likely be the 50% rule though. After all, a huge monster shouldn't get a cover save for hiding behind some Clan Rats. Haha!/b]
[b]8) ROLLS OF "1"
Although it does not say so in the rules, we play the usual that there are no auto-successes, so any rolls of 1 to hit, to wound, and armour saves are always a failure. If you buff a unit to 1+ saves, a roll of 1 is always a failure anyway. For charging, and other rolls that involve more dice to be rolled for a single test, all dice must be 1s to fail.
1's auto fail unless you have a rule for reroll. --I completely agree.[b]
[b]7) CASTING LIMITATIONS
We think that you should not be able to cast the same buffing or hexing spell twice on the same target. For example, cast Mystic Shield one time to improve save rolls, but no casting a second one on the same target to improve it even further.
On the same subject, should unbinding need line of sight to the casting wizard, or be able to be done anyway?
Agreed. Stacking the same buff/hex on the same unit is just OP. We shouldn't have large units that normally have a 5+ save running around with a 2+ because I took three wizards that are running behind them. That's just not cool. However, you should be able to cast the same spell multiple times in the same turn with different wizards. You just need different targets. So I can buff three units in my previous example, just not the same unit three separate times.
Unbinding is tough. I don't like the idea of hiding my Wizard in the back lines and having him summon in hordes of units with no repercussions. Perhaps we should drop the line of sight and the 18" and just have it be any other wizard on the board can try to unbind one spell per turn.
Secondly, have we considered any downside to casting? I haven't read through the entire rules comp pack yet, so correct me if you've done this, but what if rolling a double 1 when casting is a perils kind of like in 40k? This would at least make it so that there is some risk to your casting other than it might not go off. As is, I'm going to take a Great Unclean One every game and just summon in Hordes of Drones every turn because why not? Or just have him cast his heal friend/hurt enemy line spell every turn because there is no risk that he's going to get hurt. Maybe if you roll double 1's on a cast, the caster takes a mortal wound. Or maybe the caster loses that spell? Or maybe we make a D6 chart that you roll on if you roll double 1's. The wizard automatically suffers ONE Mortal Wound and then see chart:
1= Wizard explodes from arcane power: remove him from play.
2= Wizard's brain overloads: he forgets this spell and cannot cast it again this game.
3= Wizard randomly releases a Magic Missile at a unit within range instead of casting the spell.
4= A gust of magic wind blows: Wizard is moved D6" away from the targeted unit/area of the spell.
5= Wizard is stunned. He cannot attempt to cast/unbind a spell until after your next Hero Phase has ended.
6= Wizard sees the damage coming and can actually use his armor save to try to prevent the Wound.
Something like that? Thoughts?
I will update this first page with whatever results we get from our discussions.
Love what you all are doing here. Keep up the good work. I'll try to get more playtesting in soon.
Thanks for all the valuable input, I will answer them right away:
coruptcopy wrote:
1-2 Heroes
0-2 Monsters
No Hero duplication
Maybe we just add in 0-2 Warmachines?
But that kind of system then really calls into question the battalion WarScrolls.
Secondly, if we are doing percentages, then how does that work with Battalion WarScrolls?
is there any reason not to include Wizards on that list or are all Wizards also Heroes in the game so far?
I also think using Warscrolls as limits, make it harder to differentiate between elite units and "core" units. If you limit by Warscrolls, you could take Nagash in a 1500pt game, for example. I want to like the Warscroll idea, since it feels so easy and intuitive, but I think it will need many other limitations as well, making it not worth it For percentages and battalions, it's just as you thought - you pay for each unit individually and count towards the percentage limit.
As for wizards, I think that all single model Wizards (i.e. hero wizards) have the hero keyword. There are some units that can also cast spells, but as long as we set their cost properly I hope we don't have to make an extra limit on the amount of wizards you can bring.
cc wrote:I like dispelling from anywhere on the board, personally too, so that you don't just hide your Wizard in the back. The points cost does seem high. I'm wondering if the whole maintaining summoning thing someone else mentioned here might not be the way to go?
Second point on summoning, so far in our playtesting, we've learned that summoning CORE single wound guys is a waste since those wounds count towards you being tabled, so people are only going to summon multi-wound models.
I too am starting to believe we don't need as high cost as we have to our summoning spells, since you first need to succeed, and then an enemy can pretty much always try to unbind. Will think about this some more, and if it becomes a problem we might add the summoning maintenance you talk about. We try to add as few limitations as possible, though.
We don't play using tableing rules, so can't really comment on that - we use the old, tried and tested, victory points for wiping units in combination with objective grabbing. Check out the blog for the three scenarios we play competitively.
cc wrote:
Initially I was very concerned about shooting into/out of melee, but after a few playtest games, it became pretty clear that Ranged units locked in melee are in some serious trouble. As for shooting into Melee that they aren't involved in, it didn't seem nearly as overpowered as I thought. If you put in the plus one cover save thing, then I think this might be balanced. If you are shooting into melee, after all, with all the blades moving and such, there should be a higher chance of deflection, right? I feel like completely removing the ability to shoot into/out of melee will seriously nerf ranged units and again we should try to stay as true to the original rules as possible. I don't think this is as broken as we think it is. As others have pointed out, it's just new to us, so we are freaking out about it.
Agreed, at first my group said a big NO to any kind of shooting in melee. But then we tried it because we want to play as RAW as possible...and it didn't feel that bad in the end. At the moment, we give a penalty to the hit roll for firing into or out of melee. This is so we don't have to put even higher cost to ranged units, just because they might find themselves in melee.
cc wrote:
Since when retreating, unless if you have a special rule, you cannot shoot or charge that round, I don't feel this rule is broken and needs changed at all. Running from combat removes you from that combat that round, but your opponent can still shoot at you and/or charge you next round. Secondly, since movement+run is on average going to be MOVE+3 and MOVE plus Charge of the unit chasing you down is going to be that units MOVE+7 (2D6 roll to charge) they are pretty likely to just catch you again if you retreat, so once more, no need to nerf this, imo
Also agreed. We removed this entirely. Our main concerns were that you could very easily retreat from a combat and grab an objective - but we will solve this by just putting this info in the objective scenario description instead.
cc wrote:
I like cover saves of plus one, but I do NOT like Look Out Sir. The rule is just too easy to abuse. I'd cut it from 40k if I could. In fact, just not allowing Heroes/single model characters to join units seems to fix all the issues with characters in 40k. If I can't hide my super awesome Wizard in AoS in a huge unit of single wound models, then that Wizard has to protect himself. At the same time, screening seems to make sense to me. I would agree with later comments that it should likely be the 50% rule though. After all, a huge monster shouldn't get a cover save for hiding behind some Clan Rats. Haha!/b]
Agreed, not much to add
cc wrote:
[b]Agreed. Stacking the same buff/hex on the same unit is just OP. We shouldn't have large units that normally have a 5+ save running around with a 2+ because I took three wizards that are running behind them. That's just not cool. However, you should be able to cast the same spell multiple times in the same turn with different wizards. You just need different targets. So I can buff three units in my previous example, just not the same unit three separate times.
Unbinding is tough. I don't like the idea of hiding my Wizard in the back lines and having him summon in hordes of units with no repercussions. Perhaps we should drop the line of sight and the 18" and just have it be any other wizard on the board can try to unbind one spell per turn.
Secondly, have we considered any downside to casting? I haven't read through the entire rules comp pack yet, so correct me if you've done this, but what if rolling a double 1 when casting is a perils kind of like in 40k? This would at least make it so that there is some risk to your casting other than it might not go off. As is, I'm going to take a Great Unclean One every game and just summon in Hordes of Drones every turn because why not? Or just have him cast his heal friend/hurt enemy line spell every turn because there is no risk that he's going to get hurt. Maybe if you roll double 1's on a cast, the caster takes a mortal wound. Or maybe the caster loses that spell? Or maybe we make a D6 chart that you roll on if you roll double 1's. The wizard automatically suffers ONE Mortal Wound and then see chart:
1= Wizard explodes from arcane power: remove him from play.
2= Wizard's brain overloads: he forgets this spell and cannot cast it again this game.
3= Wizard randomly releases a Magic Missile at a unit within range instead of casting the spell.
4= A gust of magic wind blows: Wizard is moved D6" away from the targeted unit/area of the spell.
5= Wizard is stunned. He cannot attempt to cast/unbind a spell until after your next Hero Phase has ended.
6= Wizard sees the damage coming and can actually use his armor save to try to prevent the Wound.
Something like that? Thoughts?
So far we have allowed multiple stacking of spells and buffs, since it is the RAW. I personally don't like it, and I hope we will come to consensus that we should limit it to one buff of the same name on the same unit. As for unbinding, I would enjoy for it to work anywhere, and not just within 18". Such a short range will mean your wizard can just hang back 18" behind your unit and buff them almost automatically. Any way we choose to do can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing points costs, though I'm not very fond of adding a table to AoS, but if we don't "unlimit" the dispel range, we might add a "perils of the warp" danger like you suggest with the double 1:s...pretty interesting idea!
cc wrote:
Love what you all are doing here. Keep up the good work. I'll try to get more playtesting in soon.
For stacking buffs, I already stated my mind on this For dispelling, I think a nice "compromise" would be to keep the 18" range, but to change that the dispelling mage needs to be in range of the target or the source of the spell.
It means that a mage in the back can still protect his own allies, but would need to get into the fray to disrupt the defensive/buffing of his opponent.
Not sure however about adding an additionnal random table that could completely change the tides of the battle on a bad dice roll. A double 1 on a cast is already pretty crippling given the low number of spells cast in a turn.
My friends have really gotten into AoS (One plays Skaven, and is enjoying this way more than 8th, as he actually plays this) and they wanted to try out this comp. I'll start by stating that I'm not a fan of non-official rules, regardless of the source, for anything. GW games or not, I just typically prefer to be as close to what the writers wanted. That being said, I play Tomb Kings and really love the summoning aspect of AoS. Simple, not too bad (if you're playing with friends that aren't TFG and you aren't bringing Nagash), and fun to see on the table. This PPC comp makes it so that I feel as though there's no point to summoning.
Yes, summoning is powerful without this comp. But a standard Lich Priest wasting his one spell to summon 10 Skeletons is not game breaking. So, now there's points, and you spend points on teaching your wizards the summon spells. Plus, you can unbind them from anywhere on the board. So now you'd have to invest a ton of points into using a spell, that can be unbound from anywhere. In the game I played, the only reason I actually summoned stuff successfully was because I was running Arkhan. If I hadn't brought him, I wouldn't have been able to summon anything, and therefore, have wasted "points" before the game even starts.
I'm not saying summoning wasn't broken before, as it was (this whole game is "broken" anyway). What I'm saying is, I dislike over-correcting. Now, unless you're bringing Nagash/Arkhan, summoning is a wasted expense.
Other than that, the points seemed pretty well done, I'll give it that.
Araknir wrote:
For dispelling, I think a nice "compromise" would be to keep the 18" range
I like this! If we are to put something in, I think this will be it.
krodarklorr wrote:
That being said, I play Tomb Kings and really love the summoning aspect of AoS.
Now, unless you're bringing Nagash/Arkhan, summoning is a wasted expense.
Thanks krodarklorr, it's very good to get feedback from players using the armies that summon stuff. I have begun feeling the same way when I look at the summoning costs we have. Not only do you need to cast the summon instead of for example a +1 armour save bonus on a good unit, but even if you succeed, your summoning can be dispelled. I think a decrease in summoning costs is in order, and will playtest and think about it some more. The issue is finding the right cost for it...but if it's too expensive now and too cheap in the next version, the third will possibly nail it
To comment on the 18" dispelling vs table-wide dispelling, I think leaving it at 18" (for everything) is the best option. I say this because it goes both ways; if your wizard is hanging back to stay out of dispel range, than he isn't dispelling anything cast by the opponent's wizard, and vice versa. I think this should apply to summoning as well, but add that when a summoned unit is placed, the summoner must have line of sight to the majority of the unit.
The reason I say this is it gives players tactical options. I can hide my summoner behind a building, but that will severely limit where he can put his summons. Out the open he has more freedom to place them, but is also more vulnerable.
I also agree that summoning spell costs seem a bit high right now, but perhaps rather than changing the points cost each time a summon spell is successfully cast the players rolls a d6 and multiplies it by 10, adding the resulting value to the points he can summon. This adds some variation to each spell, where at a fixed point value a player is going to figure out what is ideal for that points limit and summon said unit the majority of the time.
[edit] To clarify, that's d6x10 added to the summoning values already present, not d6x10 on its own.
NinthMusketeer wrote: To comment on the 18" dispelling vs table-wide dispelling, I think leaving it at 18" (for everything) is the best option. I say this because it goes both ways; if your wizard is hanging back to stay out of dispel range, than he isn't dispelling anything cast by the opponent's wizard, and vice versa. I think this should apply to summoning as well, but add that when a summoned unit is placed, the summoner must have line of sight to the majority of the unit.
The reason I say this is it gives players tactical options. I can hide my summoner behind a building, but that will severely limit where he can put his summons. Out the open he has more freedom to place them, but is also more vulnerable.
I also agree that summoning spell costs seem a bit high right now, but perhaps rather than changing the points cost each time a summon spell is successfully cast the players rolls a d6 and multiplies it by 10, adding the resulting value to the points he can summon. This adds some variation to each spell, where at a fixed point value a player is going to figure out what is ideal for that points limit and summon said unit the majority of the time.
I agree with this, though a single d6 times 10 isn't going to summon much of anything. I'd say something like, 2d6+2. Minimum 4 (40 points could get a small squad of skeletons or a single model otherwise) to a maximum of 140 points (2-3 powerful models or a larger squad of skeletons)
About summoning. I think we might need a new way to think about the spells if we want to make them cheaper or even free. So every spell in the game has a casting cost and an effect. The casting cost tells us how many rolls out of 36 different possibilities will cause a succesful cast. A 10+ for example has 6 different possible rolls of 36. Or a 1 in 6 chance. nos the effects of the spells can be rather hard to value, but if we used arcane bolt as a baseline I think it'll be easier. If arcane bolt was automatic it would cause 2 automatic wounds each turn on average. I would probably pay alot for that. Like 30-60 points depending on the spellcasters survivability. That price should be modified by the casting chance like 4+ should reduce a spells price by 1/5 whereas a 10+ spell should reduce a a spell by 5/6. So let's say arcane bolt bolt would cost 25 on average, and every wizard knows that spell.
So if we want summoning to be free, we need to modify the spell so that it equals an arcane bolt in worth. This might not be very realistic of you want to summon more than a few skeletons on a 4+, but on an 8+ however we might get something. 8+ should reduce a spell by a third, which meas the automatic version of the spell should be worth 75 points to match an arcane bolt. The questions is then - if you paid 75 points for a spell, how many points would be fair to summon automatically each turn. I would say about 25 points worth of miniatures which is boring . With that info, we have two possibilities - either make it harder to cast, or add a price for the spell like in the current system. But whatever we agree on, the current prices seem a little high. Especially the larger versions of the summoning spells - they are so hard to cast that their theoretical cost is insanely high.
Hope it makes sense
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and I forgot to add a question about the silly rules. Aren't some of them really overpowered?
I think I would go for 20p. It seems like it's not very much, but because of all the things we have discussed, I think it's the way to go. Besides, for 20 points I would probably be more inclined to use other spells on some turns.
My thoughts on summoning is that it is a horribly broken game mechanic. But alas it's part of the game , I think the way Attilla has it in the comp now works pretty well. Remember the whole purpose of the comp is to stay as close to the original rules while maintaining some form of balance. Being able to magically add units springing from all over the board with near impunity is just silly. Come on I wouldn't even want to play that way. I'm on board with what Attila has done so far and see no reason to really tweak it.
I also feel magic buffs shouldn't be able to stack . Each unit should only be able to receive a single buff from magic , otherwise someone will find a way to break it. Also for that screening again I feel,we should amend to 50% obscured. Other than those things I think the comp in its entirety is laying the basis for a really good game. I've got FIVE 40K armies collecting dust because of 2 reasons . 1st is how ridiculous it has become and the 2nd is the excitement of what we are doing here. Had my 2nd game yesterday and was waaay more fun than I've had playing 40K in a long time. Keep up the great work guys!
Attilla wrote: A spell that summons 40p on a 5+, and can be dispelled from anywhere should cost what...0p, 20p, 40p, or 60p?
I wouldn't pay any points for a 40-point summon simply because it would only see use when I would receive no benefits from another spell; so rarely if ever. 40 points simply isn't very much.
This is interesting, so far we have people wanting the summoning spels to be free, to cost a small amount of points, or to cost as much as possible! I will run some numbers on each spell before I change anything.
About screening, I believe base size is the way to go, where small bases cannot screen medium ones, and medium ones cannot screen large ones etc. It will be easy to write it into the rules as soon as a few more models have been re-released from GW. I'll add it for the comp pack v0.3.
I will also add a few warscrolls for regular terrain such as Woods, Hills etc for next version.
I can see the base sizes for screening working just as well. Summoning is a slippery slope as it is a broken game mechanic to begin with. I still don`t see what was wrong with how you did it originally or why it needs much tweaking.
I think it makes perfect sense to tweak summoning. Optimally, we want it to be a balanced alternative other spells. Right now I'm not sure if I would ever use a summoning wizard.
Attilla wrote: This is interesting, so far we have people wanting the summoning spels to be free, to cost a small amount of points, or to cost as much as possible! I will run some numbers on each spell before I change anything.
To be clear, I think summoning should cost points and I like the way you have it set down already; I just think a 40-point summon would be rarely worth casting. If its a 100-point summon or another more significant value then I do feel it should cost points. As-is, I think the current costs for summon spells would be perfect if they added d6x10 to the total or reduced the purchase cost by a small margin.
Trying to comp this game is nearly impossible and I thought today that limiting the size of the case you bring your minis in would help. So lets say we want a small game we decide that you can only bring what you can fit in a small gw case. Gobblins can go 2-3 per slot but warriors of chaos only 1. Looking at that things like skaven you will get lots of but if you want a bell you are taking up the space of about 40 clanrats or so. Its a trade off. My ogres will fit significantly less then other things but power wise its similar
I just want to say I have had nothing but balanced games with PPC thus far. I have had some rather crushing victories and losses, but these have been clearly related to tactics/dice rather than blatant imbalance. One game even came down to my opponent's general (his last model in play) killing my general (GUO, my last model in play) and dying in the process, leaving both of us tabled on the 7th turn of the game. Not sure if it gets more balanced than that. PPC has taken off with others at the FLGS too, who seem to be getting good results as well. So thank you and great job Attilla, keep up the good work!
NinthMusketeer wrote:One game even came down to my opponent's general (his last model in play) killing my general (GUO, my last model in play) and dying in the process, leaving both of us tabled on the 7th turn of the game.
Haha what an awesome sight!
NinthMusketeer wrote:
PPC has taken off with others at the FLGS too, who seem to be getting good results as well.
That's really cool! Be sure to point this way if they find anything they feel is odd!
NinthMusketeer wrote:
So thank you and great job Attilla, keep up the good work!
Thanks for the thanks, and thank you for contributing, mate!
I want to understand why Chaos sorcerers can only summon Death units and Chaos Lords have a crushing limiter to their ability. Why would I bother with a chaos lord only to give me a 10 man unit of marauders? According to your PPC units can daemons can summon 150 points worth of a unit with slightly better odds and possibility of dispel. This in my opinion is not balanced.
thejughead wrote: I want to understand why Chaos sorcerers can only summon Death units and Chaos Lords have a crushing limiter to their ability. Why would I bother with a chaos lord only to give me a 10 man unit of marauders? According to your PPC units can daemons can summon 150 points worth of a unit with slightly better odds and possibility of dispel. This in my opinion is not balanced.
I'm assumingthat the death unit thing is a typo and its supposed to be daemon. As for the chaos lord, that's 10 marauders which come in on a 4+ within 5" of any table edge, any distance from the enemy (as opposed to 9" minimum from summoning spells), and it cannot be dispelled. And as a command ability, he can do this every one of your turns. For a 185 point model that is hardly a slouch in melee it seems balanced (IMO), but I have no actual experience with the model in play.
On a separate note, I've gotten a lot more games in with a number of different models and I am noticing that Ironguts still seem to be outperforming their points. The thing is, 6 Ironguts is much more likely to get all its attacks in melee than its equivalent of normal infantry; between less models and a 2" melee range they have no trouble putting out their average of 18 wounds (not counting saves), and since an individual model can take 3 wounds before the unit loses its attack power they tend to keep their edge a bit more than most units as they take damage. I think a slight increase of 3-5 ppm would do the trick.
Also been noticing Putrid Blightkings over-performing for similar reasons, but mainly because every 6 to hit becomes d6 automatic hits. If these were attacks rather than auto-hits it would be one thing, but as-is they are quite potent right out the gate and respond very well to any sort of buff/re-roll. I'd say again that 3-5 ppm more would be ideal (adjusting the base unit cost appropriately).
In both these examples, perhaps the most telling thing for me is how local players' armies have contained progressively more of these models over time, in favor of everything else. Something else I am looking at is the generic Giant as it seems a bit undercosted for a high and consistent damage output, but I'm not incredibly sure. Chaos chariots might need a reduced points cost, but again I'm not very sure.
On plaguebearers I have some tiny things (on account of a ton of play time with them); Icons could possibly use an increased point cost (20?), and I have found pipers to not be worth 8 points; I think 5 might be better.
I'm sorry if you have no practical experience with the models then how can this "feel" right. I'm sorry but I'm going to stick with simpler comp methods. This feels like trying to make AoS into eighth which it ain't.
Um... Alright. Given your counterarguments it seems like you don't like PPC on an emotional level rather than a rational one, so I'm not going to bother taking it further.
thejughead wrote:I want to understand why Chaos sorcerers can only summon Death units and Chaos Lords have a crushing limiter to their ability. Why would I bother with a chaos lord only to give me a 10 man unit of marauders? According to your PPC units can daemons can summon 150 points worth of a unit with slightly better odds and possibility of dispel. This in my opinion is not balanced.
Good to have someone point out stuff with the WoC, now that it has become their turn to become v0.5!
The death unit is indeed a typo.
I will take a look at Chaos Lord again now that it has become WoC's turn to become v0.5, even though he does have a very tactically flexible Command Ability - recieving 40p of troops every other turn could be very vital in objective points based games! But when comparing the ability to any other summoning spell, you have to keep in mind that the others need to pay a large amount of points to even get the spell in the first place.
Once all lists are v0.5, I will turn my eyes towards summoning and tweak the points of all such spells. Depending on the result, the Chaos Lord will have his ability tweaked as well.
NinthMusketeer wrote:On a separate note, I've gotten a lot more games in with a number of different models and I am noticing that Ironguts still seem to be outperforming their points. The thing is, 6 Ironguts is much more likely to get all its attacks in melee than its equivalent of normal infantry; between less models and a 2" melee range they have no trouble putting out their average of 18 wounds (not counting saves), and since an individual model can take 3 wounds before the unit loses its attack power they tend to keep their edge a bit more than most units as they take damage. I think a slight increase of 3-5 ppm would do the trick.
Also been noticing Putrid Blightkings over-performing for similar reasons, but mainly because every 6 to hit becomes d6 automatic hits. If these were attacks rather than auto-hits it would be one thing, but as-is they are quite potent right out the gate and respond very well to any sort of buff/re-roll. I'd say again that 3-5 ppm more would be ideal (adjusting the base unit cost appropriately).
Funny you should mention that - I came to the exact same conclusion when I finished the Lizardmen yesterday and found out that the Kroxigor costs exactly as much as the Ironguts. I could not lower the cost of Kroxigor, which instead lead me to raise the Ironguts to 64 pts! So nice catch there
I will soon play WoC Nurgle myself, so I have looked at units such as the Blight Kings and to my own dismay I know they must raise in cost for this next update. As will the Stormcast Decimators/Retributors/Protectors once their turn arrives. I would very much appreciate if your group could take a look at the WoC after they turn v0.5 and see if the balance feels better.
Once v0.5 is done, and summoning costs tweaked, I will begin working on v0.6 which focuses on monsters. I will save your feedback on Giants until then
thejughead wrote:I'm sorry but I'm going to stick with simpler comp methods. This feels like trying to make AoS into eighth which it ain't.
No need to be sorry for that. In my opinion that is the beauty of AoS - there is a comp for everyone. Some want list building like in 8th, others prefer other ways. However, you could just as easily say that other comps try to make AoS into Warmahordes which it aint, or a third comp tries to make it into Wrath of Kings which it aint. That is as untrue as it is true depending on your view
I will take your comments on Warriors of Chaos into consideration, and I thank you for letting us know instead of just abandoning PPC before telling us - that way others will benefit from your findings!
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'd be really interested, but only after the lists had been (relatively) finalized, otherwise the points value listed might change.
Yeah, before v0.8-v1.0 somewhere it just wouldn't be any ... point ...in doing this project
I have been using your system now for 3 weeks, and every game seems balanced, amazing. My hope is that you can keep up with the new warscrolls as they come out. Next week we should see the new Stormcast warscrolls. I'm hoping you can get them done ASAP. I apologize for seeming to be pushing you but as a retailer I feel that this system is the best choice available for running competitive events. Maybe you could detail your system for determining points in case the warscrolls start pouring out and you are unable to keep up. Thanks again for your selfless work, it is helping a lot of people!
Thanks Smellingsalts, always nice to hear the work we do is appreciated
I think that as soon as the current lists have become stable enough, it will be very easy to keep up with future releases as well. All new Stormcast that has been released will be added for the v0.6 release in a few days. and any released after that will swiftly be added in semi-updates (v0.6b,c,d etc).
Hi Attilla - and great to see that you're still at it! Very much appreciating the work you're putting into this system, we've had some great and nicely balanced games using it - I hope you've been able to use some of Andreas 2.0 and my ideas?
Anyway, been trying a few games with the Chaos 0.5;
As much as it pains me, the cost of blight kings (of which I use 2 x 5 man units) seems more reasonable set at 200 points - they were too good for their cost before.
Still unsure about the giant - it IS good, but it has a VERY random damage output, and several other random effects (like falling on doubles) - I think it is about right at the moment. Compared to the blight kings (at the same cost), it has fewer attacks, fewer wounds, worse save and is more unreliable.
However; I think the chaos trolls are overcosted, compared to the O&G variants - they all roll a D6 pr. model, and heal d3 wounds pr. model on 2+. The chaos variants roll a d6 pr. unit and heals d3 wounds pr. unit. The mutation rule does not make up for this disadvantage, seeing as it's effectively only a 50% chance for each troll of having an additional attack. The Stone Trolls are costed at 175 pt, the rivers and regulars at 190 - I think the chaos trolls are more reasonably priced at Stone Troll level or a bit lower - they're much less survivable.
TBF healing per model or per unit makes no difference, since only one model in the unit can ever have wounds on it (because of the way they are assigned).
On the topic of the Giant I too am still unsure, but leaning towards a price increase. It'll only fall over on 1 out of 6 charges, and in my experience its damage output is more reliable than blightkings. It IS highly variable, but from what I've seen it always does at least a few wounds (and actually has pretty consistent output at 0-2 wounds for 3d6 club attacks), it has attacks to deal with both elite and swarmy enemies, and ultimately seems to have a high average output especially when factoring in 'stuff into bag'. Having fought against both quite a bit, I can honestly say I am more afraid of one giant than 5 blightkings.
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF healing per model or per unit makes no difference, since only one model in the unit can ever have wounds on it (because of the way they are assigned).
On the topic of the Giant I too am still unsure, but leaning towards a price increase. It'll only fall over on 1 out of 6 charges, and in my experience its damage output is more reliable than blightkings. It IS highly variable, but from what I've seen it always does at least a few wounds (and actually has pretty consistent output at 0-2 wounds for 3d6 club attacks), it has attacks to deal with both elite and swarmy enemies, and ultimately seems to have a high average output especially when factoring in 'stuff into bag'. Having fought against both quite a bit, I can honestly say I am more afraid of one giant than 5 blightkings.
I disagree; According to the math, the Giant deals out 7,79 wounds on average (calculated with stuffing in the bag used on a 1 wound model).
The blightkings deal out a whopping 12,275 wounds on average - granted, without any rend stats, but still.
5 Blightkings
15 attacks = 7.5 regular hits, 2.5 virulent hits (goes to 8.75) = 16.25 average hits
=10.833 average wounds (no armor)
=9.02 (6+)
=7.22 (5+)
=5.42 (4+)
Now comes the Giant (at 0-2 wounds)
average 10.5 clubs = 7 hits = 4.66 wounds (no armor or 6+)
=3.88 (5+)
=3.11 (4+)
'eadbutt = 1.166 average wounds against any of the armor listed
mighty kick = 0.88 average wounds against 5+ or worse, 0.74 against 4+
bag-stuffing against 1-wound models yields 0.833 against all types, though notable that its 1.0 against 2-wound models
with the totals being (using 1-wound for bag stuffing)...
7.54 (no armor or 6+)
6.76 (5+)
5.85 (4+)
Now to add some damage/models unable to attack...
Spoiler:
4 Blightkings (3-5 wounds taken, or one model unable to attack)
12 attacks = 6.0 regular hits, 2.0 virulent hits (goes to 7.0) = 13.0 average hits
=8.66 average wounds (no armor)
=7.22 (6+)
=5.77 (5+)
=4.33 (4+)
Giant (at 5-7 wounds to account for lower save)
average 7 clubs = 4.66 hits = 3.11 wounds (no armor or 6+)
=2.59 (5+)
=2.07 (4+)
'eadbutt = 0.66 average wounds against any of the armor listed
mighty kick = stays the same at 0.88 average wounds against 5+ or worse, 0.74 against 4+
bag-stuffing stays the same at 0.833 against all
with the totals being (using 1-wound for bag stuffing)...
5.48 (no armor or 6+)
4.96 (5+)
4.3 (4+)
And a bit more...
Spoiler:
3 Blightkings (6-8 wounds taken, or two unable to attack, etc)
9 attacks = 4.5 regular hits, 1.5 virulent hits (goes to 5.25) = 9.75 average hits
=6.5 average wounds (no armor)
=5.42 (6+)
=4.33 (5+)
=3.25 (4+)
Giant (at 8-9 wounds)
average 3.5 clubs = 7 hits = 1.55 wounds (no armor or 6+)
=1.30 (5+)
=1.03 (4+)
'eadbutt = 0.66 average wounds against any of the armor listed
mighty kick = stays the same at 0.88 average wounds against 5+ or worse, 0.74 against 4+
bag-stuffing stays the same at 0.833 against all types
with the totals being (using 1-wound for bag stuffing)...
3.92 (no armor or 6+)
3.67 (5+)
3.26 (4+)
Now all in all we can see the blightkings generally do more damage - but that assumes all of the blightkings are able to attack. Even in an open field, its harder to get all 15 attacks with 5 blightkings than it is with 1 giant. Yes, the giant can fall over on a charge, but its also much faster until it takes damage. The blightkings discharge ability can also add damage/healing, but it can hurt your non-nugle models and heal your enemies' nurgle models (TBF this is a big factor in my local meta - a lot of nurgle players). The giant can also swing its primary weapon 3" and its kick at 2" - the blightkings are stuck at 1" for everything. Also a not-insignificant factor is that anything which gives the blightkings a -1 hit penalty significantly nerfs their damage because they can no longer roll 6's (again TBF this may be local meta). Bravery is largely a wash because blightkings have to take a huge amount of punishment at once to even have a chance of failing, and both have a high degree of variation in output (giant has a lot of random but good rend, blightkings are highly dependent on 6's to hit).
After doing all that reasoning... I would recommend a points increase, but not a -giant- one; at 210 I think the ale guzzling monster would be perfect. But I've also noticed that my local meta may play a bigger part than I thought.
So I looked at the number-crunching you did for the summon values and I think the newer value you came up with the much closer to the mark. Factoring in the actual chance of getting the spell off is pretty important. It looks like this would give some of the higher casting value spells a points cost below the value of what they summon, which is definitely needed given the chance of spell failure (and even if it succeeds several turns into the game, that's several turns you didn't have with the unit just summoned, as opposed to if it was bought instead of the spell). All in all; good work!
I was thinking whether it would be beneficial or not to assign a points cost to the general of an army. That way, different command abilities could be priced for, without affecting the basic price of the character. I think this could go a long way in helping balancing characters.
I'll use the Sea Helm as an example here, because I think he is hard to balance. He has a rather crappy statline, so the basic cost has to be rather low or he's not worth bringing out of the box. However, he has a really strong Totem, and a really strong Command Ability. The Totem is already priced for, but the Command Ability is not. Therefore, the basic price has to be higher for him to be balanced, which makes him rather binary. Either the basic price is low, and then he's OP as a general, or the basic price is high, and he's useless if he's not your general. Adding a price for using him as general would solve this issue.
What do you guys think? Are there any drawbacks to doing this? After all, all other options are priced for, so why not put a price on generals as well?
It starts to make the system more complicated than it should be imo. Though I like your idea and would personally play it that way, I know that small things like that on top of other small things can very quickly make the overall comp unattractive for players who just want to put models on the table and have fun. Somewhere we have to draw the line and accept that not every option will be completely viable, and having a Sea Helm be viable as an option, if only as the general, may have to be 'good enough'. If that is a change people want overall, then it might be better to pay for the command ability rather than add an extra cost to the general; "upgrade this hero with X command ability for Y points". People who want to use that model as a general can buy the command ability, without having to have separate costs.
Hey all! Been some days since I've written here now. Since then, Dwarfs and Stormcast have become v0.6 and can be found here.
GuitaRasmus wrote:Hi Attilla - and great to see that you're still at it! Very much appreciating the work you're putting into this system, we've had some great and nicely balanced games using it - I hope you've been able to use some of Andreas 2.0 and my ideas?
Anyway, been trying a few games with the Chaos 0.5;
As much as it pains me, the cost of blight kings (of which I use 2 x 5 man units) seems more reasonable set at 200 points - they were too good for their cost before.
Still unsure about the giant - it IS good, but it has a VERY random damage output, and several other random effects (like falling on doubles) - I think it is about right at the moment. Compared to the blight kings (at the same cost), it has fewer attacks, fewer wounds, worse save and is more unreliable.
However; I think the chaos trolls are overcosted, compared to the O&G variants - they all roll a D6 pr. model, and heal d3 wounds pr. model on 2+. The chaos variants roll a d6 pr. unit and heals d3 wounds pr. unit. The mutation rule does not make up for this disadvantage, seeing as it's effectively only a 50% chance for each troll of having an additional attack. The Stone Trolls are costed at 175 pt, the rivers and regulars at 190 - I think the chaos trolls are more reasonably priced at Stone Troll level or a bit lower - they're much less survivable.
Hi GuitaRasmus! Thanks, and I've sure had some very good use out of your ideas - cheers for that!
I got my own Blight Kings for my Nurgle army just days before I made the update, so it sure pains me as well...but yeah they are very good and 40p seems better.
The Giant will stay at 200p for at least awhile longer, as it's not certain if it should go up or down...it then would seem it's pretty solid at where it is. We would need more reports on units such as the giant to change it now.
The Chaos Trolls, as NinthM says, doesn't really benefit from the strange wordings with their heal since you assign wounds to only one model until it dies. Its damage output is greater than a Orc & Goblins Troll, but it is not that great to even out the abilities of Trolls or River Trolls. I think a small change towards Stone Trolls is indeed in order for that reason. I will put them at 180p/60p for now.
Solaris wrote:I was thinking whether it would be beneficial or not to assign a points cost to the general of an army. That way, different command abilities could be priced for, without affecting the basic price of the character. I think this could go a long way in helping balancing characters.
NinthMusketeer wrote:upgrade this hero with X command ability for Y points
It's very interesting you bring this up, as this is something I've been thinking hard about on my walks home from work the past two weeks. I've yet to discuss it with my group, as I'm still on the fence about it. On one hand, it could be a good choice to have the Command Ability as a purchasable upgrade. That way you can pick and choose which ones you want or not. If you play someone like Archaon, you could use them all, but otherwise you would only pay for the one you can actually use. On the other hand, it does add another layer of complexity to the point cost lists. I'm not sure if it's worth it, but would love to have it discussed further.
I would urge that if you make a rule that allows you to buy Command Abilities individually, that you divorce it entirely from the army points cost page and keep it in your rules modifications. The reason is that while I really like your points cost system , I do not like some of your rules changes. For instance, while not firing into a combat and getting negative mods for firing into combat seems reasonable to people who were used to the conventions of other mini games, you can make an argument that firing into combat is perfectly reasonable (Legolas in the LOTR movies, Hawkeye in the Avengers, etc). I would just like to use the points system and my own rules mods. Thanks!
Smellingsalts wrote: I would urge that if you make a rule that allows you to buy Command Abilities individually, that you divorce it entirely from the army points cost page and keep it in your rules modifications. The reason is that while I really like your points cost system , I do not like some of your rules changes. For instance, while not firing into a combat and getting negative mods for firing into combat seems reasonable to people who were used to the conventions of other mini games, you can make an argument that firing into combat is perfectly reasonable (Legolas in the LOTR movies, Hawkeye in the Avengers, etc). I would just like to use the points system and my own rules mods. Thanks!
It would be even better if you point out which rules are off in your opinion and why - maybe we can change or remove them then. Like for instance, the -1 to hit into combat, do you think the points are balanced even without that rule? If there's enough that believe that they are, there's no point in keeping that rule at all in the PPC. It's really up to the community, and the community is us all Feel very free to speak your mind in this place, we are all in it to improve the game, not to make unneccessary limits to it.
Personally, I think that change is rather arbitrary to begin with. Sure, it makes sense from a realistic standpoint, but I don't think it's necessary - in fact it might even be counter productive. I think sticking as close to the original rules as possible is the way to go, and handle balance purely by points costs. I think that even if the points aren't balanced after removing the -1, it is still better to remove it and then fix the points.
Paying for Command Abilities is virtually the same as paying for Generals, with one exception (that I know of, there might be more!): the HE Prince on Dragon. His command ability allows three other characters within 16" to use their own command abilities. If you pay points for this ability, does that automatically grant the other characters the possibility of using their own, or do they have to be bought separately?
I think adding an "Upgrade to General" option to characters would be clearer and more intuitive than adding a Command Ability option. After all, you generally pick your General for its Command Ability (at least I do), so it's essentially the same thing anyway.
Edit: I see now that Archaon has a similar Command Ability, which then gives us the same issue. If you buy his Command Ability, it's not absolutely evident that you get access to the Command Abilities of other warscrolls in your army. On the other hand, if you pay to upgrade him to your General, that becomes a non-issue.
I also think that the cost for upgrading heroes without Command Abilities on their warscrolls should be 0 - there should only be a price if the character gains a Command Ability other than Inspiring Presence.
Dunno though, it would make things slightly more complex, and it might not be worth it. I think it is, but you guys don't seem convinced =)
Solaris wrote: I also think that the cost for upgrading heroes without Command Abilities on their warscrolls should be 0 - there should only be a price if the character gains a Command Ability other than Inspiring Presence.
I think we are saying the same thing as you in a different way - rather than a generic "upgrade to general" option it would be models with command abilities do not come with them by default; rather you pay a bit extra to get it (with their base cost reduced to compensate). While I'm not sure about doing something like that at all, I think the latter would be a better way of putting it for both simplicity and options (say you want the model as your general but don't care about the command ability, or if you want models that aren't the general to have theirs for use with abilities like Archaon's).
As for the actual comp, I am very torn because on one hand I like the shooting changes and people I play with usually like them too, but on the other hand simplicity is good. A decent compromise might be to remove the melee penalty rule and keep the screening rule with a bit of refinement to make it more clear (a model is screened if its is more than 50% obscured by terrain and/or intervening models from other units, a unit gains the benefits of screened if the majority of its models are). This creates tactical options and also affects melee since a unit in melee is much more likely to have cover due to intervening (enemy) models than if it is in the open. If the change was made in this way I would make screened have a -1 penalty to hit rather than granting cover (+1 to saves) since units with a save of - don't benefit from the latter. It also makes things that are screened and in cover harder to wound than either individually.
Smellingsalts wrote: Thanks for the encouragement Attilla. Actually there are only 3 sections I don't use from the Comp. Full disclosure, I own a game store, so most of my issues are geared towards growing the community.The first is the Allies rule. Allowing allies grows the community. I remember when Apocalypse came out for 40K. Most of the entrenched community did not like that you could use any models in your collection, but the community grew. Then 6th edition 40K hit, and it allowed unbound armies. Again people grumbled, and again the community grew. AOS has an unfolding story in which Sigmar is actively seeking out allies. I think the only 2 sides that shouldn't be in the same army are Order and Chaos. The other two rules are Shooting into melee and Screening modifiers. This is purely a game balance decision. I used to play Dark Elves and Wood Elves in 8th Edition WFB. Shooting in AOS is nowhere near what it once was. I know that there are some exceptions, and I guess if you just set up across from one another and run at each other then the shooting army could be effective. But if you play the scenarios from the book, there are so many ways to get to a shooting line. Simply going through a Baleful Gate can get you there. Also, if you allow Allies, the traditional non-shooting armies can match arrow fire with opponents. I am currently playing a Chaos army. The current synergy that I can create lets me charge or run an extra 4 inches (Bloodstoker+musician), re-roll failed charges (General ability), and the Chaos Lord can Pile in 6 inches (mark of Khorne). So I can literally charge at the latest turn 2 most gun lines. Once missile troops are engaged, they really suck. In the old days, Dwarf gun lines would take you apart. now they can't stand and fire. In the old days, when I got to the dwarf gun line, they pulled out axe and shield or two handed weapons and went mano a mano. Now they try to hit me with the butts of their guns (needing 5+). I think if you add the modifiers you then have to decrease the cost of missile troops. At that point you are juggling game mechanics and really for little gain. Anyway, that's my opinion.
I would agree with what Smellingsalts said. I think shooty armies could be very strong in a pitched battle, but their strength is very scenario dependent. In some scenarios, a solid amount of shooting could be very strong, but in others it would only be wasted points. Add into the equation that armies can run across the field and charge you on turn two, or teleport through gateways, or swoop down from the separate sky battle field that exists in some scenarios... Playing the scenarios from the books, there are just so many options.
I terms of screening, I do think screens should provide cover. This is more of a game design issue than a balance one, but I think players should be given the possibility of strategic positioning. If you have a unit you want to protect, you should be able to protect it. However, I do think cover would be sufficient here.
As for Allies, I don't think it's that big of a problem. There are so many synergies built into single lists, that you might not even get a stronger army from bringing Allies. Chances are you'd be stronger if you just brought your own forces with the right keywords instead.
Ninth, I have a hard time seeing how that would be simpler. But I do think both ways could work - using your method, buying Archaons Command Ability would be rather cheap, but you would also have to buy any other Command Ability you want to use. Using my method, upgrading Archaon to General would be fairly expensive, because it automatically gives you access to other Command Abilities in the army.
Actually, now that I think about it, your method is probably better. My method would put a blanket price on all Command Abilities in the army - whether you have 1 Chaos Lord or 5 in your army, Archaons ability would cost the same. However, with your method, you'd have to pay 1-5 times the price, depending on how many Chaos Lords you have, and how many of them you want to be able to use their Command Abilities. So your method would be more accurate - you pay for what you get access to on the battlefield.
I understand the apprehension, but I don't agree with it. I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that not all Warscrolls can be competitively viable in all configurations. But in terms of many characters, I think their Command Abilities make or break them. The Sea Helm is a good example here - without Totem or Command Ability, he's a pile of junk. With either of them, he's strong, and with both of them he's a monster. Totems are already priced for, in fact almost all options in an army are already priced for. Why not Command Abilities as well?
I would like to see allies as well (TBH we allow them anyway); something similar to what Kings of War has could be simple and easy. Maybe... up to 50% of your army can be models from the same grand alliance (no single allied army can make up more than 25%), or you can choose to bring in up to 25% of your army from one other army outside your grand alliance. So if I want to mix in daemons and beastmen and skaven with my WoC army that's fine, but if I want to mix in vampire counts then that's the only ally I can bring.
[edit]
Ninth, I have a hard time seeing how that would be simpler. But I do think both ways could work - using your method, buying Archaons Command Ability would be rather cheap, but you would also have to buy any other Command Ability you want to use. Using my method, upgrading Archaon to General would be fairly expensive, because it automatically gives you access to other Command Abilities in the army.
Actually, now that I think about it, your method is probably better. My method would put a blanket price on all Command Abilities in the army - whether you have 1 Chaos Lord or 5 in your army, Archaons ability would cost the same. However, with your method, you'd have to pay 1-5 times the price, depending on how many Chaos Lords you have, and how many of them you want to be able to use their Command Abilities. So your method would be more accurate - you pay for what you get access to on the battlefield.
I understand the apprehension, but I don't agree with it. I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that not all Warscrolls can be competitively viable in all configurations. But in terms of many characters, I think their Command Abilities make or break them. The Sea Helm is a good example here - without Totem or Command Ability, he's a pile of junk. With either of them, he's strong, and with both of them he's a monster. Totems are already priced for, in fact almost all options in an army are already priced for. Why not Command Abilities as well?
Well I would explain my reasoning but you seem to have done it for me. And the more I think about the option of buying command abilities the more I like it.
I think that as the homebrew comps, including the PPC, didn't fully know what to expect from the game, we put many limitations "just in case" it would break the game, or because it felt like the way it *should* be. Shooting and allies are two of these limitations, along with screening/look-out-sir.
I will talk it over with the rest of the PPC group tomorrow when we meet, and since it seems to be the desire here, we will probably remove the -1 to hit in melee from the PPC comp and balance ranged options if need be from reports.
For allies, the AoS way is to include any allies for any army. That...just don't sit well with us. If we are to remove this limitation from the comp, we need to discuss if it should be removed completely, or as NinthMusketeer pointed out, on a % and faction basis. For example, should Order be ably to ally with Chaos? Do you need one hero from the allied faction, as this is a minimum PPC requirement when you purchase your main force. Should there be a maximum % on how many points you can place in allies?
I would tend to agree with you, it doesn't really sit well with me either. But, I don't think that decision should be up to us, but rather to players playing the game. If a player wants to make a Stormhost of dudes that failed in the casting process and were discarded, then became corrupted and joined Chaos, who am I to say that he can't? If he wants to field them together with a host of daemons, why not let him?
It's also absolutely feasible that an Order army would work together with Orcs for a limited time, or with whatever really. From a lore perspective, few things are impossible. One could even go as far as to say that one likes the rules of an army, but not the look or the lore. So instead of getting units of that army, one could use other units and have them count as that army. It could be undead elves using the HE rules and allying with a TK army, it could be forest beasts borrowing the Sylvaneth rules and allying with Ogres, it could be anything really. If the concept was well thought out and executed, I would have zero problems with this. The only limit is imagination.
What I'm trying to say is, let people play what they want to play. Our concerns here should be balance and good gameplay only, it should not be to dictate what players may or may not do with their own armies. As long as bringing allies doesn't break gameplay, which I don't think it will due to the aforementioned reasons of synergies within lists, then why not allow it? I think mentioning that balance has been designed with single lists in mind is enough, the rest can be left to the preferences of individual gaming groups. After all, it seems like most people are already ignoring the "no allies" thing in the comp anyway (my group included) :p
Indeed, that's why I want it to be a discussion. Right now, the "PPC rules" are that players decide beforehand how to play it, but that the PPC otherwise takes into account that you only use your own army list. This basically just means that the PPC isn't specifically designed for cross-lists, so it's more of a gameplay/balance issue than it is a fluff one.
But if gameplay shows that this clausel is unneccessary or unwanted we can just remove it. Before we remove it alltogher, however, we should discuss every aspect of it.
For me personally, I don't like allies, but my personal preferences have never been meant to be how the PPC is developed.
So the question still stands what should be the official PPC stand on this. And that can only be decided through discussion. If some people choose to use that rule and some do not, that is another question but we need a consensus for it to change officially.
EDIT: The rule came to in the beginning because everywhere people reported about overpowered combos that could be achieved in AoS, by combining X from that army with Y from that army. I don't recall specifically what they were now, and maybe that was all just an expression of the whole AoS hatred that was going on at that time (and at some places still is). So maybe it's just as well to remove that rule, and have TO:s themselves put it in if they want to?
In regards to the discussion on shooting, I still really feel like screening should be -1 to hit, one because cover gives no benefit to units with a save of -, and two because then there is a benefit to being both screened and having cover. Otherwise, the guy half-behind a hedge and the guy who has the tip of his hat visible from behind a boulder in a forest that is partially blocks by a line of troops both get the same benefits. An extreme example to be sure, but ultimately from a realism point of view it makes more sense to have screening be -1 to hit, however more importantly it adds tactical variety.
In regards to the allies discussion, I'd have to look up specifics, but I remember seeing a couple instances of seeing something that could be abused between two otherwise radically opposed armies. That said, given the sheer number of unit options in AoS such combos are rather few and far between. After reading what Solaris just said on the matter he has me convinced that an open-ended ally system would work (at least decently) well. Maybe just a flat rule such as "PPC if balanced based on armies being chosen from one faction. That said, an army can have allies, but the majority of its points must be chosen from the same Grand Alliance." This adds some structure while still being extremely freeform, and is also a preemptive restriction on potentially egregious abuse. Also worth note is that while free-for-all allies can be made fluffy and thematic, that doesn't mean they will be.
Just to play the devil's advocate for a second here, is that added structure actually needed?
I haven't really seen anything abuse worthy to date, so I would love it if you could give me some examples of game-breaking combos between armies. Even so, if a player were to find and abuse such a combo, assuming that the points cost of the combo was not so high that it wasn't an issue anyway, there would still be nothing forcing me to play against the player. For a TO it would make sense to make these types of restrictions, but does it really make sense here?
On the other hand, that could be said about force organization restrictions as well, which I am very firmly for. So, hmm...
Attilla wrote: I think that as the homebrew comps, including the PPC, didn't fully know what to expect from the game, we put many limitations "just in case" it would break the game, or because it felt like the way it *should* be. Shooting and allies are two of these limitations, along with screening/look-out-sir. Edit: oh, and probably that units and terrain count as cover just like the "walls and hedges" warscroll.
I will talk it over with the rest of the PPC group tomorrow when we meet, and since it seems to be the desire here, we will probably remove the -1 to hit in melee from the PPC comp and balance ranged options if need be from reports.
This is an attitude I can get completely behind. I'm personally in favor or changing as little as possible and waiting as long as possible to actually implement suggested changes to avoid knee-jerk reactions and, as you say, basing changes on how things were in previous editions. The only house rules we use (aside from trying to balance with points) are to measure from the bases and to ignore silly charade rules.
The allies thing seems unnecessary because comp like this is likely to be used in a group setting, where people generally don't act like min-maxing douchebags, or in tournaments, where additional restrictions will be needed anyway.
One solution would be to add optional rules for tournament play, where you go all out on restrictions.
For my tournaments we are going to allow allies. This is the way of the future, 40k has already made it canon. AOS has as well by not putting in any restrictions. For our tournaments we will allow allies the one exception being that law and chaos cannot be in the same force. This is really only a fluff decision.
Actually, now that I look at it again, I think the current wording is fine. It already says "Unless agreed on beforehand", which should go for pretty much everything anyway. It's just another way of saying "Points costs have been set based on players using models from a single army list."
Another thing that I want to bring up is the stacking of abilities with the same name. In some cases, such as with the Sea Helm, it's fairly obvious that you don't get any benefits from having more than one nearby. In other cases, such as with the Bloodstoker, the Necrotect or the Mystic Shield spell, it is not completely obvious. And in other cases, like with the Totem of the Tomb Herald, it is fairly evident that one unit can benefit from more of them. In my group we have house ruled that no buffs with the same name stack, ever. It would just be much too easy to break the game otherwise. Imagine a Soul Grinder buffed by two Bloodstokers, or a HE Phoenix with double Mystic Shields cast on it for a +4 save. Yikes. What do you guys think about these things?
Solaris wrote: Actually, now that I look at it again, I think the current wording is fine. It already says "Unless agreed on beforehand", which should go for pretty much everything anyway. It's just another way of saying "Points costs have been set based on players using models from a single army list."
Another thing that I want to bring up is the stacking of abilities with the same name. In some cases, such as with the Sea Helm, it's fairly obvious that you don't get any benefits from having more than one nearby. In other cases, such as with the Bloodstoker, the Necrotect or the Mystic Shield spell, it is not completely obvious. And in other cases, like with the Totem of the Tomb Herald, it is fairly evident that one unit can benefit from more of them. In my group we have house ruled that no buffs with the same name stack, ever. It would just be much too easy to break the game otherwise. Imagine a Soul Grinder buffed by two Bloodstokers, or a HE Phoenix with double Mystic Shields cast on it for a +4 save. Yikes. What do you guys think about these things?
That's why it's incredibly important to take out the buff characters as quickly as possible. And also why a Look Out Sir rule is a bad idea IMO. Stacking gives amazing results but it also depends on keeping those buffs up.
Can you make a new rules document to print off that is the full age of sigmar rules but with the PPC modifications inserted inside at the right points so i can bin the original age of sigmar rules please?
For PPP Comp v0.3 we will scratch the -1 modifier to shooting and melee. Some have spoken for this change, but none has objected. That leads us to believe that the majority either agrees or does not really care enough to speak up against removing it. So consider it done
We will keep Screening for now, though, as that rule needs more testing and there are still people wishing for proper look-out-sir or similar. We have added a small base size description to screening, to make it easier to tell what can screen and what can not.
Allies, lets keep discussing it please. Right now the PPC basically says that it assumes no allies when using it as is, but that players are of course free to use allies if agreed upon beforehand. Should we remove this alltogheter, keep as is, or change to read that PPC's points costs have been calculated and evaluated with no allies in mind but does not prevent players to use allies if they want to?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hettar - that could be done, but I'm not sure there's much meaning until we have agreed on what rule changes to add in the first place
On screening; the current rule is not very clear on units of multiple models (I believe it should be that if the majority of the unit is screened then the whole thing is). I would still change it to -1 to hit rather than cover for reasons mentioned before, I oppose any 'look out sir' rule, however, as heroes' stats have been boosted to account for this (and certain models have similar abilities already as I recall; we don't want to invalidate those).
On allies, the arguments made by others have convinced me that leaving it as-is may simply be the best way. It lets the armies be balanced on their own (very hard to do otherwise) but also specifically lets people know that it's a 'soft' rule. This option also gives a written excuse to avoid people powergaming with multi-army combos. (While I personally think that's a poor choice over confronting the problem directly, my opinion is not shared by all.)
I played a very shooty Skaven list the other day with my Khorne warriors and Bloodbound army, in which I usually include a unit of Flesh hounds.So right from the start you can see I am a strong advocate of allowing allies. The Skaven player had two fat units of Jezzailes, a Plague Catapult, a Warp Lightning Cannon, 2 Poisoned Wind Mortars, and a 20 man unit of Poisoned Wind Globadiers. He also had a Warplock Engineer. He had units of Clan Rats and Stormvermin as well. The only missiles I had were a Chaos Sorcerer and a Chimera. We played the Hold or Die scenario from Age of Sigmar Rulebook. I was the Invader. I knew that my opponent would line his edge of the board so that the best I could do was bring my reinforcements in on a flank. For the first round 1/3 of my army took the full brunt of his missile fire. The game seemed very balanced and even though I lost, I felt that I had a good chance to win until the end. Missile fire was not as heinous as it was in WFB 8th because ranges are shorter. So A hand to hand army vs.a shooty army holds up fairly well. Screening was not needed because my heroes could lurk just out of range until I charged the missile troops with other units. I really don't think screening is needed any more. In the WFB rules people could make neigh invulnerable heroes using magic items. In AOS everything dies and players have to get used to that. It's now more like chess where sometimes you sacrifice the queen to get a win. You can't guarantee that any hero will live, so just make sure he goes out while reeving the foe! The primary reasons that I am against Screening, and not allowing allies is that I want to change the rules a little as possible. Things like measuring base to base are just common sense measures. I don't want my opponent cramming as many of his models on top of my scenic bases (scraping and ruining them) just so he can reach me. Not re-rolling a re-roll and always failing on a 1 also make sense because dice rolls should matter. The only real substantive rule I would make is summoning, and the PPC handles this well. The other thing I am doing differently is tournament scenarios. The old traditional tournament scenarios don't convey the story telling aspect of AOS. I am converting the scenarios in the AOS rulebook for a tournament format. One last thing, how should we handle Battalion Warscrolls? Without a cost I just ban them. Is that similar to what 40K does, or do they allow formations in tournament?
Smellingsalts wrote: Screening was not needed because my heroes could lurk just out of range until I charged the missile troops with other units. I really don't think screening is needed any more. In the WFB rules people could make neigh invulnerable heroes using magic items. In AOS everything dies and players have to get used to that. It's now more like chess where sometimes you sacrifice the queen to get a win. You can't guarantee that any hero will live, so just make sure he goes out while reeving the foe!
I'm a bit confused here because to my eyes this carries a number of contradictions; you mention keeping heroes out of range until enemy missile units are charged, but without a melee penalty or a screening one, the only thing that matters is the number of dead enemies as they will hit you just the same either way. You describe how heroes die more easily, yet this is an argument in favor of making them harder to kill with shooting, not easier. You mention the strategics of chess in an argument favoring the removal of tactical options; unit placement matters much less if screening isn't in play. I (think I) understand the point you are making, but I am fuzzy about the argument you are using to deliver it. Am I missing a piece of the puzzle?
Things like measuring base to base are just common sense measures. I don't want my opponent cramming as many of his models on top of my scenic bases (scraping and ruining them) just so he can reach me.The only real substantive rule I would make is summoning, and the PPC handles this well.
Personally (and to my perception a lot of players have a similar view) the game doesn't make sense when a unit is shooting past the guys hitting them in the face with axes to hit the single model behind them, with no penalty whatsoever. Add this to the more objective sense that removing screening is removing tactical options that were otherwise present. I do prefer having a penalty for being in melee as well, but support the removal of that due to keeping as little changes as possible. I know this is your perspective as well, but ultimately this comp is about making the game more fun, and I feel that removing screening (or some equivalent) makes it less fun in the end. There is a balance to be had between minimal changes and promoting game functionality; for example, PPCs solution to summoning is hardly the most simple out there but I have yet to see a better option.
The other thing I am doing differently is tournament scenarios. The old traditional tournament scenarios don't convey the story telling aspect of AOS. I am converting the scenarios in the AOS rulebook for a tournament format. One last thing, how should we handle Battalion Warscrolls? Without a cost I just ban them. Is that similar to what 40K does, or do they allow formations in tournament?
I agree that the scenarios listed aren't very suited for tournaments (with AoS). Personally I view them as the basic game scenarios rather than actual tournament ones - I feel they would be better presented that way. What do you think? On Battalions, the way we play at my flgs is that battalions are free; the cost is having to bring the exact models listed (which are often slightly less than idea choices). Aside from a few outlying ones (I'm looking at you Daemon Cohort of Tzeentch) I think it works well enough to not be worth messing with on the grounds of making as little changes as reasonably possible. But I don't feel very strongly on that one.
Smellingsalts wrote: I played a very shooty Skaven list the other day with my Khorne warriors and Bloodbound army, in which I usually include a unit of Flesh hounds.So right from the start you can see I am a strong advocate of allowing allies. The Skaven player had two fat units of Jezzailes, a Plague Catapult, a Warp Lightning Cannon, 2 Poisoned Wind Mortars, and a 20 man unit of Poisoned Wind Globadiers. He also had a Warplock Engineer. He had units of Clan Rats and Stormvermin as well. The only missiles I had were a Chaos Sorcerer and a Chimera. We played the Hold or Die scenario from Age of Sigmar Rulebook. I was the Invader. I knew that my opponent would line his edge of the board so that the best I could do was bring my reinforcements in on a flank. For the first round 1/3 of my army took the full brunt of his missile fire. The game seemed very balanced and even though I lost, I felt that I had a good chance to win until the end. Missile fire was not as heinous as it was in WFB 8th because ranges are shorter. So A hand to hand army vs.a shooty army holds up fairly well. Screening was not needed because my heroes could lurk just out of range until I charged the missile troops with other units. I really don't think screening is needed any more. In the WFB rules people could make neigh invulnerable heroes using magic items. In AOS everything dies and players have to get used to that. It's now more like chess where sometimes you sacrifice the queen to get a win. You can't guarantee that any hero will live, so just make sure he goes out while reeving the foe! The primary reasons that I am against Screening, and not allowing allies is that I want to change the rules a little as possible. Things like measuring base to base are just common sense measures. I don't want my opponent cramming as many of his models on top of my scenic bases (scraping and ruining them) just so he can reach me. Not re-rolling a re-roll and always failing on a 1 also make sense because dice rolls should matter. The only real substantive rule I would make is summoning, and the PPC handles this well. The other thing I am doing differently is tournament scenarios. The old traditional tournament scenarios don't convey the story telling aspect of AOS. I am converting the scenarios in the AOS rulebook for a tournament format. One last thing, how should we handle Battalion Warscrolls? Without a cost I just ban them. Is that similar to what 40K does, or do they allow formations in tournament?
Not re-rolling a reroll is already in the four page rules. A 1 always fails though... I'm very hesitant to change it until I've played enough to be VERY sure that it makes the game worse and that 1+ anything is so common that it becomes a big problem. I'm not convinced but we'll see. I agree that summoning needs substantial changes, and we also measure base to base. Unsure about screening yet. I tend to think that all cover should be able to screen, just like the "walls and fences" war scroll. Units, I don't know, I'll probably do like you and let it be.
40k tournaments generally allow formations without cost or penalty.
Oh, I see where you might be confused by my post. Sometimes it is difficult to convey everything in a short text. Basically, what I am saying is that in AOS there are no "unkillable characters" wheras in the old WFB there were, or at least it was very difficult. In AOS you can kill anything if you want to spend the resources to do it. Much of AOS is resource allocation. Having been a victim of the hobby killer character combos of WFB 8th, I like that about the game. So why do I not think screening is needed? Reason #1 Heroes take longer, need more resources to kill (although they can be killed, yeah).
Now it is true that missile weapons can single out Heroes, but I think that's why Heroes have more wounds and better saves. Also, many of the things that use to kill you outright with no save (thinking of you Empire Great Cannon) now allow a save (even at -2 rend I'll take it!). Reason #2 Missile weapons are less effective.
Nothing stops missile troops from firing out of a melee they are in and at something else like a Hero. Nothing except maybe being dead. In old WFB 8th there were missile troops that could also be good fighters (hence my dwarf gunline analogy) in a AOS it seems you either shoot, or melee, but not both. In my example, when I charge a missile troop that is the end of their effectiveness because odds are they will die in droves in that combat, and more of them will disappear during Battleshock. By the time their turn comes around they just won't be effective enough to do much with their shooting, and they generally either flee the combat (so no shooting) or shoot the guys who are beating them down. Reason #3 Missile troops not good in melee, die in droves.
The chess reference was meant to allude to the reality that while chess players value their pieces, they will sacrifice them for a win. Because in our game, we painstakingly paint and model our pieces, build a story around them, and assume their role in battle, we become attached to them. So, unlike chess, we assign value to a game piece that transcends its usefulness in the game. In addition, in WFB 8th if you did not have characters and your opponent did, then you were probably going to lose. Not so in AOS. My units remain capable of winning the game for me, if I have caused enough damage to the other side. Whereas in 8th, a character on a monster could route a whole unit (even with steadfast) in AOS monsters degrade with damage. So what I am saying is that there are left-over assumptions from WFB 8th that do not apply tactically to AOS ie. the sentimentality assigned to a character combined with the possibility of making him very hard to kill, and the fact that in WFB 8th if the other guy had heroes and you didn't it could be game over. Reason #4 Sentimental value makes players feel overly concerned about hero death and the need for screening.
Of course all of my info is anecdotal. Maybe people play differently elsewhere, but I just have not seen missile troops as that much of a problem. If only there were stats to look at. As for your feeling that terrain should screen, at least on the plane of Aqshy it does because clouds of steam on terrain block line of sight past them. Hope that helps, cheers!
The screening rule as-is has both models and terrain screening (though note models from your own unit are ignored for LoS as per normal rules). I think the issue with removing it entirely is the sort of tactic it will result in. To go with the shooters in melee example I'm pretty sure that will end up with multiple lines of small shooting units spaced 3" apart. Sure the enemy charges the first line and butchers them, but all the other lines can fire (right through each other and the enemy, if need be) while the enemy has to kill them one at a time. Even without that, appropriate model placement of a single large unit can let you remove casualties such that no models are within 3" at the start of your turn, allowing them to move back and shoot. Battleshock can be a problem, but lets not forget that shooting causes that as well (and is cumulative with damage from magic & melee). We can leave the shooting as it is and balance points appropriately, but it doesn't seem right to me that shooting units should be inherently better than melee ones (which, without some sort of restriction, they seem to be imo), and it also runs into issues where a shooting unit must spend several rounds shooting in order to be worth its points; if it doesn't it isn't worth the cost, but if it gets a good game in its worth much more. This is of course a factor for anything, but I think the wide variation would cause more unbalanced matches then it would be worth in rule simplicity.
To Mymearan; making a 1 always fail is less about affecting the game as it is and more about nipping potential problems before they start. Mystic shield stacking is the classic example, but it isn't a very good one. For an example from my Nurgle daemons, I know that taking 3 copies of Epidemius (every herald on Palanquin is now an Epidemius (dumb I know)) and killing 21 enemy models will give every nurgle model on the table +3 to saves, giving a 1+ to all my GUO, NDP, Heralds, and any allies I may have brought from WoC. This can go away if you kill them, but they have a 1+ as well. Of course I won't ever do this outside of a silly game, but that's the sort of thing that can be simply addressed by having a 1's always fail rule. Not to mention it seems to be a common house rule anyways (I know my flgs has it).
My League is meeting on Sunday. We will play without screening, and I will gather as much info as I can on shooting effectiveness. I hear what Ninth is saying about spacing out your shooty units. But for every tactic, there is as a counter tactic. I don't know the other army lists that well. But to give two examples of defeating the spacing of missile troops: 1) My Slaughter Priest can force a gun line to run towards me, thereby messing up my opponent;s careful spacing and 2) Any Lord with the Khorne mark can pile in from 6 inches away, so depending on how I place him I can hit the second unit. And that's not including terrain like using a Baleful Gate to appear behind/ near a gun line to set up the charge. We need to hear from more people who may be having trouble with missile troops to assess how dangerous they are. I have a Wood Elf army, maybe I'll break it out and give it a try! Ninth, are you playing pure Nurgle? We have a player that uses pure Nurgle and so far he seems to be doing fine. He puts Plague Bearers in a Death Star and gets the -2 to be hit by missiles. When you add in his 5+ re-rollable save and 5+ endurance, and any bonuses from Epy and he just walks through missile troops. You could also just take a Skull Cannon of Khorne (call it a Bile Cannon to make it fluffy) and give them some of their own medicine!
I don't have problems with missile troops, I'm taking this stance because I think it makes for a better game. There are indeed counter tactics, but naming very specific models to a very general tactic doesn't make for a good example, if I am not playing Khorne then the (valid) options you listed aren't helpful. And tactics is where I feel the benefits of screening show most; it adds tactical positioning in movement that was not present before. With screening, the missile layers tactic I mentioned can still be done to maximize fire at a penalty, but one could also position such that the enemy is not screened by your own troops, while the enemy could also be counter-positioning to screen his important targets. As it is (with screening) I can take advantage of the plaguebearer's ability to use them as screens for heralds on foot, getting the enemy to target more durable models. That is a tactical option that vanishes otherwise.
At the end of the day though, I won't be terribly broken up if everyone opts to remove screening and put shooting back to where it is without any modifications. I understand the need to keep things simple with minimal changes, but I really feel like the comp is better with screening or some equivalent in place than without. Maybe a decent compromise is to put it like this:
"SCREENING: If the majority of a model's base is obstructed by terrain or the base of another model when drawing line of sight for shooting, the former is considered screened. Screened models gain the benefits of cover. A unit is considered screened if all of its models are. Only models from other units can be used for screening. Additionally smaller targets cannot screen larger ones; models do not provide screening for those with more than twice their wounds characteristic."
This is imperfect to be sure, but also simple and unambiguous. What does everyone think?
One idea we had regarding allies was to force all factions present in an army to obey the force organization chart. That way, you cannot only bring a hero with a nice buff spell or high DO or a few war machines as allies, but would have to bring a suitable amount of troops to go with it. What do you guys think?
I think leaving it as "we balanced based on individual armies but feel free to do what you like" is the best option for what people want. I'm second-guessing my opinion on screening as well, for that matter. Thinking that most players who want a bunch of tactical depth are either not playing AoS or are not trying to find it in AoS.
I think that Allies should be used with the same percentages of key words effecting them, so only 25% of your allies can be War machines/Monsters and make it so that the Real general Command abilities do not work on them.
As for Screening i like it as its way better than a look out sir which is basically stealing the necromancers special ability any way, you might argue that people are not playing AoS for tactical depth but i think that's misguided as there's loads of tactical depth in the 4 pages of the rule book and screening just add's to it. By Adding in points and little amendments to the rules we are making it into a competitive game again which is a good thing in my books. In fact i would like to see AoS become as comp'd as 8th fantasy was in the end.
I am still against screening for two reasons. 1) I am against changing the rules unless a rule makes the game unplayable. Summoning in the rules as written made the game unplayable without some kind of restriction. Screening on the other hand is not needed to play. 2) Heroes and other units can survive without screening. For the second point I am assuming the players are playing a scenario and have more terrain on the board than existed in WFB. If you put sparse terrain on the table, and each line up on a side and run at each other, you will have fewer tactical options.
Even with terrain its pretty limited in tactical options (regarding getting cover) because shooting through terrain carries no penalty. Only units with every model on or within terrain get the benefits of cover. If terrain screened I think people would be much less likely to want a rules change (myself included). If it gets changed to make terrain screen, then we might as well add in unit screening since it improves tactical options.
Yet I can see benefits and downsides in equal measure for both options, so I'm too split to really put my vote anywhere now. I'm happy either way at this point.
Just play in the Realm of Fire. All terrain does better than screen, it blocks. Another problem is that some artillery pieces can be fired indirectly (they do not need to see the target). Since screening implies difficulty in picking out your target from blockers, why would you get any screening bonus from something that doesn't need to see you? If that is the case, then armies with indirect artillery just became better than those without (if you add screening). I play Chaos, and I am here to tell you Chaos players don't need any more advantages, but if you really want to make my Hellfire Cannon an expert sniper, you will regret it.
On the other hand, with the PPC screening rules, even the Hellfire loses some of its effectiveness because the target will still get screening bonus from indirect fire. Without these rules, the real benefit will be the weapons that can fire indirectly, since it doesn't matter where you are then. Stand behind a blocking terrain all you want, you'll get no benefit from it if shot by an indirect fire weapon.
With the screening rules, the indirect weapons have their effectiveness toned down because you can actually gain a benefit from hiding from them. That's because it would be harder to calculate the distance needed to hit something if you cant even see the target you need to hit.
Since there isn't a clear majority on whether or not screening should remain in the PPC, we will leave it in for our next update. The -1 to hit for shooting in/out of melee will be gone though.
Smellingsalts wrote: I for one am against splitting command abilities from Heroes and making them an upgrade. I am also against charging separate for the lantern on the Knight Azyeros. Here I am being consistent with my stance on changing the rules. Point costing a unit as a whole is one thing, but allowing for lesser variants without all the bells and whistles is another. If we are truly trying to make the PPC universal, so that it becomes the accepted set of tournament rules (like E.T.C), then we must change only what is absolutely necessary. If the Stormcasts have a high point cost because of all their cool special abilities, or if a Hero has command abilities that make him cost more, then I think that is one of the agonizing choices one will have to make when designing a tournament list. The more that the PPC becomes a set of home brew rules that alter the rules based on what one faction prefers rather than rules as written, the less people will use it.
I don't agree with this at all. Putting separate costs for heroes and heroic abilities are about as far from homebrewing rules as it gets. It's literally no different than putting separate costs for weapon options, totems or command groups. In addition, it simply doesn't make any sense to force players to pay for the command abilities of all their heroes, even though they will only be able to use one due to only having one general. That would just make heroes useless in comparison to other options. Not good game design.
If command abilities are being factored into the price cost of a hero then its fair to say that it has been miscalculated if there not the general or there isnt a way to use the abilities any way.
Smellingsalts wrote: If we are truly trying to make the PPC universal, so that it becomes the accepted set of tournament rules (like E.T.C), then we must change only what is absolutely necessary. If the Stormcasts have a high point cost because of all their cool special abilities, or if a Hero has command abilities that make him cost more, then I think that is one of the agonizing choices one will have to make when designing a tournament list. The more that the PPC becomes a set of home brew rules that alter the rules based on what one faction prefers rather than rules as written, the less people will use it.
What you say has a great deal of merit but is also not the be-all-end-all of PPC. Keep in mind we could tone down the rule changes to literally nothing, even leaving summoning as it is and costing wizards to compensate. That wouldn't be very popular. The strength of PPC is a stronger balance than other comp systems have provided; we could simplify it at the cost of balance but Azyr comp already has that niche covered. With some changes I'm split (like screening) but with command abilities I am less so. Simply put, if we don't separate them then we must price assuming the command ability is being used, meaning models with strong command abilities are now unbalanced as anything but the army general. If we separate it there is a (very small) degree of complexity added, but now we provide a balanced option for that model as the general and not as the general. This flexibility is not something other comp systems provide, and we already have it in regards to command groups, weapon upgrades, etc. Further, there really wasn't a rule change at all since the ability still works the same way; it is simply either present or not present.
As for Battalions, the more I look at them, the more I feel like this was an attempt by GW to give a framework for army building. I think they were meant to be used Battalion vs Battalion with no other models beyond what comes in the Battalion. If you point caost the Battalion, I have a bunch of other questions. If I enter a tournament in which the points I am given exceed the cost of the Battalion, are the extra models in my army also part of the Battalion? If not, why not? If I pay for a Battalion (for it's rules), will the cost for the Battalion take into account other models in the army (if Battalion rules are applied to the whole army, not just what is in the Battalion)? If we say that Battalion rules only apply to models listed in the Battalion, have we just made up a rule that didn't exist previously, as no more models than what's in the Battalion are assumed? This could be a sticky wicket.
It seems to me like all of your questions relate to what models are included in a Battalion. They are good questions, but I don't know of a single battalion that doesn't specify its benefits only applying to models of that battalion. Everything I have read says "models in this battalion..." are there ones that don't?
"This model costs X points, or Y points if it is your general"
Seems simple enough. No need to take away or purchase abilities.
There are problems with that, mainly in the shape of using generals such as Archaon or HE Prince on Dragon that allow other heroes to use their own abilities. The strength of Archaons command ability depends 100% on the strength of the other command abilities present in the army. That would make it very hard to put a cost on using Archaon as general. Most likely the cost would be set assuming the army contains a certain number of other command abilities, and would then be balanced only for battles of certain sizes. Let's say that a 2000 point army has on average 5 heroes, and that the cost of Archaon i based on that. Then Archaon will only be balanced for 2000 point battles. In smaller battles, where you might only have 1-3 heroes, he will be severely underpowered, while in larger battles where you have more than 5 heroes he will be overpowered. It would be possible to have his cost scale with army size, but then we are reaching an unnecessary complexity of army design that will put people off. Associating the cost with the command ability instead circumvents the problem, because then the prize for Archaons ability would be rather low, but to use it effectively you would have to buy command abilities for the other heroes in your army as well.
I don't know. I just don't see the drawback. It's not about modifying or changing rules, it's about adding options to enable fair unit costs. If these options are not added, then all heroes with command abilities that are not used as generals will not have a fair cost. Which will essentially create a system where a lot of heroes are simply not viable. There's no way around that.
Further, there really wasn't a rule change at all since the ability still works the same way; it is simply either present or not present.
I might add that it is already present or not present on the board - it's just a question of whether the option of having it not present in the army list exists.
Okay, in response to Attila regarding screening, I thought the idea behind screening was to add some kind of real world physics to the game. But in the real world, if you are getting a bonus to defense based on difficulty seeing you, and I shoot you with a weapon that doesn't need to see you, then logically you shouldn't get a screening bonus. On the other hand, if you are adding the rule because you think Heroes will get picked off and killed without it, well that just has not been my experience. I can only report on things I have seen and I have not yet seen a reason for screening. Perhaps if someone reading this thread can write about several battles where shooting was so intense that screening was necessary. Everyone who is on the pro-screening side of the argument, maybe some battle descriptions where it was really needed would help. I'm not talking about theory hammer, I'm talking about games you actually watched and/or played where you felt not having screening penalized the losing player.
In response to Solaris regarding separate costs for Command Abilities. In my opinion, Command Abilities are absolutely not like weapon choices and unit upgrades. All of those are listed as options. Possessing a Command Ability is mandatory. You always get it. It is not an option. Further, I believe tournaments are all about list construction and making tough choices. Do you take that cool Hero, even though he might cost more because of Command Abilities you won't be able to use? Or do you go with a more cost effective choice? This is also a way to moderate Lord level characters and steer players towards taking smaller, more cost effective Heroes.
In response to Ninth regarding Command Abilities. I really feel that if a player really wants to be a power gamer and pile on Lord level Hero (and by this I mean Greater Demons, characters riding monsters, characters that are monsters, gods like Nagash, etc.) after Lord level Hero, the fact that he is paying for a bunch of Command Abilities he can't use is a disincentive to this behavior, and I for one do not enjoy playing players that do this in or out of tournaments.
In response to Ninth regarding Battalions, I feel that the rules for Battalions are not really clear. Mainly, I am not sure whether one group of models can satisfy the requirements of two or more battalions. Can one Mighty Lord of Khorne satisfy the requirements for both the Goretide Warband and the Vengeful SkullHunt, for instance?
I would in full disclosure, add that I am a game store owner and I am looking for a balancing system for AOS units, not a set of rules to change it into something else.I really don't care about making the game play differently. In games I play with people that I have been playing with for years, we can add/make up any rules we please. But when you run a store league or a tournament, your pool of players is diverse and I just feel that you should keep rules as written as much as possible. In this spirit, I have read hundreds of reviews and the most common problems cited are unit balance, measuring base to base (most advocate it), summoning, stacking abilities, and failing on a roll of 1 (most want it). Beyond that, I am not interested in rules changes. If the PPC includes a bunch of other rules, then when I run a tournament, I have to write my guidelines like this, " Use the point cost for Warscrolls as listed in the PPC. Use the following rules......, don't use the following rules.....". Hey here is an idea that just occurred to me. What if you just letter all of the rules that are major deviations from rules as written and label them optional. Then, all I would have to do is say,"Use the PPC and the following optional rules: A, C, and F." Best of both worlds guys! Cheers!
Okay, in response to Attila regarding screening, I thought the idea behind screening was to add some kind of real world physics to the game. But in the real world, if you are getting a bonus to defense based on difficulty seeing you, and I shoot you with a weapon that doesn't need to see you, then logically you shouldn't get a screening bonus. On the other hand, if you are adding the rule because you think Heroes will get picked off and killed without it, well that just has not been my experience. I can only report on things I have seen and I have not yet seen a reason for screening. Perhaps if someone reading this thread can write about several battles where shooting was so intense that screening was necessary. Everyone who is on the pro-screening side of the argument, maybe some battle descriptions where it was really needed would help. I'm not talking about theory hammer, I'm talking about games you actually watched and/or played where you felt not having screening penalized the losing player.
For me its not about physics or real lif at all, but to ensure models such as grudge throwers, trebuchets, and even sometimes archers dont need to be priced higher because there is no hiding from them. I have bee on the recieving end of a treb too many times where I just felt it was unbalanced. Sure, it can all be solved by raising costs instead, but that would also limit their uses in smaller games where they would work better if screening is allowed. But I too want to keep rules changes to a minimum, so screening is a tough choice, now that we will slim the PPC Comp by removing shooting penalties in melee.
In response to Ninth regarding Battalions, I feel that the rules for Battalions are not really clear. Mainly, I am not sure whether one group of models can satisfy the requirements of two or more battalions. Can one Mighty Lord of Khorne satisfy the requirements for both the Goretide Warband and the Vengeful SkullHunt, for instance?
Maybe it doesn't say anywhere in the AoS rules (can't check right now) but since the very same thing exists in 40k I'd say its safe to assume it works the same way. You need to have exactly the units listed in the Battalion, and any units in it only count towards tha batallion. One model cannot belong to two battalions, and neither can a model not specifically belonging to a battalion benefit from its bonuses.
I would in full disclosure, add that I am a game store owner and I am looking for a balancing system for AOS units, not a set of rules to change it into something else.I really don't care about making the game play differently. In games I play with people that I have been playing with for years, we can add/make up any rules we please. But when you run a store league or a tournament, your pool of players is diverse and I just feel that you should keep rules as written as much as possible. In this spirit, I have read hundreds of reviews and the most common problems cited are unit balance, measuring base to base (most advocate it), summoning, stacking abilities, and failing on a roll of 1 (most want it). Beyond that, I am not interested in rules changes. If the PPC includes a bunch of other rules, then when I run a tournament, I have to write my guidelines like this, " Use the point cost for Warscrolls as listed in the PPC. Use the following rules......, don't use the following rules.....". Hey here is an idea that just occurred to me. What if you just letter all of the rules that are major deviations from rules as written and label them optional. Then, all I would have to do is say,"Use the PPC and the following optional rules: A, C, and F." Best of both worlds guys! Cheers!
And we truly appreciate your feedback, especially when we do not always agree since that helps the development alot. I can number the rules in the PPC for ease indeed!
To Smellingsalts regarding screening; personally I don't advocate for it because heroes are easily picked off, and I'm not sure anyone here is. I advocate for it because it adds tactical options, some semblance of realism, and perhaps more importantly makes shooters easier to balance since it reduces the spread of performance. But I also think this is where your argument for rules simplicity is very strong, because this is an extra rule and is one where things can be made balanced without it. Regardless, numbering the rules is a very good idea.
tournaments are all about list construction and making tough choices
That's true, but the problem we are seeing isn't tough choices, its not having them. The Sea Helm example, for instance. You will take him as the general or not at all. There isn't a tough choice to be made since he simply is not cost effective without being able to use his command ability. The argument about stacking powerful heroes is somewhat irrelevant since many powerful heroes have relatively crappy command abilities (GUO -.-) or even none at all (Skarbrand), while some cheaper heroes have really good command abilities (Orc Warboss). Using the latter example, say I want to pad out my Orc force with some extra heroes for combat punch in a tournament; I will never use an Orc warboss because without the command ability he will be hugely overcosted. Its not a tough choice at all. Now if I could take said warboss without the command ability, then I would have to choose between more of those or other heroes that may or may not do the job better. Having command abilities separate adds choice that was simply not present before.
For reference to everyone (ok maybe mostly me) so we don't have to keep looking these up;
Sea Helm command ability: Target Highborn within 16" cant move or charge this turn but re-rolls hits, wounds, and saves until your next hero phase.
Great Unclean One command ability: Nurgle Daemons that roll a 7 to charge this turn get +1 attack on each of their weapons in the ensuing combat phase.
Orc Warboss command ability: All Orruk units from your army within 12" get +1 attack with each of their weapons in the ensuing combat phase.
I feel that the rules for Battalions are not really clear. Mainly, I am not sure whether one group of models can satisfy the requirements of two or more battalions. Can one Mighty Lord of Khorne satisfy the requirements for both the Goretide Warband and the Vengeful SkullHunt, for instance?
The rules aren't clear, that's for sure. That said, I'm pretty certain that models can't satisfy the requirements for more than one battalion because otherwise there is nothing to stop me from taking forty thousand copies of the same battalion and having the given models satisfy the requirements for all of them. But it might be worth just defining in the PPC that the assumption is made that a given unit can only be counted for membership of one battalion warscroll, and similarly a given battalion can only be counted for membership of one multi-battalion warscroll.
I still feel that separating Command Abilities from Heroes is the same as making up new Warscrolls and does not belong in the body of the PPC rules, but perhaps as an optional rule it could work. I for one would never allow a Hero without his Command Ability in any tournament I run for the same reason that I would not allow a Warscroll a player made up at home in the tournament. That is really straying from the path and I would urge the PPC not to incorporate it as official. It sucks, but I think the other armies are just going to have to wait their turn and then I am sure they will get a plethora of characters, just as the Stormcasts and Bloodbound did.
In response to Solaris regarding separate costs for Command Abilities. In my opinion, Command Abilities are absolutely not like weapon choices and unit upgrades. All of those are listed as options. Possessing a Command Ability is mandatory. You always get it. It is not an option. Further, I believe tournaments are all about list construction and making tough choices. Do you take that cool Hero, even though he might cost more because of Command Abilities you won't be able to use? Or do you go with a more cost effective choice? This is also a way to moderate Lord level characters and steer players towards taking smaller, more cost effective Heroes.
In response to Ninth regarding Command Abilities. I really feel that if a player really wants to be a power gamer and pile on Lord level Hero (and by this I mean Greater Demons, characters riding monsters, characters that are monsters, gods like Nagash, etc.) after Lord level Hero, the fact that he is paying for a bunch of Command Abilities he can't use is a disincentive to this behavior, and I for one do not enjoy playing players that do this in or out of tournaments.
I think that the best way to prevent lord stacking is through force organization. In a 2000 point battle, you already cannot bring Nagash due to him costing more than 50% of your alotted points. In addition, by setting points costs for other units well, lord stacking simply won't be an effective strategy.
I agree with you that at least part of tournament play is list building. But for that to be the case, there needs to be options - if there are no options, then all lists from the same faction in a tournament will look the same. Lord level characters are not the ones that will suffer in your preferred system, hero level characters with command abilities will. Ninth has already given some examples of that, so I'll just add some reasoning to it. The Sea Helm, for example, has a really crappy profile. Without a totem or command ability, he's worth maybe 40-50 points in my opinion - basically a glorified unit champion. With his totem (+1 to wound for all highborn within 8", and all sea guard within 16") his strength shoots through the roof, and he's easily worth 80-90 pts. His command ability is also strong, and probably worth 20 pts more. So then we end up with a hero level character that in your system costs 20 pts too much if he's not your general. That's about 20% too much. He's never going to be used. And there are other heroes like him, heroes that would be cool and flavourful to use as supporting characters for your infantry blocks (I think it would be cool to throw in a cheap Sea Helm for 40 pts and just let him run together with a Sea Guard unit, to add a tiny bit of punch and a lot of flavour to the unit). But in your system that doesn't exist. It's general or bust. The 20 point price difference is quite harsh for weak hero level characters like the Sea Helm (+20% cost), but paying 20 pts extra for a lord level characters is not nearly as big a problem. You can easily take a Mortarch and pay 20 pts extra - that's only a 3-4% price increase, so it's not nearly as big a problem. So your suggestion doesn't penalize lord level characters nearly the same as it penalizes hero level characters.
I'm really liking Smellingsalt's idea of numbering the rules. I'm thinking of something where every modification has a number with a note at the top saying points are based on the following rules being in play, but feel free to customize. 1 could be base2base measurement with 2 being auto-fail 1's since those are both simple and unlikely to have a lot of disagreement, followed by 3 for summoning, 4 for screening, and 5 for command abilities. The screening rule could even say something simple along the lines of "if screening is not used, add +1 ppm to all non-hero units with a shooting attack, or +2 if the models have 3 wounds each or more" to help balance for people who want to play without it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm really liking Smellingsalt's idea of numbering the rules. I'm thinking of something where every modification has a number with a note at the top saying points are based on the following rules being in play, but feel free to customize. 1 could be base2base measurement with 2 being auto-fail 1's since those are both simple and unlikely to have a lot of disagreement, followed by 3 for summoning, 4 for screening, and 5 for command abilities. The screening rule could even say something simple along the lines of "if screening is not used, add +1 ppm to all non-hero units with a shooting attack, or +2 if the models have 3 wounds each or more" to help balance for people who want to play without it.
I honestly don't see the point of this. If this was implemented, we would suddenly have 3-4 different systems to try and balance, rather than 1 unified system. Wouldn't it be better to keep rule changes as bare bones as possible, and use points costs to achieve balance? Then everyone can just add house rules for screening and so on as they see fit, whereas the official PPC only remedies things that break the game (summoning for instance).
Solaris, I'm with you, but it seems that some people feel very strongly that changes to the game should be made based on preference rather than need. Without advocates of a more conservative "rules as written" approach posting so that it becomes obvious that changing the rules should be kept to a minimum, the best we can hope for is a bare bones set of rules with an "optional rules" appendix. At this point in the development of the game there are hundreds of people working on balancing systems, either successfully (with points) or still trying to fit a square peg in a round hole (Warscrolls and wound counts). One of them will eventually break out and it will be the most balanced system with the fewest changes to the "rules as written". I really appreciate all of the hard work that Attila and the others have done on the PPC and I am a huge advocate of the system. But the more it deviates from the rules, the less likely it will break out from the pack and become universally referenced. I know for a fact that the lfgs down the street from me knows about the PPC and is doing their own rules anyway. Why do you think that is? Either they think they can balance it better (hard to believe as they have not playtested it) or there is something in the PPC rules that they did not like. Individuals and stores can always add the things they like to a system, but once something is made part of the official rules, it is hard to subtract. I am going to be in charge of the AOS for the Broadside Bash in San Diego and right now I think PPC is the system I am going to use, as long as I can keep it as close to "rules as written" as possible. I have been to a lot of tournaments, both as an organizer and a player. If you change a game rule you are without a doubt going to get poor sportsmen who will whine about the change you made to all who will listen. But if you stick to the rules, then they can just vent their anger on GW and not your event!
Smellingsalts wrote: If you change a game rule you are without a doubt going to get poor sportsmen who will whine about the change you made to all who will listen. But if you stick to the rules, then they can just vent their anger on GW and not your event!
This is a really, really good point. Enough for me to cast my vote in favor of no screening.
Anyways, I think I did a poor job communicating what I meant to say. I wasn't arguing in favor of screening (just giving an example of it since it is currently included), and I wasn't suggesting a modular system. Instead, just number/categorize all the rules (much like they are already) that are used in PPC so people can easily say "lets play PPC but without rule 4" or "this tournament uses PPC, but only rules 1-3" while everything is still balanced based on all the rules being present. The +x ppm thing was an idea on giving people guidelines if they choose to omit a given rule but on second thought it doesn't really add much.
After having read all opinions and done alot of thinking about Screening myself, I will talk to the rest of the group next time we meet. It will probably go away, as PPC aim for as few changes to the rules as possible - and Screening does change the game. In my personal view both screening and -1 hit to shoot in melee are very good addons that brings tactical decisions to the game, but since they are not originally part of AoS and we can balance cost without them, there is no need for them. Time will tell, but maybe its just as easy as lowering cost for heroes and increasing for ranged. Or maybe the cost works out anyway. We'll see.
So for future games of PPC, please play without screening and let me know (in the points thread) how ranged units do with their current cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now that I am closing in on finishing the v0.6 update of Daemons of Chaos, I have a suggestion I'd like some input on.
As of now, you purchase one of a few summoning spells for one of your wizards. Each spell succeeds on a set value and summons a set points value accordingly. I'd like to combine these spells into just one with a variable casting value. So, each time you cast the spell, you select how difficult it will be to cast and depending on your choice you get a number of points to summon.
So there would for example only be "The Grand Invocation" that has a casting value of 7/8/9/10 and summons 100/130/150/200 pts of models. I think this would be a way to make the summoning more flexible and easier to use, but is there any negative side to this in your opinions?
I have been very depressed today, and I don't really know what to do about it. I am the sponsor of the biggest GW tournament in San Diego, called the Broadside Bash. In previous years I have not been a part of the actual running of the tournament, but this year was different. With the death of WFB and the advent of AOS, there was a question about what to do at the Broadside Bash. 3 out of 5 of us have joined the crowed that have registered their anger by switching to Kings of War. In addition, the founders of the Broadside Bash are friendly with the guys at Frontline. Frontline are the designated representatives for the West Coast Masters Tournaments, the largest being the Las Vegas Open. The members of the Masters Tournament voted to replace WFB with KOW. Basically, the entire structure of tournaments that once supported WFB coast to coast have moved to KOW. Now I convinced my friends to stick with GW, that I could use the PPC to run a successful AOS tournament. I have been advocating for AOS across Dakka Dakka. But even on threads where fans of AOS gather to talk about it, I am bombarded by people trolling AOS and pushing KOW. It made me second guess myself. I gave GW a call and talked to my contact there. Here are the things he basically said. First, GW is a miniatures company. They are not really interested in designing games. GW doesn't care if KOW is successful, even over AOS. As long as people buy their figs they are fine with it. When AOS first came out, my GW rep said that the US trade team was called into a meeting where they were told AOS would be for tournament players as well as casual. With all of the hype going on I went ahead and bought into AOS. Now that I have, my contact at GW says that AOS is for the casual crowd. If tournament rules are created by players, great, but they aren't going to do it. Nor are they going to support the tournament scene, or help those of us who are. In fact, I was told that at GWHQ it's all about Tau right now and I should get ready for a whole lot of 40K. So my friends are choosing KOW over AOS. The tournament scene is doing the same. GW does not care and can't be bothered to support the retailers who bought into AOS, they made a quick buck off of us. I will continue to play AOS, but for the good of the Broadside Bash I may have to switch to KOW, and that sucks. Really, the worst part about it was the way GW just pivoted from AOS to 40K and is leaving it to founder until after the new year. I know this is a thread about PPC Comp. I guess this fits in under the subset, should we even keep trying?
That sounds pretty bad there smellingsalts, I can tell that you're venting. Did he say anything about prize support etc? Didn't you write in the other thread that you did get such support from GW? Or was that someone else? About the 40k stuff, that's expected. They have two games to support and it's been all AoS since July, which has left the 40k players out in the cold and chomping at the bit for new stuff. We don't know that it'll be 40k only until the new year, could be AoS again in November or December. But obviously there will be new AoS stuff later, and a lot of it. I don't think all they wanted was a "quick buck", or they wouldn't have made such a huge commitment to AoS!
Yeah, I understand your frustration Smellingsalts, but I agree with Mymearan. They made a huge commitment by even creating AoS in the first place, and from what I've heard, AoS is selling way better than WHFB did the last 5-10 years. They're not going to haphazardly abandon it.
As for game design, I'm actually happy that they've taken a step back and not tried to balance the game. Because historically, they have been crap at it anyway. I've been deterred from playing the last couple of WHFB editions because they simply weren't fun to play for me. They didn't scale well between different army sizes, they contained too much overpowered bs magic that could end the game on turn one, army books were blatantly imbalanced depending on who had written them, etc etc... Now, for the first time, we actually have the opportunity to do it ourselves! It's awesome Don't despair, it's fine if it starts off small. As long as we design a system that is fun to play, it will grow on people. And heck, even if it doesn't, then we still have a fun game to play!
I understand why the competitive scene switched to KoW; it is the same type of game as WHFB while AoS is not. AoS is certainly a casual skirmish game and no comp is really going to change that, but if we make it balanced at least there can be tournaments. They won't be prestigious and shouldn't be highly structured, but I believe AoS players will be much more receptive (and even prefer) more narrative or scenario-driven tournaments. Something like playing within a certain realm adds global rules that seriously change the meta; in a WHFB or WMH tournament players would grumble about that but in AoS I think even those same players would be happy to roll dice and have fun. Because neither style is right or wrong and despite internet extremism most people know that on some level.
In short, it doesn't have to be AoSorKoW, especially because they aren't even the same type of wargame. AoS probably won't be as successful in terms of formal events but lets not forget that fast food chains outsell full service restaurants.
I guess I am most upset about the way GW is supporting AOS. With WFB in the beginning, they ran Grand Tournaments, they advertised independent store events in White Dwarf, they had Rogue Trader tournament packets that stores could purchase to hype their events (and they included trophies). They had Outriders that went to conventions and traveled to obscure locations to do in store demos. The power of their games didn't just appear over night. They worked at it. At some point they decided that the fans were running it on it's own and gave up control to the fans. The problem is now those fans are angry and they are voting with their loyalty and switching to KOW. The entire infrastructure that GW created is shifting. It took GW 20 years of effort to create it and they are just letting it go. I don't feel that I alone have the resources to create the infrastructure. To a certain extent the internet can connect people, but it can't focus them. For instance, I choose to promote PPC in my area and run AOS, but someone else does the same but goes with Gates of Azeyr for his balancing tool. Another guy runs an AOS tournament, but uses the comp rules from GW World. None of us know about each other. We can't decide on which comp tool to use. GW will supply prizes, but that's it. No help with advertising, no tournament packs, hell, GW is even against what we are doing because they're saying AOS is for casual play. Meanwhile Mantic is doing all of the above and they have taken the infrastructure. There is some hope. GW could change it mind, but it takes months if not years to put programs in place. The US Masters are going with KOW, but in Europe, the ETC are going with their own creation, Warhammer Fantasy 9th Edition. So their scene is also fractured and there will not be a "World" competition. GW's attitude just sucks. And there isn't even a way to contact them to tell them.
I've read about your feelings, and I can agree with them - GW have a true chance at creating something really good with AoS, but need to make sure they don't lose it to KoW or other good games by making bad decisions and not communicating! My own group also got close to KoW before we decided on AoS, and we are people who have enjoyed Warhammer for a long time!
But I believe that in time, AoS will grow a healthy community as well!
-------------------------------
And now something different:
I'm thinking about making a PPC version of a FAQ, would this be of interest? I don't mean me and my own judging rules, but instead trying to summarize what the community seems to agree on, as well as things we can discuss here on this thread. That way we can together create a PPC that deals with many of the question that often arises.
So a listing of which community rules PPC costs by? That would be a good thing to include. On a similar note, I was wondering about if the Soul Grinder's caught by the claw ability is considered to go off automatically (because its a 'silly rule') or if it's priced off a 1/6 chance (chance of doubles on 2d6). I assume the latter but want to make sure.
On a different note, I thought of an alternate way to do scaling point cost units; break them into multiple entries. Using Plaguebearers as an example, they would have a 'regiment' of 10 that can add models for 8ppm but has a maximum size of 20. Then a second entry would be a 'horde' that comes as 20 and can add models for 12ppm with max. What do you guys think?
Question; does the PPC use sudden death rules? It seems like those were GW's (utterly failed) attempt at bringing some semblance of balance, which isn't needed since that is the entire -point- of PPC (c wut i did dere?). But my local league gets rid of them anyway, so I never actually thought to ask.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So a listing of which community rules PPC costs by? That would be a good thing to include. On a similar note, I was wondering about if the Soul Grinder's caught by the claw ability is considered to go off automatically (because its a 'silly rule') or if it's priced off a 1/6 chance (chance of doubles on 2d6). I assume the latter but want to make sure.
On a different note, I thought of an alternate way to do scaling point cost units; break them into multiple entries. Using Plaguebearers as an example, they would have a 'regiment' of 10 that can add models for 8ppm but has a maximum size of 20. Then a second entry would be a 'horde' that comes as 20 and can add models for 12ppm with max. What do you guys think?
The Soul Grinder has a 1/6 chance. I'd say the silly rules only apply to non-chance rules that requires you as a player to be or do something special to achieve the result.
The breaking of scaling points could well be an idea. Maybe it's possible to combine the current system with the one you say, so the entry reads as a min-max unit and an associated cost/model. I'll think about that one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Question; does the PPC use sudden death rules? It seems like those were GW's (utterly failed) attempt at bringing some semblance of balance, which isn't needed since that is the entire -point- of PPC (c wut i did dere?). But my local league gets rid of them anyway, so I never actually thought to ask.
Well, "officially", the PPC has its own set of scenarios, neither which uses the Sudden Death. As you say, its the GW way of trying to balance things out and it just doesn't work...maybe even less so when using points costs as well.
We will begin creating some better scenarios to use soon, that's not as static as the current ones. Feel free to chime in with scenario ideas!
I think an assassination/banner seize scenario would be cool. Something like normal victory points, but generals and standard bearers are worth more. Also one or more 'lopsided' scenarios where each side is balanced but not identical (like an attacker-defender situation) would be nice to see. Potentially have more exotic scenarios set in a given realm, though that may need to wait for more realm rules to come out. Anything that makes use of certain terrain features (those with warscrolls) would be cool to include as well.
How do you guys think about removing the Warmachine/Monster limitation?
We've started to feel that it's not really filling a function - as long as the units are properly costed and the Engineer type units can not be abused for warmachines, you should have the freedom of creating your army as you wish. Would it be abuseable if we removed this non-RAW limitation, and how?
I think it would allow for abuse, particularly in low points games. Say 1000 points, I bring two thundertusks. Aside from the likely reality that no one wants to fight two thundertusks at 1000 points, any opponent without the proper counter (very likely in small games) is screwed. Or I am if they countered with four hellcannons. I don't think this is the type of game we want to promote. Of course the argument of relying on people to be reasonable applies here, but then those people are the least likely to have issue with the restriction in the first place.
I have been comparing balancing systems across the board, and they all seem to include limitations on summoning and limitations on Heroes, Warmachines, and Monsters. If that many people seem to intuitively agree on the same thing, I think it has merit. Remember, in RAW,if you place a bunch of monsters I can match them monster for monster or just keep placing units on the board until I feel the sides are fair, but the PPC will be used for leagues and tournaments where your army will be pre-set. No additions, change outs or sideboards. There needs to be a common agreement on what is fair in the majority of games.
Please do not get rid of the monster/war machine & hero restrictions, this leads to the worst kinds of army's.....the ones that do not even look like army's!
Don't worry, it'll stay. Always good to evaluate these things from time to time, and as long as it can be argued why it should stay it will stay
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thanks for your input everyone. I'm about to update the comp pack and this was the final possible change before I do.
Smellingsalts wrote: I noticed that there is no cost listed for a Blood Warrior Standard Bearer, could you update that please?
Next week all lists will be updated in one major list update, with a much needed facelift as well. This update essentially means we've reached 1.0 (yay!)
I'll wait for that before updating the Bloodbound, but in the mean time the Icon Bearer is 10pts.
Smellingsalts wrote: Well,what someone does in a one-off game is fine with me. You can't use one or two people's anecdotal stories to justify a change like that though. Ninth knows what I am about to say, but to be clear, I have been involved with the biggest 40k/WFB tournament in San Diego for about four years now. As I am the sponsor, I do not make judge decisions, but I do hang out with them during the tournament and I hear them field all kinds of questions and decisions. I am also an active tournament player myself. Ninth, I know you are not a tournament player, so a change like this seems simple. But wait till you have to listen to the whining that will come when someone is beaten using rules that let you split command abilities. I know you don't want to listen to it, one of the reasons you don't play in tournaments. I don't want to listen to it either. And believe me, all you guys who want to play split lists don't want to hear the whining from people who you beat with a modified list. I did not know about the Daemon weapon that was given an optional attack when it should be mandatory. But I would argue that needs to change too. Yes, we have changed some rules, but the changes are based on the question "Can you play this game without the rule change?" We aren't trying to write AOS 2nd Edition. We are just trying to balance the existing warscrolls. Things like summoning were so broken the game was unplayable without the change. Things like measuring base to base are acceptable because players don't want to risk damage to their models or bases by piling them on top of each other. But you can play the game just fine without splitting command. So if you want to split command in your own personal games, and you have an opponent that will let you, then have fun. But coming from the background I do, I would never allow it, and for my own league I will have to add a line that if a thing is not optional on the warscroll itself, it's not optional. I am a firm believer in not changing the rules as written. That way, tournament players can be angry at GW and not the tournament organizer. It is better for the longevity of your tournament.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and it is the same as taking armor off Blood Warriors, in both cases you are creating something that is not an option on the original warscroll.
The thing that you don't seem to realize is that many heroes are virtually impossible to balance without splitting command abilities. The same hero can be godlike when used as a general, and garbage otherwise. You would have it cost the same in both cases. This is flat out bad game design. I don't see why it would lead to whining, since it is impossible to miss - you see the points cost attached to the command abilities when building your list. You cannot be beaten because of "using rules that let you split command abilities", because you have the same possibility yourself, and it is evident straight from the points cost document.
You say that summoning was so broken that it needed to be addressed. I would argue that making a large number of hero-type warscrolls useless is equally game breaking.
You say that taking away armor is the same as making command abilities optional. It is not. In any given game you will always benefit from armor. While you could argue for or against making armor optional, it is an integral part of a warscrolls profile, and regardless of what type of army or battle you play you will have the benefit of it. This is not the same in the case of command abilities. You either get the benefit or you don't, and this is decided while building the list. And whether you get it or not, you still have to pay for it.
The only alternative that I can see is to attach a cost to upgrading a hero to general. This is essentially the same thing as separating command abilities, except that it does not in any way alter the warscrolls. However, it is a strictly inferior option, due to a few oddball command abilities in the game (Archaon, HE Prince on dragon, possibly a few others). I believe that one of these two options (pricing command abilities, or pricing generals) has to be implemented, because they already exist on the gaming table. As Ninth said, the warscrolls do exist in the game without command abilities - every time you field a hero that is not your general, you use the warscroll without its command ability. This is a game mechanic. Not taking it into account in unit pricing is, frankly, absurd.
"The thing that you don't seem to realize is that many heroes are virtually impossible to balance without splitting command abilities. The same hero can be godlike when used as a general, and garbage otherwise. You would have it cost the same in both cases. This is flat out bad game design. I don't see why it would lead to whining, since it is impossible to miss - you see the points cost attached to the command abilities when building your list. You cannot be beaten because of "using rules that let you split command abilities", because you have the same possibility yourself, and it is evident straight from the points cost document.
You say that summoning was so broken that it needed to be addressed. I would argue that making a large number of hero-type warscrolls useless is equally game breaking.
You say that taking away armor is the same as making command abilities optional. It is not. In any given game you will always benefit from armor. While you could argue for or against making armor optional, it is an integral part of a warscrolls profile, and regardless of what type of army or battle you play you will have the benefit of it. This is not the same in the case of command abilities. You either get the benefit or you don't, and this is decided while building the list. And whether you get it or not, you still have to pay for it.
The only alternative that I can see is to attach a cost to upgrading a hero to general. This is essentially the same thing as separating command abilities, except that it does not in any way alter the warscrolls. However, it is a strictly inferior option, due to a few oddball command abilities in the game (Archaon, HE Prince on dragon, possibly a few others). I believe that one of these two options (pricing command abilities, or pricing generals) has to be implemented, because they already exist on the gaming table. As Ninth said, the warscrolls do exist in the game without command abilities - every time you field a hero that is not your general, you use the warscroll without its command ability. This is a game mechanic. Not taking it into account in unit pricing is, frankly, absurd."
Actually, I do realize that some heroes are garbage without their command ability. And if you want to play that hero it sucks. But what else is new? Players of WFB have been crying about their Army books and how much they suck since the beginning of WFB ( I know I played Dark Elves and I was one of them for many years). The point I am trying to make is that you're just going to have to wait until GW gets to your Army Book. The solution to imbalances has never been "Hey, the heroes in my Army book suck, so I'm going to make new ones." You could argue that the ETC tried balancing armies with a different points structure than GW, but they had the benefit of all (or at least the majority) of the armies books being released. If you want to split abilities in a tournament that you run, awesome, do it. You will have to explain the reasons for your deviation from the PPC, and maybe they will be fine with it. But if you make it part of the PPC, then you are forcing me to use it, or you are making me the guy that has to deviate from the rules. You could also argue that in the rules as written, since there are no balancing factors other than Sudden Death and how many figures you want to put on the table, you essentially are not penalized by the rules for having heroes on the table that are not using Command abilities. You are, however, punished by your opponent who can place as many models as he feels necessary to counteract your use of heroes. The other question I have, if your heroes are garbage without command abilities, why are you arguing to get rid of them so hard? They're garbage without the command ability, right? No. They have an ability you want really bad, but the extra Command ability cost makes it not worth it to you. But your opponent may not see it that way. To him, the only thing keeping you from making killer combos is the cost. And these are the guys who are going to complain about spliting Command costs.
As far as heroes being broken, no one in my area at least has told me the reason they don't play AOS is because they can't split costs. Not one.
On the armor rule, perhaps I am being a little sarcastic. As you say, you don't benefit from the command ability, but as people who have played me know, my dice roll horribly and I assure you I do not benefit from armor. If possible I would rather buy naked troops, but more of them, rather than armored troops. But I don't get to create new Warscrolls to suite my fancy.
The alternative to splitting command is to not do anything and let players make their choices. As I said, the part of the game that allows you to take as many heroes as you want, so that command abilities don't matter, also allows me to take any and all models I deem necessary to counteract your heroes. This would manifest itself as a points bonus for me to buy more stuff to counter you in PPC. As this is the same as making your heroes cost more if they have command abilities, I don't see how it is "absurd."
In an effort to keep things civil, I'm going to boil this down to the basic logic. Salts mentioned not using anecdotal evidence so I will leave that part of the discussion out for now.
-Command abilities should be split to improve the balance of different hero choices and allow for more army building options. This is because heroes which are not the general do not get to use their command abilities, and and thus should not have to pay for them.
-Command abilities should not be split because it changes the warscrolls, something we want to avoid when it does not significantly impact balance.
-Havimg combined abilities does significantly impact balance because many heroes are very poor choices when not using their command ability, thus those options are highly unbalanced except when being used as the general.
This is what it boils down to. Smellingsalts, I do not see where you have addressed the last point directly. Keep in mind I am trying to leave anecdotal evidence out here.
I'm arguing to be able to use heroes without having to pay twice their worth for an ability I will not have access to. I'm arguing for the sake of being able to take a cheap warboss, give him a weapon upgrade and run him in a unit of boyz as a way of giving them a little bit more punch. I'm arguing for the ability to take a crappy sea helm with a trident and putting him together with my sea guard, for the sake of fluff and rule of cool. I'm arguing for a pricing system where this might not be competitive, but at least somewhat viable.
I'm arguing for a system where all options can be viable under the right circumstances. I'm arguing for a system where you pay for what you get on the table, no more and no less. I'm arguing against a system where there are 20 options, but only 4 are really viable because of a crappy game design and balance philosophy.
In a traditional GW game there are always 2-4 armies that are miles ahead of the rest, and that completely dominate the top 20 of any given tournament. These armies are usually the ones with the most recent Army Book updates. In a traditional GW game there are also always a limited number of heroes, units and magic items that are viable competitively - the rest of the army entries are simply overpriced for what they bring to the table. This has always been the case with GW. It's a sloppy, lazy and really bad philosophy on game design and balance.
This, and stupid gameplay (doomsday spells and death stars) that remove depth of tactics from the gameplay is what has deterred me from playing much the last 6-7 years (I have usually tried out every new edition at least 10-15 games before discarding it for bad gameplay).
If you are into competitive online gaming at all, you'll know that the vibrant and popular games are proactively balanced on a regular basis, to ensure good gameplay. In contrast, any competitive game that does not do this fails, without exception. GWs strategy for preventing the game from going stale seems to be to release a bunch of new stuff with escalating power levels, making old releases redundant. This is what they have always done, and is smart because it forces people to buy their new stuff. But it also results in dumb and unbalanced gameplay.
However, for the first time we have the possibility to change this. By creating a good balancing system, we can prevent the gameplay from becoming stupid (by changing summoning for instance), we can prevent half the entries in an Army Book from being useless (by adjusting their points costs until they're just right, by charging extra for upgrading a hero to general or for the ability to use command abilities). In short, we can create a fun and well balanced game, where a five year old army can compete with a new one because we've done the balancing properly.
In my mind, this is the whole point of balancing to begin with. Now, what you're arguing for is a system where heroes are inherently unbalanced, where there is always a clear best choice of what to bring to the table. I am not interested in playing a game like that, much like I am not very interested in playing vanilla AoS where there is no semblance of balance whatsoever. If this can be prevented by such a small change as making Command Abilities pay-to-use, much like summoning is now pay-to-use, then I am all for making that small change.
I hear what both of you are saying, believe me, I do. But we are not creating a friendly play at home system. I believe that Attila is trying to create a competitive system to be used at tournaments. I think within your store leagues and non-competitive games you should play it the way you like. I just feel that if you are making tournament rules that you want the greater community at large to adopt, you have to deviate from rules as written as little as possible. Now in the league I run, not one person has come to me and said I can't play AOS because the heroes with command abilities cost too much. That's me, and anecdotal to my store. But before I settled on PPC, I searched the net for all of the comp systems that I could find. Azyer comp was really terrible at balancing Ogre armies, and the others tried to balance Warscrolls by type and wounds which was just too broad. But one thing that was universal to all of them was a modification to summoning. So I accept that that part of the game needed to be fixed. The same holds true for not stacking spells/abilities and always failing on a roll of 1. I also saw that most had changed measurement to base to base. That also seemed reasonable because being a modeler myself I did not like the idea of people cramming and stacking model bases into/on top of mine. I spend time modeling my bases and I don't want them destroyed. So that seemed reasonable to me. Things that are not reasonable to include in the PPC include wishlists (things that are not in the rules or warscrolls), This is the major area where Ninth and I disagree. Ninth almost always mentions the need to inckude a change to allow more tactical opportunity. But that is not the job of the PPC. The PPC exists to balance lists for which GW gave no points. And I will allow that it includes rules that make summoning playable. But I believe that that should be it. Outside of a tournament, players can make up any rules they like; rules for cover, shooting into and out of combat, splitting command costs, look out sir for heroes, whatever. But that is not the job of the PPC. I have a compromise. Next week the Lizardmen are supposed to get an army book. Let's wait and see what changes are made to that army. If the majority of heroes are Commanders, then I will agree to splitting Command abilities. But if they make a bunch of heroes (like in the Stormcast and Bloodbound books) then I believe that will be the trend and splitting will not be necessary. I hear what you are saying Solaris, you just want to use your dang Lothern hero with your Lothern troops!. Fluffwise I get it. But we can't change the balancing system to suite one man's fluff.
I get what you are saying, and I agree to a certain point: rule changes should be kept to a minimum necessary. I do, however, think that this change is necessary. It's not about me wanting to use my dang Sea Helm with my dang Sea Guard, though that is a neat side effect of the change. It's about making heroes playable in other roles than as generals. It's about creating tactical diversity for players, something that will benefit casual and tournament play alike.
I get what you say about waiting for ones turn, but I don't agree with it. This is the way of old, and the reason for the power creep of new Army Books and Codices in other GW games. If an old army has severely reduced options due to outdated heroes with command abilities, that old army will be weaker than a new one that has other options. I think that is bad. I think every army should be balanced and playable competitively at every step of the way. I don't think any player should have to wait for five years or more before their army is finally updated and able to compete with its contemporaries.
Of course I am curious to see what the Lizardmen release will look like. But even if it is as you say, that the trend is to create heroes with other abilities than command abilities, this is a change that is needed to balance armies that have not yet received those types of heroes, lest they have less viable options than their competitors.
Let the new releases be gorgeous new models, with cool fluff and interesting rules. People will buy them. But don't let them be more competitive than the old releases due to having new types of abilities. Don't let this game devolve into one where the player that has the most updated army wins.
As a side note, what is your take on attaching a points cost to using a hero as general? That does not conflict with any current rules, nor does it change any warscrolls.
Well split command costs is all about paying more if it's the general and less if it's not, in fact the idea started as that exactly, but was swapped to the split option to account for Archaeon and the like. Which is to say I don't think the intention is being debated here.
At any rate, unless GW changes the warscrolls beyond superficial adjustments there won't be anything different about the new lizardmen since the product list has already been leaked. But if there are changes and GW keeps up a pace of roughly one remade faction a month then everything would be updated in relatively short order and the situation will be good enough as-is, if not ideal (you could use a sea helm as a counts-as for a model without a powerful command ability, for example). That said, there have been no warscrolls which changed with a re-release beyond names and minor errata thus far, so I doubt that is the case. But I think Smellingsalts' proposal of waiting a week to see is not a bad one.
I of course have nothing against waiting for a week either. But I think this is a change that needs to be made either way - either the new releases showcase a new trend of hero-design, in which case the change needs to be made in order for older armies to stay competitive and balanced until they are updated, or the new releases do not showcase any such trend, in which case the change needs to be made to balance hero options for everyone.
Having been the victim of a Ripperdon unit this weekend, I would like to propose an actual rules amendment. Those of you who know me or have read my posts know that I am really hesitant to make any rule change, so if I think it needs to be changed it is really bad. Ripperdons have a rule that allows them to re-roll all hits and wounds. They also have a rule that gives them an extra attack. Combining the two creates a ridiculous amount of attacks. I am also aware that other creatures have rules that give them nearly unending attacks (Konrad Von Carstein). I would propose that if you have a rule that gives you re-rolls on dice, and a rule that spawns more dice for a successful roll, that only the original dice benefit from the re-roll, and not those spawned later. In one match 3 Ripperdons killed Thanquol in one turn. In another, three Ripperdons killed 27 Savage orcs (and the orcs had a mystic shield on them, I think there were something like 48 wounds I had to save).
Rules amendments is one option, another is to calculate their average damage output per turn per model and price them accordingly. I could look into that if I have the time later this week. If I do, I'll post it in the units thread. That damage output sounds absolutely absurd though, holy crap.
The problem is while ripperdactyls are statistically limited (they will run out of hits eventuality) and can thus be costed, there are several ways to get literally unlimited attack potential. Konrad is one example; his ability gives him another pile in and attack if he can roll under the number of models he has slain in the phase once he is done attacking; this means his consecutive attack rounds stack and once he has killed seven models he can't fail the roll. He then piles in and attacks indefinitely until there is nothing in range. There are also several combos I know of involving getting extra attacks on a 6+/5+ to hit that can be abused in a similar manner (like every 4+ dice roll generates 2 extra attacks, statistically infinite).
Better to add a blanket rule that extra attacks cannot themselves generate extra attacks, then cost appropriately from there. And give Konrad a rule saying he only gets red fury once per turn max. Because as Smellingsalts pointed out, there needs to be a balancing factor here. For what it's worth I would be willing to make a list of units/heroes affected by this so they could have their costs adjusted.
On another point, the Seraphon have been released with no rule changes to the warscrolls, leaving command abilities untouched. Lizardmen players who want a combat hero without paying for a command ability are limited to just the standard bearer hero (in which case they are paying for a standard ability that doesn't stack its main benefit) or the temple guard hero. So they pay for something redundant/unusable or take that hero option. I would say counts-as only goes so far here and we would be better off with split costs.
Hey Attila, this has probably been answered before but when playing something like Mannfred the Mortarch version, does the price include his "only works if there is no sunlight bonus" or not?
I can't find any discussion of this in the PPC comp document, perhaps it should be added?
Or do we follow the AoS vanilla rules? (IE always play in basements when you play mannfred)
Silly rules are always considered active unless there is a dice roll/randomization involved. So Nagash's hand of dust is priced as a 50% chance of success, for example, while Mannfred always receives his bonus for not seeing the sun. This is to my understanding though, Attilla would still be the authority on the matter.
Smellingsalts wrote: Having been the victim of a Ripperdon unit this weekend, I would like to propose an actual rules amendment. Those of you who know me or have read my posts know that I am really hesitant to make any rule change, so if I think it needs to be changed it is really bad. Ripperdons have a rule that allows them to re-roll all hits and wounds. They also have a rule that gives them an extra attack. Combining the two creates a ridiculous amount of attacks. I am also aware that other creatures have rules that give them nearly unending attacks (Konrad Von Carstein). I would propose that if you have a rule that gives you re-rolls on dice, and a rule that spawns more dice for a successful roll, that only the original dice benefit from the re-roll, and not those spawned later. In one match 3 Ripperdons killed Thanquol in one turn. In another, three Ripperdons killed 27 Savage orcs (and the orcs had a mystic shield on them, I think there were something like 48 wounds I had to save).
I think we can fix this in a few ways, depending on the situation. Are they hard to take out? If not, a points increase could be in order to make them more of a glass cannon. But if they need to cost a huge amount, it's just boring and a rules change would be better. What would happen if we just removed the Blot Toad rule, for example, to dampen the effectiveness of the unit?
Konrad have the potential to kill one unit (or more) in one turn, but if you face him with a monster/another hero, he is unlikely to have even one extra round of attacks. If we increase his points somewhat, do we really need to put limits on extra attacks?
We can "fix" all this easily by implementing a rules amendment that limits extra attacks, but I want to make certain that we really have to first.
Deusvult wrote:Hey Attila, this has probably been answered before but when playing something like Mannfred the Mortarch version, does the price include his "only works if there is no sunlight bonus" or not?
Hm I was sure I had written it in the Comp Doc already! Must have slipped my mind somehow. As Ninth says, we assume you always get the best result in any case not involving chance. I'll add it for the next update even though it takes awhile before we do that.
Ripperdactyls are reasonably squishy with only a 5+ and 3 wounds each, but they do ignore rend of -1 and are fast enough to stay out of charge range yet still make their own charges easily. I think they could possibly be costed, but there are enough things overall that could cause problems that a blanket rule may be better.
On the Konrad example, say he charges a unit and kills 3 models. He rolls a 2 for red fury and attacks again, killing 4. He then rolls a 6, which is below the number of models he has killed that phase and thus he attacks again. He continues to pile in and attack indefinitely, killing any model until there is nothing within 3" at the end of a given set of attacks. It doesn't matter if his attacks don't kill a model at this point since it is done by phase not by the 'round' of attacks. This could easily be house ruled to fix, but that would be a different rule than what ripperdactyls would need, which in turn could be different than another unit/combo may need.
Blanket ruling that extra attacks cannot themselves generate extra attacks fixes all cases (as well as potential future ones) except Konrad, who really needs a house rule either way due to the issue described above.
If a blanket rule like that was to be implemented, one would also have to take into account it would have on other units (Slaanesh daemons come to mind), and if necessary adjust their prices.
Hey all,
Just had some quick input on points costs. After playing many games with it, I think that the Bastilodon's solar engine should increase in points cost. The amount of damage it can potentially put out, combined with the invulnerability of the model it is mounted on can create a very large problem. An increase of 50 points rather than 10 for the upgrade seems like it should be in order. NinthMusketeer and I have discovered through these games that the bastilodon by itself can nearly win games, as with any sort of shield buff, or cover, it becomes nearly impossible to kill. If the model was at 250 points with this upgrade, it would at east be in the same category as an engine of the gods, which from my experience doesn't have nearly the same output and effectiveness. I also believe that the point cost of a plague claw catapult should be looked at again, at 150 points it would require more thought to take, where as at its current level it is a no-brainer. The plague claw has extreme potential to kill units of 10 or more models, which, excluding ogres and stormcasts, nearly every army in the game uses in force. the amount of damage output that a model like this can put out is ridiculous, when compared with its extremely modest price point. this, however, can be said with most artillery. The last model that i believe needs a point evaluation is the troglodon. from several games played with it, i just find its points cost to be a bit high, when compared to the effectiveness it has in the game, the lack of any sort of rend, combines with its attack profile not being too potent, makes for a question in my mind. it seems that its role i character hunting, however, in a list with so many character hunting units, it seems like such a lackluster option, and never seems to make its points back, tactically, or otherwise.
-Danse
I can confirm the damage output in both of the shooting cases, but I am not totally convinced either one needs a points increase since the quick math I did for average damage numbers suggested that we both just had very good luck across a few games (and that synergies were in play). If the bastiladon does need a points increase then I think it should be based more on the merit that it is insanely hard to kill; give it mystic shied, or more easily just put it in cover, for a 2+ save that ignores rend (of any amount), and the bugger has a 4+ save against mortal wounds. Meanwhile, if the plagueclaw needs a point increase I think it should be based more off the fact that its average damage output is deceptive; while it works out to a relatively low average of wounds-per-shot, the reality is that its 2d6 wounds all at once against units of 10+, likely scoring further casualties from the ensuing battleshock.
The troglodon does seem a bit lackluster for its points. No rend on any of its attacks really hurts it.
Thanks for all the input guys, I've added it all to the possible changes for next version!
As you say, the Bastiladon can become almost invincible, which might not be reflected in its point cost right now. And the Plagueclaw could well be in need of a point increase as well - most war machines only reach that kind of potential when they have an engineer-type model nearby, but the Plagueclaw does not even need that...only large units within range!
Well, after seeing the Seraphon book I think I am ready to throw in the towel on splitting command abilities. I think that if any new models are being planned for the other armies, we will have a long wait. It seems that GW is hell-bent on just making new models for Chaos and Stormcast, so the hope of new heroes for anyone else has greatly diminished. So it's mini bosses for everyone!
As a side note, many of you know that I am sponsoring the Broadside Bash in San Diego in the spring. The guys who run the Broadside Bash and play WFB have all jumped ship to Kings of War. We had a long discussion about the future of the tournament. At the time we agreed that Mantic miniatures as prizes were not an option for two reasons. 1) They are arguably the worst fantasy models in mass production. Although many people play Kings of War, almost nobody plays it with Mantic figures. 2) I can afford to sponsor the tournament because GW gives me a promotional allowance which I use to provide prizes. But GW will not give me prize support if I use it to support another company's game system. A decision was made to split the tables allotted to fantasy, half for Kings of War, half for Age of Sigmar. Somewhere along the way, without talking to me about it, the guys that play Kings of War decided to put a poll up on their site. The poll asks which would you rather play? Warhammer Fantasy Battle 8th edition, Kings of War, or Age of Sigmar. Right now, Kings of War is leading by a large margin. The problem with the poll is that it is not limited to just those that could attend the event, someone in Norway can cast a vote. Also, and this is perhaps the greatest issue, many Age of Sigmar players are new to miniatures. they don't know about tournaments, and by the time they have the opportunity to see advertising about the Broadside Bash, we will have already decided which games will be played.
I am trying to be fair, if no one signs up for the AOS tournament, of course the tables will be opened for more Kings of War players. I just want the guys at Broadside Bash to know that an AOS community does exist, despite reports of our early demise.
Looks like AoS has gotten a slight boost at least in the poll. I voted, although it will be pretty hard indeed for me to attend But as you say, all this poll really does is to show if there are any communities at all playing the game.
Allright, it's time to take some time to think and vote about how we should deal with possible multiple generated attacks from units such as Ripperdactyl Riders and Konrad:
A) Put in a comp rule that extra attacks cannot themselves generate extra attacks. Adjust costs accordingly.
B) Go through any Warscroll that allows too good extra attacks generated by attacks and take away rules where neccessary (such as removing Toad Rage from Ripperdactyls). Adjust costs accordingly.
C) Leave everything as is and just make sure things cost accordingly!
EDIT: To clarify option A) with the words of Ninth below. Cheers mate!
My vote is for 1 (?), I think it should read "extra attacks cannot themselves generate extra attacks" since that is more clear than 'one round' of attacks. Then Konrad gets his own rule since he is a special case (note other models with similar rules, like the Bone Giant, specifically mention it being one extra round of attacking).
My friends who are play testing your PPC system would also like it to cost more.
Ripperdactyl Vicious Beaks hits on 4+, wounds on 3+.
Their Swooping Dives give them reroll of hits and wounds in one round of combat after they move, basically an once a turn ability.
We all had an issue with Ripperdactyl Riders units that are more t than 3 models strong.
Now 4 Ripperdactyl Riders attacking a unit near a toad.
Their 4 attacks become 12 attacks,
which got 7 hits,
which generated 7 more attacks that had 3 hits,
and that generated 3 more attacks with 3 hits,
which generated 3 more attacks with 1 hit,
which generated 1 more attack that missed.
Next all the misses get a reroll, (6+4+2+1) = 12 rerolls getting 5 new hits.
You can't reroll a reroll but the 5 new attacks generated by the 5 hits gets rerolls.
The 5 new attacks scored 2 hits,
which generated 2 more attacks that hit 1,
which generated a new attack that hit,
which generated a new attack that hit,
which generated a new attack that finally miss.
Next all the misses gets a reroll, (3+1+1) = 5 rerolls getting 3 new hits.
You can't reroll a reroll but the 3 new attacks generated by the 3 hits gets rerolls.
The 3 new attacks scored 2 hits,
which generated 2 more attacks that hit 1,
which generated a new attack that finally miss.
Next all the misses gets a reroll, (1+1+1) = 3 rerolls getting 1 new hits.
You can't reroll a reroll but 1 new attack generated by the 1 hit gets rerolls.
The one new attack missed, a reroll also missed, finally ending the hit rolls.
4 Ripperdactyl had 12 beak attacks that created 31 wound rolls, which failed 9.
The opponent rolled for 4+ armour saves and pass 10 taking 12 wounds.
The above actually happened.
Having them costing much higher is needed.
Having additional model in a unit costing much much higher is also needed.
Costing appropriately for ripperdactyls is all well and good, but this is about more than that. How do you cost potentially infinite attacks appropriately? Even worse is that these things are always combinations of otherwise balanced abilities. For example:
Settra
Tomb King
Two Liche Preists
Skeleton Archers
Settra and tomb King use their command abilities on the archers, granting +2 to hit. Both Liche priests cast smiting on the archers. An attack roll of 4+ on the dice generates two extra attacks, which in turn can generate attacks, and so on. There is more than one combo like this, and this one can easily be made much much worse. How do you point cost that?
I would say option "A" extra attacks can't spawn extra attacks. Also, I thought we had a rule in the PPC that a unit can't be affected by the same named ability twice. If we don't, we should. Otherwise we will get slowed things like double and triple mystic shielded units. Plus it would stop people from just spamming certain units.
Smellingsalts wrote: I would say option "A" extra attacks can't spawn extra attacks. Also, I thought we had a rule in the PPC that a unit can't be affected by the same named ability twice. If we don't, we should. Otherwise we will get slowed things like double and triple mystic shielded units. Plus it would stop people from just spamming certain units.
I am quoting for the truth of the statement. PPC aims to not change too many rules, but something as convoluted as this is just too big to not fix. Especially when it is easy to implement.
Just from looking it over (I'll try it out later today), it looks a little complex for my liking. Personally, I would cut it down to just objective/board edge holding for primary then just kill/keep alive for schemes. Thus, remove the +1 vp for each unit you slay from the primary objectives, then make the schemes of war a d3 chart with only the first three options listed. Also, I think blunt should just be any unit rather than non-hero non-monster; plenty of regular units are harder to kill than those anyway.
This is not to say that the other options aren't good; I think it would be great if some of those could get ported over to the first three scenarios to make them a bit more exciting.
Sidenote; are all the scenarios going to 5-6 turns instead of 6-7 turns? Because I think that is a good change.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Just from looking it over (I'll try it out later today), it looks a little complex for my liking. Personally, I would cut it down to just objective/board edge holding for primary then just kill/keep alive for schemes. Thus, remove the +1 vp for each unit you slay from the primary objectives, then make the schemes of war a d3 chart with only the first three options listed. Also, I think blunt should just be any unit rather than non-hero non-monster; plenty of regular units are harder to kill than those anyway.
This is not to say that the other options aren't good; I think it would be great if some of those could get ported over to the first three scenarios to make them a bit more exciting.
Sidenote; are all the scenarios going to 5-6 turns instead of 6-7 turns? Because I think that is a good change.
I too dislike complex scenarios, as I have a hard time remembering all the stuff going on (I get so lost in the game itself every time lol), but we havev't felt the scenario to be overly complex when we play it. Maybe it's my lack of english that makes it seem more complex than it really is on the table Anyway, it will always differ between people of course. Spicing other scenarios up would be nice, especially the Battle Royale since AoS shouldn't be about kill points primarily (IMHO!).
Hello all,
Here's a quick question about the gaunt summoner, is there any limitation to how many demons he can summon from his book ability? I can't seem to find one on the list. With the rules the NinthMuskateer has put out for terrain costs, I feel that a limitation for this summoning ability is now pretty necessary.
-Danse
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the earlier post,
just found the 100 pt limit on the webpage, that seems just about right
Attilla, I can't download the Fyreslayers Points list from your site. I keep being told that it is an unsafe file and that Internet Express can't find the page. I can download all of the other points lists. Is there something you did differently when you posted this, or do you have any advice?
Wierd, I can access it just fine right now when trying both from my phone and my computer at work. The Fyreslayers doc was copied and edited from the Beastmen doc - do you get the same message from opening that one?
Coming back to attacks that generate more attacks without end because of bad rules writing, i vote that new attacks do not ever generate more attacks and i point you to the night goblin great moon clan formation that give the ability to fanatics and mangler squigs, i saw i a champion in a night gob unit get 18 hits before he stopped with his net and i saw a rock lobber fire 4 times with its bully next to it!
Can we adress the funny rules too? I think it is important to specify wether they are gained without the charades? What I mean is - do you have to do the silly stuff in ppc to gain the benefits, or is the benefit included in the point cost without having to do anything extra?
Andreas 2.0 wrote: Can we adress the funny rules too? I think it is important to specify wether they are gained without the charades? What I mean is - do you have to do the silly stuff in ppc to gain the benefits, or is the benefit included in the point cost without having to do anything extra?
Silly rules are considered to activate automatically without any player antics involved, and the units are costed appropriately. I forget where this is stated but I think it's been that way since the start.
Andreas 2.0 wrote: Can we adress the funny rules too? I think it is important to specify wether they are gained without the charades? What I mean is - do you have to do the silly stuff in ppc to gain the benefits, or is the benefit included in the point cost without having to do anything extra?
Silly rules are considered to activate automatically without any player antics involved, and the units are costed appropriately. I forget where this is stated but I think it's been that way since the start.
Yes, they are always considered active - another thing I actually thought was in the comp doc but isn't I'll add it for the next update, even though it's some time away yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hettar wrote: Coming back to attacks that generate more attacks without end because of bad rules writing, i vote that new attacks do not ever generate more attacks and i point you to the night goblin great moon clan formation that give the ability to fanatics and mangler squigs, i saw i a champion in a night gob unit get 18 hits before he stopped with his net and i saw a rock lobber fire 4 times with its bully next to it!
Maybe we should open up another vote on the matter after the next update is done - it is important that we re-evaluate every matter from time to time as the game has evolved! But so far it was voted the most that we try to stick to the main plan and not alter the ruleset but raise the cost for these things. So when we get down to setting the points of the formations, this is one that could cost more because of that.
At the moment, we are heading for a direction where the monsters/warmachine restriction of 25% is increased to 50%. We've played this way lately and have not found anything unbalanced about it, but only more fun when building our armies.
Does anyone here object to this change, and why if so.
Sounds good to me, my concern would have been the availability of 50% warmachines but now that we have terrain warscrolls there are hard counters available to anyone, so I don't see it being a problem.
So something to discuss on overall comp, auto-hitting on 6s. Currently attacks will auto-fail on a 1, but not automatically hit on a 6. I have run into a couple situations where a unit's attacks have needed 7+ to hit and just automatically miss. Do we want to address this or is it a niche enough situation to ignore? I don't know how often it occurs in general (I am somewhat known for greatly utilizing hit penalties in my armies).
Hi Guys, new to the forums and thread, been reading everything I can about PPC before our first games on the weekend, we just ditched another comp after some pretty one sided battles, and after doing the numbers here I fielded 1600 points of Dwarfs vs. 2400 points of VC on your rule set. No wonder I got rolled!
So I've read the 7 pages of this thread hoping for an answer, and I'm glad to see the detailed evolution of the summoning rules you have created. Obviously Nagash and summoning is a huge thing for the VC (and we have one player of Deamons) but in this ruleset is "Death Magic Incarnate" on Nagash costed? And how does it resolve?
Does a 10+ (7+ for him with a base +3 bonus) give him 200 points, or 400 points or 2 x 200 points seperately? I have to ask as I want to avoid the arguments summoning is creating in our group and it's going to spoil our two VC players times , or everyone else's if it isn't balanced.
Thank you for all the discussions and hard work on this, you guys all clearly care about AoS and I look forward to more enjoyable games with the balance of PPC!
Nagash comes with Death Magic Incarnate automatically, but does have to pay to access the summoning spell like everyone else. When he does summon, first determine what you are summoning with the points then double the number of models.
For example, say he casts Will of Nagash using the casting value of 8 to summon 130 points of models. He could elect to summon a unit of 21 skeleton warriors (128 pts), which would then be doubled and the player instead deploys a unit of 42 skeletons.
If he instead decided to summon a unit of 14 skeleton warriors with champion, banner, and music (129 pts) he would deploy a unit of 28 skeletons, but the unit would still only have a single command group since it is only the number of models doubled.
Something worth noting in PPC overall is that Death armies are completely useable without summoning (as well as with). Unlike other AoS comps I have seen they aren't obligated to take summoning in order to be competitive. Also note that even PPC isn't perfect; there are ways to break it's balancing outright and there is still a power gap between well constructed vs poorly constructed lists. Thankfully it requires only a spoonful of good sportsmanship to have really well-balanced games, rather than the buckets needed by other comps.
Thank you for the super fast reply I am sure my friend will be mighty excited to play Nagash this weekend! Hopefully my trusty Dwarfs can cleave through the Undead and bring a glorious victory!
I will try to provide any feedback from our first games with the system. I am by no means a high level player, but maybe some less skilled feedback will give another perspective!
EDIT: Small follow up, Nagash knows any spells known by other wizards on the battle field. So you can take Nagash (900pts) and Necro (100pts) + Will of Nagash 100pts on the Necro which would grant it to Nagash?
Jorthax wrote: EDIT: Small follow up, Nagash knows any spells known by other wizards on the battle field. So you can take Nagash (900pts) and Necro (100pts) + Will of Nagash 100pts on the Necro which would grant it to Nagash?
Yes, though if that Nagash player is fighting against Dwarfs I wouldn't recommend it, since that necromancer will be cannon fodder very quickly. That would also require a 2200 point army (50% limit on heroes) as opposed to 2000 for just Nagash with the spell, but I don't know what points you'll be at.
I asked the same thing, Atilla mentioned that they went in the mercenaries section because despite being Order they are specifically stated (in multiple places) as working for any alliance in the fluff. After seeing it in action, it works well because they don't have any direct synergy with other factions (even Order ones), meaning they serve as auxiliary units rather than exploit-enablers.
I have found a glaring problem, GW is rewriting war-scrolls on the quiet, compare the new chaos books skaven engineer with the free one online, how many others have been changed and from what book to book?
The warlock engineer looks the same to me, are you looking at the Arch-Warlock? Because his rules are a reprint of Ikit Claw's. That said, there are some that were changed and a few new ones. The Chaos Lord (now rebranded "Lord of Chaos") is a bit different (and a good change imo), while Exalted Hero of Chaos is new. The Masque of Slaanesh was changed slightly with an alteration to her previous silly rule. Daemonic Heralds across the board saw a subtle change in that locus effects on other units now require any daemon hero (of the appropriate god) rather than a herald specifically.
Almost all of the rules are identical however, so it's something we'll need to keep note of but not a huge issue.
On a separate note, and this is mostly curiosity on my part, but who rolls for initiative each round? I know me and my buds decided quite early on that simply alternating was better (we found double turns to be gamebreaking), but I wonder what other people's experience with this is.
not rolling off for turns would certainly add more of a strategic mode to the game. also its different in regards to if the warlock fails it spell it now takes d6 mortal wound instead of 1 in the free one, pretty big change!
On a separate note, and this is mostly curiosity on my part, but who rolls for initiative each round? I know me and my buds decided quite early on that simply alternating was better (we found double turns to be gamebreaking), but I wonder what other people's experience with this is.
My group plays with alternating turns. Seems more tactical that way. You can't really plan any clever moves when your opponent gets two turns in a row (so much for that outflanking, refused flank etc). Also more close games (less extremes, where armies crumble etc). Getting two big charges with your own retributors (and striking first both times) is juicy though, but tend to break opponents. Same with healthy monsters etc. Two arcane bolts sniping characters is not good.
Not yet, I suspect Attila will get to that when he returns from his trip. When I post the points for the basic Death battalions (probably in a few days) I'll include the whole list in spoiler tags.
As promised, here are the battalion costs all in one post! Everyone please try these out if you get a chance since I am sure these values will need to be adjusted. Also keep in mind they are tuned for 1500-2500 point games so outside that balance is not guaranteed.
Order
Spoiler:
[Stormcast] Host Azyric - 500 pts. The "From the Heavens they Come" rule can only summon up to 100 pts of Stormcast models.
[Stormcast] Skyborne Slayers - 350 pts. No battleshock on Stormcasts isn't nearly as useful it is on most armies.
[Brettonians] Defenders of the Realm - 125 pts. Good synergy with the bonuses to wound rolls on the charge.
[Brettonians] Peasant Militia - 300 pts. Men-at-Arms hit on 2s if they are 30+ and a Paladin is nearby, and this battalion lets them reroll 1s.
[Dark Elves] Blood Cult - 300 pts. The benefit to Witch Elf units is significant, and lets them take out armored targets they would otherwise have problems with.
[Dark Elves] Exiled Warhost - 600 pts. Sorry DElf players, the bleakswords option drove the cost way up due to extra attack chaining potential on the charge.
[Dwarfs] Artillery Battery - 125 pts. Decent benefits but weak synergy with warmachines' battlefield use.
[Dwarfs] Clan Throng - 200 pts. The battleshock benefit is not as great because of unit banners and the BSB character, but reroll 1s to hit is solid.
[High Elves] Altran Stormriders Host - 125 pts. The hero benefit requires that the very squishy high elf mage stays relatively close to the flying prince, and the bravery benefit is a bit weak because the units will likely be rocking bravery 8 from their banners.
[High Elves] Dragon Host - 400 pts. Giving all three dragon characters re-roll 1s to hit is powerful to begin with, combined with the potential of the dragonfire ability to obliterate anything it likes.
[High Elves] Glittering Host - 275 pts. Basically you get to pick two units rather than one as your first pick of each combat phase, plus a good battleshock boost.
[Lizardmen] Saurus Host - 200 pts. Solid bonuses, though ignoring battleshock on bravery 10 units may not always be useful.
[Lizardmen] Skink Patrol - 425 pts. Deep-striking ripperdactyls with +1 to wound will destroy whatever they charge that turn.
[Sylvaneth] Guardians of the Deepwood - 225 pts. The real benefit here is not the underwhelming deployment ability as much as the advantage of being able to but down the Wyldwoods anywhere on the battlefield (as opposed to your table half with the normal PPC terrain warscroll rules) and THEN deploy into them.
[Empire] Brotherhood of Knights - 175 pts. The charge bonus is OK, the bravery bonus is nice, and the requirements are very easy.
[Empire] State Troop Detachment - 375 points. State troops are why PPC says attacks always miss on a 1.
[Wood Elves] Wanderer Host - 150 points. A nice deployment option but the other benefit is extremely situational.
Chaos
Spoiler:
[Beastmen] Bullgor Stampede - 700 pts. This needs to be priced very very high because of the extra attack potential. Presumably the Doombull will be using his command ability here, meaning each wound roll of 5+ (4+ for the Ghorgon) generates two extra attacks. Wound rolls for those attacks generate extra attacks, and so on.
[Beastmen] Furious Brayherd - 200 pts. A powerful bonus but with a limited range, also contingent on the characters being alive.
[Beastmen] Ungor Raiders Ambush - 300 pts. This is a very potent deployment benefit and the potential hit roll bonus has a great deal of synergy with the unit size benefit to re-roll hits of 1 or 2.
[Daemons] Cohort of Khorne - 75 pts. The benefits are nice, but very situational.
[Daemons] Cohort of Nurgle - 150 pts. Solid bonuses, but the first is a bit unreliable and the second is redundant on half of the battalion since Plaguebearers will likely be getting that benefit from their locus anyway.
[Daemons] Cohort of Slaanesh - 325 pts. For the player who owns a lot of daemonette models this battalion is gold, if dependent on what your opponent has.
[Daemons] Cohort of Tzeentch - 750 pts. Probably the best battalion in the game.
[Bloodbound] Ravagers of Ruin Keep - Free. Having to take the component units and terrain of the battalion in exchange for mediocre benefits justifies the cost.
[Skaven] Eshin Clawpack - 200 pts. The first benefit is good but doesn't affect the assassin, the second benefit only affects the assassin.
[Skaven] Moulder Clawpack - 200 pts. A bit heavy on the requirements, but solid bonuses.
[Skaven] Skreet Verminkin's Horde - 50 pts. Significant requirements, a double-edge benefit for the characters and a troop benefit that is redundant with the banner bearer you will probably be taking either way.
[Skaven] Verminus Clawpack - 275 pts. The bonuses are good and have really good synergy with the models in the battalion.
[Pestilens] Pestilent Clawpack - 325 pts. The first benefit has good synergy with the wound roll bonus from the priest and the second bonus is quite potent because you can buy a terrain warscroll as well to get control over what the pack-nest will be.
[Tamurkhan's Horde] Sons of the Maggot Lord - 175 pts. How much benefit you get is largely determined by what your opponent brings.
[Tamurkhan's Horde] The Leaping Pox - 100 pts. Mediocre benefits that do not have good synergy with each other.
[Legion of Azgorh] Blackshard Warhost - 275 pts. Good benefits on models you would likely be taking together anyway.
[Legion of Azgorh] Artillery Train - 200 pts. The trick here is that an Iron Daemon can haul the other warmachines, allowing them to move without counting as having done so.
[Warriors of Chaos] Chaos Warband - 175 pts. Very nice rewards, but unreliable and they won't kick in until partly through the game.
[Warriors of Chaos] Marauder Raiders - 175 pts. Somewhat situational, but solid benefits overall.
Death
Spoiler:
[Tomb Kings] Royal Legion of Chariots - 500 pts. The combo potential with Righteous Smiting for chaining attacks drives up the price.
[Tomb Kings] Tomb Legion - 175 pts. The bonuses are nice but the requirements are heavy for what you get.
[Vampire Counts] Charnel Pit Carrion - 325 pts. Combined with a terrain warscroll this can give a huge area of extra attacks, and the second bonus is a nice little boost as well.
[Vampire Counts] Deathrattle Horde - 50 pts. Its a moderately high requirement for a bonus that simply isn't very good on most of the component units, and the auto-4" run isn't very good either.
Destruction
Spoiler:
[Ogres] Beastclaw Avalanche - 300 pts. Its main bonus does only apply on charges, but man is it a nice bonus. The potential for up-front damage before the enemy can really do much in a game is very high. The other benefit is a bit of icing on the cake.
[Ogres] Gutbuster Wartribe - 175 pts. Another bonus-on-the-charge, but not nearly as good. And the requirements are a bit steep.
[O&G] Bonesplittas Big Mob - 375 pts. Now this is a nice battalion. The main bonus is very powerful and the second is a nice extra.
[O&G] Great Gitmob - 200 pts. Good bonuses but not totally reliable, and having to take three separate goblin units to get them is a pain.
[O&G] Great Moonclan - 300 pts. A nice bonus, though this avoids a much higher cost because (to my knowledge) the component units don't have access to hit roll bonuses.
[O&G] Greenskinz Big Mob - 175 pts. Run+charge is pretty useful on all those footslogging orcs, and the once per game ability is nice, but overall the bonuses aren't great.
[O&G] Ironjaws Big Mob - 250 pts. Good bonuses with pretty easy requirements.
[O&G] Spiderfang Venom Mob - 150 pts. The wound roll bonus has bad synergy with the attacks it benefits and the battalion requirements are steep, though the battleshock benefits are OK.
I've already integrated a house rule where no additional attack can benefit from that same rule again. Henceforth, some bataillons seems to be out of price.
But this is a subject that will be discussed later I believe
While we are working on edits for the March update, I'd like to bring up the chaining attacks topic again. I know there was a vote to leave them be and just point cost appropriately, but that leaves out instances where otherwise balanced options are combined to create game-breaking effects, as well as leading to some units that become so high costed they are risky to take since they could easily die without doing anything.
NinthMusketeer wrote: While we are working on edits for the March update, I'd like to bring up the chaining attacks topic again. I know there was a vote to leave them be and just point cost appropriately, but that leaves out instances where otherwise balanced options are combined to create game-breaking effects, as well as leading to some units that become so high costed they are risky to take since they could easily die without doing anything.
I'm currently writing a system using all PPC cost and in our club, we've chosen to limit chaining attacks. Additional attacks can only be generated one time. No further attacks can be gained through this rule.
NinthMusketeer wrote: While we are working on edits for the March update, I'd like to bring up the chaining attacks topic again. I know there was a vote to leave them be and just point cost appropriately, but that leaves out instances where otherwise balanced options are combined to create game-breaking effects, as well as leading to some units that become so high costed they are risky to take since they could easily die without doing anything.
I'm currently writing a system using all PPC cost and in our club, we've chosen to limit chaining attacks. Additional attacks can only be generated one time. No further attacks can be gained through this rule.
PS: We also ruled out fixed turn
Yeah the new league at my flgs adopted a no-chained attacks rule as well. I don't understand what you mean in regards to fixed turns. For me, the aforementioned league uses the normal rolling for initiative but also has armies selected by wounds count, uses all sorts of scenarios, etc; it's designed for a more dynamic/narrative experience. In all my pick-up PPC games it's fixed turn order though, so much so that it is automatically assumed without even being mentioned. A double-turn can be so utterly game breaking (especially with shooting armies) that the deciding factor of who wins becomes the initiative roll. Though tbf a match of two low-magic, low-shooting armies does work using rolled initiative.
While I do not think changing PPC to fixed turn order (not changing the rules and all that) perhaps it would be a good idea to write in an alternative like such:
Optional Rule - Fixed Initiative: Some players prefer not to roll for initiative at the start of each battle round. If players opt for a fixed turn order, then instead of the normal process there is a single initiative roll at the start of the game (before either player takes a turn). The player who finished deployment first gets +1 to his roll, and each ability in a player's army that would affect initiative rolls instead grants a +1 to the owner's roll. The player that wins this first roll chooses to go first or second, and this order remains fixed for the duration of the game.
We've played about 6 games of PPC ranging from 1000-2000pts so far and the first 2 we rolled for turns, both were ruined by absolutely crazy back-2-back turns where the other player felt completely helpless
The 4 games played so far since we went to fixed turns (whoever finished deploying first got to choose) we have had 4 great games. PPC feels pretty balanced right now but we are all excited for the March update from you guys before we start a little 5 man round-robin tournament
We've played about 6 games of PPC ranging from 1000-2000pts so far and the first 2 we rolled for turns, both were ruined by absolutely crazy back-2-back turns where the other player felt completely helpless
The 4 games played so far since we went to fixed turns (whoever finished deploying first got to choose) we have had 4 great games. PPC feels pretty balanced right now but we are all excited for the March update from you guys before we start a little 5 man round-robin tournament
Oi, turns out I've missed almost the entire last half of page 7 of this thread! So, a late but sincere welcome to you Jorthax!
My group plays with alternating turns. Seems more tactical that way. You can't really plan any clever moves when your opponent gets two turns in a row (so much for that outflanking, refused flank etc). Also more close games (less extremes, where armies crumble etc). Getting two big charges with your own retributors (and striking first both times) is juicy though, but tend to break opponents. Same with healthy monsters etc. Two arcane bolts sniping characters is not good.
() The turn sequence of AoS is still a debate in many places I check - some think it brings more tension as it is, and that it brings an extra tactical layer as it means you have to plan ahead for maybe not getting the turn. Others feel it just ruins the game, as it can mean total destruction for your army without you having a proper chance to react. I personally enjoy both ways of playing the game, but I don't think the points of any unit would change either way, so I am reluctant to add in another made-up rule to the official comp document, even if stating it's optional.
I'm just wondering what you guys are thinking about the Dwarf being in the ''mercenary'' section.
Seems strange since GW put them in ''order'' faction.
If the PPC keep it close to GW, we should keep the terrain in ''mercenary'' and move the Fyreslayers to order.
() The thing here is that GW intended all factions to be able to mix in AoS, and that it's the different comps that have been limiting that (first to factions alone, then to grand alliances). In other words it is us who have been placing the limits on allying in the first place. Now the Fyreslayers fluff says they ally with anyone - even chaos is explicitly mentioned, and in the GW mind it's obvious since anyone can ally with anyone. For us att PPC it's obviously not that simple, so we thought long and hard about how we should proceed with their list, and in the end thought it made more sense to have them as mercenary allies for all factions for this reason.
I'm just wondering, his there a document that contains all the cost for the bataillon Warscoll yet?
() Maybe I've already answered this before, but each faction will have their batallion costs at the end of their list once 2016.03 version hits.
While we are working on edits for the March update, I'd like to bring up the chaining attacks topic again. I know there was a vote to leave them be and just point cost appropriately, but that leaves out instances where otherwise balanced options are combined to create game-breaking effects, as well as leading to some units that become so high costed they are risky to take since they could easily die without doing anything.
() As we voted for it not that long ago I'll not bring it up for this update to come, but I'm all for checking again for the next one. If we do limit it, I think it might be better to do it the way the SCGT comp does and have the new generated attacks hit at -1, and the next ones at -2 and so on, and not hard limiting it to only one round?
I'll roll with it regarding the mercenary. I've already prepared for both outcome so it's fine by me.
Regarding the additional attacks, I really don't know the way to go. As NinthMusketeer said, some units will have a prohibitive cost and as Age of Sigmar goes, they'll probably die right of the bat. Limiting the additional attacks to just one time might per turn be the way to go. The -1, -2, etc to each attack seems a good idea too, but a bit more complex for starting players.
Right now, if I understand correctly, all unit are costed appropriately with there additional attacks potential?
Right now, if I understand correctly, all unit are costed appropriately with there additional attacks potential?
Well, they are supposed to be - but since there are many unbalancing factors to be counted when not limiting the extra attacks it's not easy to say for sure they truly are. But yeah, the intention is that you pay the cost for their extra attack ability right now.
Most units on their own don't pay a huge premium for their extra attacks because the chaining potential is limited to just 6's without anything special. Rippedactyls, Hellflayers, and the Lord of Slaanesh on foot come to mind as outliers (the latter due to his command ability). Even so I'd just vote to leave it as is if there weren't the combo problem. An easy one is Skeleton Warriors + Liche Priest buff + a command ability giving them +1 to hit. While individually those units aren't a problem, combined we suddenly have skeletons generating extra attacks on a 4+, something none of the components are costed to compensate for. And the combos get worse from there. So much worse.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Most units on their own don't pay a huge premium for their extra attacks because the chaining potential is limited to just 6's without anything special. Rippedactyls, Hellflayers, and the Lord of Slaanesh on foot come to mind as outliers (the latter due to his command ability). Even so I'd just vote to leave it as is if there weren't the combo problem. An easy one is Skeleton Warriors + Liche Priest buff + a command ability giving them +1 to hit. While individually those units aren't a problem, combined we suddenly have skeletons generating extra attacks on a 4+, something none of the components are costed to compensate for. And the combos get worse from there. So much worse.
It's almost unfortunate we will always support older models during the same edition, or this problem (with the TK) would have solved itself by now...
This is awesome! Thank you to everyone involved, so glad the magmadroth got reduced in price as I have a lovely painted one in my collection
Follow up questions before we start a mini tournament between friends, Nagash summoning double (which has been clarified before) but do they come out as 1 unit double the size, or 2 units that are identical, I suppose it matter most for some banners or command models?
NinthMusketeer wrote: When he does summon, first determine what you are summoning with the points then double the number of models.
For example, say he casts Will of Nagash using the casting value of 8 to summon 130 points of models. He could elect to summon a unit of 21 skeleton warriors (128 pts), which would then be doubled and the player instead deploys a unit of 42 skeletons.
If he instead decided to summon a unit of 14 skeleton warriors with champion, banner, and music (129 pts) he would deploy a unit of 28 skeletons, but the unit would still only have a single command group since it is only the number of models doubled.
I've played Age of Sigmar with the PPC system for about a month before I had a break during which I focused on Infinity. Now I'm back for action and I was looking at the changes that happened to this system in the past few months. The last vesrion I had was that of November 2015.
I've seen some nice changes in the system such as the inclusion of battle scrolls and the change to various point costs.
There were two changes which I must say I didn't like as much.
The first one is the fact that one can have an army within a grand alliance. Now I can understand that with all those mini armybooks GW is publicing it is difficult for some codexes to play on their own, but it really kills sometimes the fluff of the game to have armies that are an amalgam of races. Yes Seraphon could be seen fighting with Stormcast Eternals and with Elves and Humans together, but imo it ruins the flavor of each army.
The second one (and that which I found even worse) is the fact that now a player can field up to 50% of his army for monsters and warmachines. So someone now can field an army with only heroes, monsters and warmachines without any unit whatsoever. This feels just wrong as it ruins the aesthetic of an army for a list. On top of that gameplay-wise having a Chaos army for example sport 4 Hellcannons (in a 2000pts game) is not fun at all for his opponent as it is not funny at all if an Empire player uses 7 Empire Cannons.
This is not a rant post and I really like what you guys have done and your point system, but when I saw this change from your previous versions of the comp I felt the urge to give some feedback regarding it...
Terrain warscrolls are the hard counter to war machines; a baleful realmgate will let you charge them turn 1, as an example. And honestly the most exploitative army type remains a single unit of shooting troops anyway.
You may be right, so far we haven't used any of the special terrain warscrolls in our games, so I may have to give them a try.
Just to play the devil's advocate though a clever player can shield to a great extent his warmachines with orther units so even with teleport one may not be able to do much to counter a full gunline or do it fast enough for it to matter...
That's where playing the game comes in! If your opponent brought 50% warmachines then their other troops will be pretty lacking, so you will have a significant edge in melee. At that point it will be up to you to play the better game.
So, as the grand alliance books and other releases roll on, the division of warscrolls on the PPC site based on the old armies is becoming increasingly obsolete. Since we should have all the grand alliance books soon, perhaps we can start discussing a better layout?
For Chaos, I am thinking this may work better:
-Beasts and Monsters (beastmen and the various chaos monsters & dragon ogres, as well as the war mammoth and giant spawn from Mr T's horde)
-Undivided (slaves to darkness, unaligned daemons, varanguard, archaeon, nightmaw, sayl)
-Forces of Khorne (all the mortal and daemon Khorne stuff)
-Forces of Tzeentch (tzeentch mortals and daemons, including gaunt summoner)
-Forces of Nurgle (nurgle mortals and daemons, including the rest of T's horde)
-Forces of Slaanesh (well GW did this for us already!)
-Skaven (everything skaven)
-Legion of Azgorh (because they don't quite fit in undivided)
Death should probably have Vampire Counts renamed "forces of death" or something, in anticipation of future releases. Tomb Kings can keep their own file, because we remember them.
Destruction is pending a grand alliance book, but I am thinking that doing Ogres, Big'Uns (Orruks, trolls, giant), and Grots (goblins and associated creatures) would be a good idea.
As for Order, we'll have to see when the grand alliance book comes out, since we know there will be a decent amount cut and reorganized.
I'm all for making this kind of change, will be good for next update - by then GW might have released even more stuff that makes the categoreizing easier.
Let's keep this open, it's enough if we decide sometime during april.
-Stormcast (Extremis included)
-Humans
-Aelves
-Duradin (but not Fyreslayers)
-Seraphon
With Order it will be particularly important to subdivide the documents to create a separate "legacy" section for the old warscrolls. There have been enough scrolls cut that I wonder if it would be worth creating a document just to contain legacy Order warscrolls.
With Order it will be particularly important to subdivide the documents to create a separate "legacy" section for the old warscrolls. There have been enough scrolls cut that I wonder if it would be worth creating a document just to contain legacy Order warscrolls.
I think it will be for the best as people need to have it clear what is what.
Perhaps a Legacy document can be made that will include Legacy units from all 4 Grand Alliances in their own category each. So with only one pdf we can have all the oldies packed together.
Hey everyone, with terrain costed and battalions mostly so, I thought I might move on to one of the few things that isn't; Times of War. A player may purchase a Time of War with their army, in which case that Time of War will be in play during games with that army. If multiple players brought Times of War then all of those effects will apply (though multiple instances of the same Time of War don't stack). Enjoy!
Storm of Sigmar - 125 pts. Note you may only summon 100 points of models with the granted ability.
Brimstone Peninsula - 100 pts. Fun stuff, but with many missile weapons having such short range the LoS blocking and wound bonus isn't significant.
The Jotenberg Vortex - 175 ots
Nulahmia - 100 pts, plus 50 for every Ophidian Archway in your army.
Hanging Valleys of Anvrock - 605 pts. I am assuming that players will build their army to specifically accommodate this.
Blasted Wastes- 95 pts. I don't have access to this one, so a bit more guesswork than normal.
Blasted Wastes II - 160 pts. Ditto with the above.
Rotwater Blight - 5 pts. The benefits here are pretty specific, and even Nurgle doesn't benefit in a relevant way.
The Greenglades - 15 pts. I don;t think this one brings much benefit either.
Burning Catacombs - 958 pts. This is really the value that felt right.
The Great Sorcerer 5d6 pts. Keeping with the Great Chnger's theme, the value of this will change each game!
Mount Kronus - XXX pts. "XXX" in this case equals the last three digits of pi, so that shouldn't be a problem for anyone to remember.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Hey everyone, with terrain costed and battalions mostly so, I thought I might move on to one of the few things that isn't; Times of War. A player may purchase a Time of War with their army, in which case that Time of War will be in play during games with that army. If multiple players brought Times of War then all of those effects will apply (though multiple instances of the same Time of War don't stack). Enjoy!
Storm of Sigmar - 125 pts. Note you may only summon 100 points of models with the granted ability.
Brimstone Peninsula - 100 pts. Fun stuff, but with many missile weapons having such short range the LoS blocking and wound bonus isn't significant.
The Jotenberg Vortex - 175 ots
Nulahmia - 100 pts, plus 50 for every Ophidian Archway in your army.
Hanging Valleys of Anvrock - 605 pts. I am assuming that players will build their army to specifically accommodate this.
Blasted Wastes- 95 pts. I don't have access to this one, so a bit more guesswork than normal.
Blasted Wastes II - 160 pts. Ditto with the above.
Rotwater Blight - 5 pts. The benefits here are pretty specific, and even Nurgle doesn't benefit in a relevant way.
The Greenglades - 15 pts. I don;t think this one brings much benefit either.
Burning Catacombs - 958 pts. This is really the value that felt right.
The Great Sorcerer 5d6 pts. Keeping with the Great Chnger's theme, the value of this will change each game!
Mount Kronus - XXX pts. "XXX" in this case equals the last three digits of pi, so that shouldn't be a problem for anyone to remember.
This is very interesting! I haven't delved into the Times of War at all, but adding this as variation could be really cool!
NinthMusketeer wrote: Hey everyone, with terrain costed and battalions mostly so, I thought I might move on to one of the few things that isn't; Times of War. A player may purchase a Time of War with their army, in which case that Time of War will be in play during games with that army. If multiple players brought Times of War then all of those effects will apply (though multiple instances of the same Time of War don't stack). Enjoy!
Storm of Sigmar - 125 pts. Note you may only summon 100 points of models with the granted ability.
Blasted Wastes- 95 pts. I don't have access to this one, so a bit more guesswork than normal.
Blasted Wastes II - 160 pts. Ditto with the above.
I'm a bit confused by charging points for Times of War? Storm of Sigmar, for example, gives both armies the ability to summon.
Also, please note that there are two Times of War each in Blasted Wastes (Foundry of Rage, Putrefax Sump) and Blasted Wastes II (Mount Hedon, Crystalline Shores).
In order to make them easier to find, here are all the point-costed battalions that are not yet on the main website. I'll keep this post current until the next PPC update.
Spoiler:
[Beastmen] Wildstalker Brayherd - 250 pts.
[Undivided] Overlords of Chaos - 175 pts, or 75 if not rolling for initiative.
[Undivided] Godsworn Champions of Ruin - 125 pts.
[Undivided] Godswrath Warband - 200 pts, +15 per unit beyond the minimum.
[Undivided] Ruinbringer Warband - 75 pts.
[Undivided] Archaeon's Grand Host - 85 pts. The Daemonic Pacts ability can only summon up to 100 points at a time. Sidenote: if someone plays this send me a picture of it!
[Undivided] Infernal Tetrarchy - 225 pts. Instead of using the summoning spell from a daemon's warscroll, use PPC's 'The Grand Invocation' (you do not need to pay additional points for its use in the battalion bonus -- this is already factored into the cost).
[Khorne] Goreblade Warband - 75 pts.
[Khorne] Blood Host (Lesser) - 200 pts. This version of the battalion allows 7 to 14 units to be included.
[Khorne] Blood Host (Greater) - 300 pts. This version of the battalion allows 15 or more units.
[Khorne] Bloodmarked Warband - 265 pts.
[Khorne] Vengeful Skullhunt - 100 pts
[Khorne] Skall'Uk's Slaughterband - 175 pts.
[Khorne] Redblade Vanguard - Free.
[Tzeentch] Changehost (Lesser) - 235 pts. This version of the battalion allows 8 to 16 units to be included. This is another battalion where I am very unsure as to an appropriate cost.
[Tzeentch] Changehost (Greater) - 350 pts. This version of the battalion allows 17 or more units to be included.
[Tzeentch] Fatesworn Warband - 175 pts, +25 per Hero included after the first.
[Tzeentch] Watcher King's Horde - 250 pts
[Nurgle] Blightguard - 250 pts.
[Nurgle] Tallyband (Lesser) - 335 pts. This version of the battalion allows 6 to 12 units to be included.
[Nurgle] Tallyband (Greater) - 475 pts. This version of the battalion allows 13 or more units to be included.
[Nurgle] Plaguetouched Warband - 250 pts.
[Nurgle] Blighted Warband - 275 pts
[Nurgle] Nurgle's Deluge - 200 pts
[Nurgle] Torglug's Foulblessed - 125 pts
[Nurgle] Glugurous' Plagueband - 175 pts.
[Nurgle] Bloab's Swarmbrothers - 250 pts
[Slaanesh] Pleasurebound Warband - 150 pts.
[Slaanesh] Lascilion's Horde - 150 pts. Note that this battalion still allows one roll on the triumph table for games that are not using the major victory rules (which I suspect is all of them).
[Beastmen] Bloodscorch Wartribe - 175 pts
[Skaven] Clan Skryre - 75 pts, plus the value of Enginecovens.
-Whyrlblade Threshik - 25pts
-Gascloud Chokelung - 75pts
-Rattlegauge Warplock - 125pts
-Arkhspark Voltik - 35pts
-Gautfyre Skorch - 85pts
[Skaven] Bringers of the Rotsmog - 90pts
[Skaven] Congregation of Filth - 125pts
[Skaven] Foulrain Congregation - 200pts
[Skaven] Plaguesmog Congregation - 215pts
[Skaven] Virulent Procession - 125pts. This is in addition to the battalion costs for the Congregations of Filth.
[Skaven] Skulkers of Runestruck Pass - 300 pts
[Skaven] The Virulent Horde - 100 pts. I am pointing this with the interpretation that the mortal wound is in addition to any normal damage of the attack (and that saves will be rolled normally for that damage).
[Stormcast] Devastation Brotherhood - 200 pts
[Stormcast] Annihilation Brotherhood - 75 pts
[Stormcast] Grymn's Brotherhood - 365 pts
[Stormcast] Ecelsior Vengeful Storm - 100 pts
[Stormcast] Warrior Brotherhood - 150 pts
[Stormcast] Brotherhood of the Great Bolts - 300 pts, +25 per Vexillor/Relictor included beyond the minimum.
[Stormcast] Royal Victrians - Free. The requirements of this battalion are immense, to say the least.
[Stormcast] Hallowed Hunt - 185 pts. Note that as the rules stand, the 1d6" of movement can pull units out of combat without needing to retreat, or put them into combat without needing to charge.
[Stormcast] Drakesworn Temple - 150 pts. Its good but geeze you already paid for three of these things...
[Stormcast] Lightning Echelon - 215 pts
[Stormcast] Thunderwave Echelon - 185 pts
[Stormcast] Extremis Chamber - Free.
[Fyreslayers] Arngard's Berzerker Fyrd - 100 pts
[Fyreslayers] Lords of the Lodge - 200 pts, or 125 if not rolling for initiative.
[Fyreslayers] Warrior Kinband - 150 pts
[Fyreslayers] Forge Brethren - 225 pts. Note the wording is a bit vague here, but I am pointing it with the interpretation that only one unit may create a bulwark per turn.
[Fyreslayers] Grand Fyrd - 50 pts. The Oaths of Battle rule is ignored.
[Fyreslayers] Guardians of the Great Chain - 165 pts
[Seraphon] Gul'Rok's Starhost - 125 pts
[Seraphon] Bloodclaw Starhost - 200 pts
[Seraphon] Heavanswrath Starhost - 125 pts, +25 per monster included (or +50 if that monster is a Bastiladon).
[Seraphon] Klaq-Tor's Talons - 135 pts
[Seraphon] Eternal Starhost - 250 pts, this cost a bit more than normal because the requirements are very easy to meet for comparatively powerful bonuses.
[Seraphon] Firelance Starhost - 25 pts
[Seraphon] Shadowstrike Starhost - 200 pts, easy requirements but most of the bonus will be in a one-hit-wonder of deep strike Ripperdactyls
[Seraphon] Sunclaw Starhost - 225 pts, I anticipate people running two small units of Saurus to meet the requirements alongside one gigantic unit to benefit the most from the rend on top of +1 attack.
[Seraphon] Thunderquake Starhost - 200 pts, +100 per Bastiladon included. Note the battalion does not have to include any Bastiladons. I have also edited the Heavenwrath Starhost to include variable costing based on Bastiladons (see the master list in the other PPC thread).
[Seraphon] Starbeast Constellation - Free
[Sylvaneth] Alarielle's Heartwood Guard - 225 pts
[Sylvaneth] Forest Spirit Wargrove - 100 pts
[Human] Pilgrimage of Wrath - 100 pts
[Human] Freeguild Regiment - 75 pts
[Human] War Council - Free
[Humans] Tauroi Warclan - 50 pts, plus 25 per Warrior Priest and 75 per unit of Flagellants.
[Human/Duardin] Artillery Detachment - 75 pts
[Duradin] Grudgebound War Throng - 200 pts
[Aelf] Spyreheart Warhost - 75 pts, +25 per Phoenix included.
I think PPC point costs monsters higher because it incorporates playtesting into its comp. On an empty field, many monsters (even without synergy abilities) are indeed worth less because they tend not to kill their points worth of models. However, monsters aren't naked beatsticks in AoS like they are in many other games because they get weaker as they take wounds. They really need proper support to be worth their value, and its when they are between two of your units or next to another monster that they really shine. A monster in melee range of 5 enemy models from a 10-man unit gets its full attack potential, while that unit only gets half of its own. This is one of the reasons I love PPC; armies without big stompy monsters can do just fine, and if one does bring a monster there is still a good amount of tactics to its use. (And for whats its worth this is coming from someone who has one or more monsters in almost all my lists.)
Most stuff won't really change I think, mostly wound-halfing models. Though I don't know if Attilla was treating 'within X"' abilities as including the source or not, that could see a larger number of small adjustments. Out of curiosity, what are you upset about? It seems like many of the answers that confirm/allow powerful options are accounted for with PPC. However it is probably worth adding to the comp rules that 6s to hit or wound will always succeed, since with same-ability stacking it becomes very easy to make a unit's attacks need 7+ or worse to hit.
I don't want to bring negativity into such a great thread but I thought the clarification about bringing multiple same-named characters was just such a poor move, not even to do with balance just shows a general disregard for the game I've been playing for 20 years. They just want people to spend a lot of money on expensive hero models and field them.
I thought the cannon/crew thing is still weird to me, although I blame Lord Kroak and globals for that.
Also allowing double stacking buffs, it all leads to game breaking rather than well defined rules.
Either way, my group of friends have been having a small round-robin tournament with PPC in its current form with some house rules and we've had some epic-ally close games. Down to less than 5 models in each army. It's been fantastic so again my thanks goes out to everyone here.
So GW has announced they will be releasing point values this summer! I actually think this will be neutral or possibly good for PPC. If GW releases points and they are terrible (likely) then it may at least pull new players into AoS, who are likely to go over to PPC's points when they realize GW's shortcomings. If they release competent costs, then it will at least act as a filter for comps overall, acting to get rid of the ones that don't work very well. That could potentially bring the focus onto the better comps (Azyr, SGCT and PPC from the looks of it) and keep interest going. Of course, the worst case scenario could happen where people abandon PPC for GW's values but fwiw I'll still be using PPC and I'm sure enough others will too that it'll keep going.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So GW has announced they will be releasing point values this summer! I actually think this will be neutral or possibly good for PPC. If GW releases points and they are terrible (likely) then it may at least pull new players into AoS, who are likely to go over to PPC's points when they realize GW's shortcomings. If they release competent costs, then it will at least act as a filter for comps overall, acting to get rid of the ones that don't work very well. That could potentially bring the focus onto the better comps (Azyr, SGCT and PPC from the looks of it) and keep interest going. Of course, the worst case scenario could happen where people abandon PPC for GW's values but fwiw I'll still be using PPC and I'm sure enough others will too that it'll keep going.
I think this is a bit naive. No matter how bad the point system of GW will become, people will flock to an official point system and make it work. Past experiences of fan-made documents have proven that. Now, that being said, I don't think GW's system will be worse or bad. It is created in partnership with the SCGT (comp) guys, which has a very good comp system. In fact, I am very optimistic
The difference is that the community comps existed first, then GW added their own. Previously it has only been fan-comps being added to the already existing points structure of GW. Its an important difference between this and past experiences. The problem with SCGT is simple; the balance is good enough, but not really good. The three winning armies really say it all; there are a few token 'troop' units put in because they are needed to win scenarios then the rest of the list is packed with characters and monsters. That will be good enough for plenty of people I'm sure, but it isn't something I'm going to bother playing when PPC is better.
The new system is not SCGT comp. That was publicly stated on the facebook yesterday. It is a system GW devised and then they invited the SCGT guys to review it.
I think Ninth is hitting the nail on the head when he says one of the things GW no doubt loved about the SCGT comp was all the big fancy monsters it catered for in competitive lists and GW are probably no doubt keen to replicate that aspect of it.
After listening to the podcast announcement, I too wonder just how much influence they will have on the system.
It did sound more like a quick playtest of something that already exists vs. a comprehensive involvement on their part to craft a good system. A reward for the faithful?
NinthMusketeer wrote: So, as the grand alliance books and other releases roll on, the division of warscrolls on the PPC site based on the old armies is becoming increasingly obsolete. Since we should have all the grand alliance books soon, perhaps we can start discussing a better layout?
We have a proposition on this matter on the blog now. It's similar to your suggestions, but differ in some places. Instead of posting the entire long list I'll link to the blog here.
Looks great to me, I would just be inclined to split up Orruks & Grots since they are two pretty hefty factions already and it looks like they will only get bigger in the future. Maybe put Troggoths & Gargants into a single 'Monsters of Destruction' category.
Hopefully in time for the May update, Ironjawz battalions! Note the Weirdfist and Ironfist are a bit higher because of easily met requirements. The brawl has a cost because while the requirements are huge the bonus is equally so.
Brutefist - 100
Gorefist - 175
Ardfist - 125
Weirdfist - 185
Ironfist - 215
Brawl - 100
[edit] Also hopefully in time for the May update, I have gone back through battalions I previously posted and lowered the cost of many of the higher-priced ones (factored into the spoiler list above).
! It's on the first or second page of 
