Some of those numbers are outdated now tho due to new books, if you look Brayherds are still on there, but you just play BoC now, literally no reason to play Brayherds. ANd for those that are still playing its to be best in faction or painting, etc.. not to win the matches.
When looking at the bottom, you need to take into account that not everyone goes to events to win games, many go for other reasons. Gitmob and Brayherd has 1 player each, so you can discount them as they are not going to compete in winning matches, otherwise they use the new rules.
Looking at popular lower tier armies is good tho, b.c those armies are not balanced.
Look at Sylvaneth, they had 51.9% winrate, where Bonesplitterz had a 53.8%, one summons one doesnt.
When looking at the top 25% tho, its very clear summoning isnt dominating like you are claiming.
Finally armies with 1.0 will not be the same as a 2.0 for sure. When looking at summing vs non-summing, many dont even have real rules yet, the 7? elf armies, free people, Ogres, etc...
Amishprn86 wrote: Some of those numbers are outdated now tho due to new books, if you look Brayherds are still on there, but you just play BoC now, literally no reason to play Brayherds. ANd for those that are still playing its to be best in faction or painting, etc.. not to win the matches.
When looking at the bottom, you need to take into account that not everyone goes to events to win games, many go for other reasons. Gitmob and Brayherd has 1 player each, so you can discount them as they are not going to compete in winning matches, otherwise they use the new rules.
Looking at popular lower tier armies is good tho, b.c those armies are not balanced.
Look at Sylvaneth, they had 51.9% winrate, where Bonesplitterz had a 53.8%, one summons one doesnt.
So the "those don't count" argument.
When looking at the top 25% tho, its very clear summoning isnt dominating like you are claiming.
No, that is not how statistics work. Out of the top 10, 5 are summoning armies. So 50%. But out of all armies far less than 50% of them summon, showing a large skew towards summon armies occupying the higher levels.
So with all due respect, do you have any evidence to back your claim?
Edit: And to put this out there beforehand: win % in tournaments is heavily skewed towards 50%. Because a person who loses in the first round gets put against someone else to did, while winners go against winners, and so on. But if you did want to use that as a measure, it would need to be a comparison of the average win rating of summoning armies against the average win rating of non-summoning armies. It would also make phoenix temple the strongest army in the game
Yeah were talking about the balance of the entire game. Saying that summoning is fine and not overpowered because a lot of people dont care about winning is a non sequitor.
The entire topic is about the power balance of the game and what things make a power list a power list vs lists that will get trashed, illustrating that there is a wide balancing issue and summoning can be one of those factors particularly when faced with obscene summoning ala nagash, seraphon, and fec.
That some people dont play to win or dont care about balance has nothing to do with the game being imbalanced and there needing to be some mechanics in place to help armies like slaves to darkness or kharadron. Armies that have nobe of the powergamer tools available to them and cost too much for what they do to boot.
Amishprn86 wrote: Some of those numbers are outdated now tho due to new books, if you look Brayherds are still on there, but you just play BoC now, literally no reason to play Brayherds. ANd for those that are still playing its to be best in faction or painting, etc.. not to win the matches.
When looking at the bottom, you need to take into account that not everyone goes to events to win games, many go for other reasons. Gitmob and Brayherd has 1 player each, so you can discount them as they are not going to compete in winning matches, otherwise they use the new rules.
Looking at popular lower tier armies is good tho, b.c those armies are not balanced.
Look at Sylvaneth, they had 51.9% winrate, where Bonesplitterz had a 53.8%, one summons one doesnt.
So the "those don't count" argument.
When looking at the top 25% tho, its very clear summoning isnt dominating like you are claiming.
No, that is not how statistics work. Out of the top 10, 5 are summoning armies. So 50%. But out of all armies far less than 50% of them summon, showing a large skew towards summon armies occupying the higher levels.
So with all due respect, do you have any evidence to back your claim?
Edit: And to put this out there beforehand: win % in tournaments is heavily skewed towards 50%. Because a person who loses in the first round gets put against someone else to did, while winners go against winners, and so on. But if you did want to use that as a measure, it would need to be a comparison of the average win rating of summoning armies against the average win rating of non-summoning armies. It would also make phoenix temple the strongest army in the game
No i didnt say they dont count, i said you need to check the outliers, and gave 2 examples, "some" outliers shouldnt be counted b.c they are rolled into new battletomes now and players still using those old rules are not playing for balance.
How about if i act like you for once? Yes do that..... If you want to discount tournament results b.c "Winners fight winners and losers fight losers" (AKA equal skilled players fighting equal skilled players so the win/lost rate is equal out), then what results are you going off of?
You have provided no data that backs up your claim, I have explained why the data you did provide backs up my claim. You are now changing things into statements I did not make to continue the argument.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You have provided no data that backs up your claim, I have explained why the data you did provide backs up my claim. You are now changing things into statements I did not make to continue the argument.
B.c the top armies are not all summoning, that means you are wrong.
If summoning was op, then the top summoning armies vs non summoning wouldnt be so close in % win rates..... but you seem to want to ignore the best player sin the world, the ones that showed what is the best, only 1 of the top 5 are summoning, but yeah, the average player that makes mistakes in games should outweigh the players that dont make large mistakes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: January 2019
CanCon 2019, Australia 1st: Blades of Khorne (Gore Pilgrims)
2nd: Grand Host of Nagash
3rd: Grand Host of Nagash
UK Masters 1st: Beasts of Chaos
February 2019
Las Vegas Open 1st: Flesh-Eater Courts
2nd: Stormcast Eternals
3rd: Stormcast Eternals
London AoS Masters 1st: Bonesplitters (Kunnin Ruk)
2nd: Mixed Order (Tempest Eye)
3rd: Gloomspite Gitz
Sheffield Slaughter, UK 1st: Beasts of Chaos
2nd: Flesh-Eater Courts (Gristlegore)
3rd: Idoneth Deepkin (Fuethan Namarti Corps)
March 2019
Age of Sigmar Grand Tournament, Heat 1, UK 1st: Idoneth Deepkin (Fuethan Namarti Corps)
2nd: Skaven
3rd: Flesh-Eater Courts (Blisterkin)
South Australia Grand Tournament, Australia 1st: Skaven (Skryre)
2nd: Flesh-Eater Courts (Blisterkin)
3rd: Mixed Order
Fall of the Old World V, UK 1st: FEC (Gristlegore)
2nd: Stormcast (Hammers of Sigmar)
3rd: Grand Host of Nagash
Thats 60/40 summing and non-summoning from the past few months, WIth a couple of them honestly with very limited summoning (Gloomspite, and then i would argue Khorne), but i still counted them as summoning, I also say some like BoC dont need summoning to be good, chariots, Spawns, Raiders, small single man units or 1 10man is what is summon mostly, and normally only 2 units a game (You are spending 180pts to summong 180pts, the benefit of this is battalions, they really are equal in points still, so i dont consider them a summoning army, without spending 180pts you only summon 1 50pt unit once a game). Looking at this, its clear Summoning is a mechanic and not an OP fact, Skaven, Sotrmcast, IDK, DoK, Mix Order, etc.. all are out doing summoning time to time. If summoning is such a problem, then why isnt it 80%+ of top players?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: You have provided no data that backs up your claim, I have explained why the data you did provide backs up my claim. You are now changing things into statements I did not make to continue the argument.
Im showing over and over again that summoning is not OP and is equal to non-summoning. I given you multiple data points from different sources. Its clear that on equal levels of play, summoning is a normal tool, not a problem.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You have provided no data that backs up your claim, I have explained why the data you did provide backs up my claim. You are now changing things into statements I did not make to continue the argument.
B.c the top armies are not all summoning, that means you are wrong.
If summoning was op, then the top summoning armies vs non summoning wouldnt be so close in % win rates..... but you seem to want to ignore the best player sin the world, the ones that showed what is the best, only 1 of the top 5 are summoning, but yeah, the average player that makes mistakes in games should outweigh the players that dont make large mistakes.
No, that is not the numbers work. You are literally making things up now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: Im showing over and over again that summoning is not OP and is equal to non-summoning. I given you multiple data points from different sources. Its clear that on equal levels of play, summoning is a normal tool, not a problem.
No. You are showing over and over again that summoning armies, on average, perform better than non-summoning armies. You have given multiple data points that prove this. It is clear that you have no evidence to back up your claim.
I honestly feel that you do not understand how the numbers work here. I know that sounds harsh, but you are very literally pointing at them and making a statement that is mathematically untrue.
EDIT: You know what, I'm not doing this again. Ignored.
The problem with summoning, I think, is that in general is a 0 skill tactic, that punishes people that don't want to buy many more models, and in most cases, an auto use (Instead of Khorne where if you want to summon you basically give out your Allegiance Hability, so is a choice)
Then we can enter in its balance, but as it his now, I don't see a difference betwen this summoning and, for example, w40k 7th's Formations. (I know the direct equivalent of Formations would be Batallions, but I believe Batallions are much better implemented than Formations or Summoning)
Both were free upgrades (In many cases free models and units) if you bought, normally, more or specific models/units, that required 0 skill to play, and offered very unfair advantages to people that had the good ones.
Yeah, that's sort of the problem in this thread as well... I'm looking at the win lists, top 10s, win percentages, masters and I'm really not seeing an eye-wateringly obvious sign that the summoning armies are out there out-performing the non-summoning ones in very obnoxious or obvious ways. Guess everybody sees different things in these stats. I mostly look at this keeping in mind what lists actually did well, and allow me to elaborate:
It's also just plain difficult to accurately assess if an army was actually one that (ab)used summoning or not. For some, you can be pretty sure it was summoning that was a main tool: most LoN lists, with the exception of "Neferatta's double dragon court" (who actually took a full win with virtually no summoning possible in said list), seraphon rely on it heavily, seems Slaanesh can use it heavily. A royal menagerie FEC army really isn't heavy on summoning at all, it will use it for sure, but it's far from the main stick but still performs beastly (if you'll excuse the lame pun) for reasons way beyond just summoning. Some BoC lists (like the swamping in Tzaangors one) don't have an emphasis on summoning either etc... Any Sylvaneth list without Alarielle or branchwraith is not a summoning army either and that list goes on for quite a while actually.
If you look at that list, it's almost surprising how many can actually do summoning now and how concentrated the summoning is in the newer books. If you take the "newer books" designed with AoS2 in mind, it's actually over 50%. And I think it's fair to say all of these aren't "dogsh*t tier" armies, and quite a few of them are scattered in the top 10 regularly.
MKoN: summoning
LoN: summoning
DoK: non summoning
IDK: non summoning
SCE: non summoning
NH: non summoning
BoC: summoning
GSS: super limited, but summoning
FEC: summoning
Skaven: Super limited, and I actually forgot: Screaming bell can summon in a Vermin lord! Should we consider this a summoning army now as well?
Older battletomes (or armies that don't have an upgrade):
Seraphon: Summoning (one of the factions I previously felt had problematic summoning)
Everchosen: weird book that's usually absorbed into a summoning chaos monogod faction. Hard to make a call on this
Fyreslayers: will be updated, but doesn't look like summoning is included at all. Not performing too hot right now (mostly due to lack of tools that all newer books do have)
Skaven pestilens: obsolete book at this point.
Ironjawz: no summoning (almost laughing stock tier bad right now, but if you says that's because they lack summoning, I would laugh in your face as there's all sorts of things wrong with this army atm).
Sylvaneth: limited summoning, still holding it's own
Bonesplitterz: no summoning, still holding it's own despite it not being very popular.
BCR: no summoning, incredibly poor performance with lots of problems in their army design. In a similar boat as Ironjawz right now.
DoT: summoning, perfect example of getting nerfed from God-tier into middle tier through drastic points cost adjustments.
KO: no summoning, laughing stock tier because of changes to AoS2 shooting mostly. Fell behind in a massive way, despite doing very well in AoS1. Needs a redesign imo.
Factions without a book, but with GHB love:
Freeguild: non-summoning; actually doing surprisingly decent, but not being run a lot.
Wanderers: non-summoning; really poor allegiance abilities.
Slaanesh: summoning, doing really well these days! Summoning appears to play a major roll in this.
If you do want a TL/DR, I'm more siding towards Amishprn86 on this: summoning is a tool/game mechanic that needn't be considered broken all the time. It's an allegiance ability that can give somebody an edge (just like any allegiance ability can) and that can be abused in a few rare cases (just like some allegiance abilities are borderline abused in competitive lists).
1st: Nighthaunt
2nd: Ordo Draconis
3rd Gloomspite Gitz
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MKoN: summoning
LoN: summoning
DoK: non summoning
IDK: non summoning
SCE: non summoning
NH: non summoning
BoC: summoning
GSS: super limited, but summoning
FEC: summoning
Skaven: Super limited, and I actually forgot: Screaming bell can summon in a Vermin lord! Should we consider this a summoning army now as well?
Three of the non-summoning armies here have for a time been considered top-tier armies that have consistently been winning events.
I have fought a few summoning armies(and I count the reanimating Nagash into that pile) and I admit I find it an annoying mechanic, but it hasn't been the decisive factor whether I lose or not. To be fair I haven't played against FEC so my judgment on that faction remains to be seen.
Elmir wrote: If you do want a TL/DR, I'm more siding towards Amishprn86 on this: summoning is a tool/game mechanic that needn't be considered broken all the time. It's an allegiance ability that can give somebody an edge (just like any allegiance ability can) and that can be abused in a few rare cases (just like some allegiance abilities are borderline abused in competitive lists).
I tend to agree with the above, in that summoning can be broken at times, but big picture it isn’t.
And I truly feel a significant change is coming to summoning. A few episodes ago on the Facehammer podcasts, they briefly mention their problems with summoning, and just focus on the boring and tedious nature of it. That seemed like a significant admission to me, as those guys are playtesters/friends with GW dudes.
From memory, it went as follows(their statements in bold) :
-Destroying a unit just to have it come right back at the same strength is boring. What if it came back at a lesser strength?
That would make summoning scale to an extent. Isn’t Gloomspite summoning like that? You only get half of what you started with? Is that a test run for future summoning rules, perhaps?
-What if the summoning player had to summon in a completely different model/unit, instead of the same unit That was just destroyed?
Could potentially open its own can of worms, but I like that idea the most. Would immediately dispel one aspect of the “spam summoning” notion, as well as get a more diverse range of models on the table. Armies with a limited roster (FEC) could dip into their Grand Alliance roster. Like I said, its own can of worms, but some limitations would naturally need to be placed.
I’ll have to find and relisten to the episode tonight and revisit this post to make sure I’m not misremembering. I think they talked a bit more about summoning, but it was only a few moments, and it wasn’t a focus of the episode, just a passing comment one of the hosts made while discussing army lists at a tourney.
Also, did anyone read Jervis’s commentary on balance/points costs in the previous months White Dwarf? I didn’t even know about it until a few nights ago when I was perusing for an unrelated article and made a mental bookmark to return to and read it. Some great quotes and admissions in there, at a glance.
I wasn't able to get last month's WD before it sold out. I'm really curious what he said because for the longest time people have said they don't use a formula or anything, and Jervis got a lot of flack for being oldschool and thinking points weren't such a huge deal and such.
Wayniac wrote: I wasn't able to get last month's WD before it sold out. I'm really curious what he said because for the longest time people have said they don't use a formula or anything, and Jervis got a lot of flack for being oldschool and thinking points weren't such a huge deal and such.
Basically, it's a compilation of tournaments results and their own tests/works at GW's studio, with the returns made yearly with army lists optimization and overall metagame balance.
And JJ still has his own point of view. This month, he has written an article about what is clearly intended as base for tournament rules (he said he's working on it for the General Handbook 2019).
Elmir wrote: If you do want a TL/DR, I'm more siding towards Amishprn86 on this: summoning is a tool/game mechanic that needn't be considered broken all the time. It's an allegiance ability that can give somebody an edge (just like any allegiance ability can) and that can be abused in a few rare cases (just like some allegiance abilities are borderline abused in competitive lists).
I tend to agree with the above, in that summoning can be broken at times, but big picture it isn’t.
I think this is summoning in a nutshell, but with the added clarification that while it is not broken in most instances it is still a free advantage some armies get for showing up. And that shows; summoning armies don't dominate the tournaments but do occupy a disproportionate amount of the upper rankings. In some ways that is good (that it is not *broken* overall), but in others it is not. If something is broken one can look at it and (justifiably) say 'well I got tabled by [broken army] round 3, but that's just how that goes' whereas if it is just an advantage the situation is more muddied. Did you lose because you played the worse game? Or did your opponent's free advantage decide the matter? An overall trend can make clear if an advantage is present but in the context of a single game there's rarely a way to reach a concrete answer. That can be frustrating and breed resentment against the system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote: And I truly feel a significant change is coming to summoning. A few episodes ago on the Facehammer podcasts, they briefly mention their problems with summoning, and just focus on the boring and tedious nature of it. That seemed like a significant admission to me, as those guys are playtesters/friends with GW dudes.
I am really happy to hear that, thank you for mentioning it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elmir wrote: Skaven: Super limited, and I actually forgot: Screaming bell can summon in a Vermin lord! Should we consider this a summoning army now as well?
I think when people say "summoning army" the generally accepted meaning is an army that summons new units/re-summons old units in a manner that is intrinsic to the army. I haven't seen Gloomspite referred to as a summoning army (and do not see them as one myself) because while the units do come back they do not do so at full strength, on top of it being an ability that is very limited in its application. Several armies have battalions, warscrolls, or sub-factions that allow units to be brought back but aren't considered summoning armies because these are not part of the base mechanic; something must be done to get them and they tend to also be very limited. An example would be Skaven, where a handful of units can be brought back if slain... but it costs a command point, requires a 5-wound hero still be alive, and only works on a 5+ (potentially 4+ with the right build). While technically able to summon, the restrictions and niche nature make it unfair to call all of Skaven a summoning army. Sylvaneth are similar, with only two warscrolls and a battalion able to summon and not being strong at doing so.
Compare to armies where summoning is something every army gets as part of the allegiance, and/or is ubiquitous to how the army is used (Seraphon/FEC can technically be run non-summoning but that does not happen in practice).
Wayniac wrote: I wasn't able to get last month's WD before it sold out. I'm really curious what he said because for the longest time people have said they don't use a formula or anything, and Jervis got a lot of flack for being oldschool and thinking points weren't such a huge deal and such.
Basically, it's a compilation of tournaments results and their own tests/works at GW's studio, with the returns made yearly with army lists optimization and overall metagame balance.
And JJ still has his own point of view. This month, he has written an article about what is clearly intended as base for tournament rules (he said he's working on it for the General Handbook 2019).
Something to keep in mind that a formula is only a good way to get an initial value for a unit. Back in the day there were fan comps that exclusively used a formula and did not augment that with any subjective evaluation or playtest experience, and they failed hard compared to the ones that did.
I played his gibbering dome event at adepticon. The only thing narrative about it was it wasnt a matched play scenario that has a decent story. Technically that is all a narrative needs though. Balance is not a thing there
The lists present were mostly adepticon tourney style lists.
My takeaway the past year has been balance overall is the last thing most players really care about. At least in the aos fan sphere.
Also id like to say the two gentlemen in the tweet are superb event organizers. I posted it because i see that balance is boring phrase quite a bit around the web in regards to aos.
Also id like to say the two gentlemen in the tweet are superb event organizers. I posted it because i see that balance is boring phrase quite a bit around the web in regards to aos.
It is true, though. Perfect balance is boring, because it usually involves perfect symetry. If you want to give both sides the exact same chances, you know that the less differences there are, the closer you'll get to your balance.
Why do you think all battleplans made for tournaments are always giving the same size in territory and same distance for objectives ?
Perfect balance will never happen, nor has anyone ever asked for it. The ideal is each army has 45-55% odds against each other army, and for each option within an army to be reasonably useful. And many people (myself included) would be quite happy with much less than that.
Not once have I seen perfect balance brought up except for use as a straw man
The whole "with balance listbuilding doesn't matter" argument is silly too, because if listbuilding did not matter that would mean a player could pick units completely at random and be just as good as someone who worked things out. Which is obviously ridiculous, since even with all things balanced having the correct balanced of different battlefield roles, soft and hard synergy, body count, etc matters (more so, even). What balance does is make listbuilding harder and a not-insignificant of individuals would rather have easy choices than put proper thought into it.
Nah, saying Perfect balance is boring because nobody is asking for the game to become chess (And yes we all know chess isn't perfectly balanced).
But thats a reductio to absurdum. People just wants better balance. Some people has different degrees of what they consider acceptable balance, of course, and thats from where most discussions come.
Remove "perfect" and what I wrote still applies. Because that's the easiest way to balance things, and you know it.
If every army has a way to attack twice in a row in the combat phase, then it's a way to balance the fact all of them has this option. It doesn't make it interesting nor innovating. It's just boring, but it's done in the sake of balance.
That's what that they meant in the link to twitter, IMHO.
Diversity comes from unbalance. That's why warhammer games were never fully balanced from a lot of competitive players' point of view : because that goes against the numerous options their games were always giving us so far. And that's why narrative players are annoyed when competitive players keep whining about it, 'cause they remember what happened to AoS when they finally get points back. They know they will never be satisfied and that their quest for balance will never end. What they will do, however, is ruining the fun and destroying options for the future of their game. For the sake of balance.
When two terran marines era equal to one Protoss Zealot then those both options are balanced but they aren't equal or boring. Unbalance actually hinders diversity because you have less options that are viable.
I'm actually in your camp. I prefer more funky options than super streamlined ones. Thats why I love my fantasy greenskins, with my giant rules, or the fantasy steam tank rules, and I dislike 9th age or Kings of War. Of course those are better competitive games, but for that experience I play computer RTS.
But that doesn't makes me unable to see and recognise the diference between an asimetrically balanced game, that will have unbalances, of course, theres always some grade of unbalance, weaker and more powerful units. But thats a gradient, not an absolute. Is a form of quality in your rules writting. And you can ask for better balance in your asimetrically balanced AoS without asking for it to become Kings of War.
(And to be honest, right now, AoS was streamlined, like, a LOT. In everything. Units have never been more similar in how they function in fantasy than they are right now in AoS, more samey. Statlines are much more similar, with a tons of 3+4 saves, +4 to hit and to wound, -1 rend values, 1-2 damage, etc...)
You can care a lot about balance, just not in your tabletop games... or not in this game.
I can be very hardcore with the things I like... but I can also relax. Like most human beings.
Those "No items, Fox Only, Final Destination" kind of guys definetely exist but in a social context they are much less of a problem ,at least speaking generally.
I know the american mentality is very much "Compete for everything all the time". I don't want to generalise of course but at least thats my impresion. In europe, from Spain to Poland, in France or UK, the ambience is just much more relaxed.
I think its borderline criminal to sell models for factions that havent seen an update at all in four years now without a warning that playing that faction is not really viable.
Seeing someone drop $600/-$800 on karadron because they look awesome only to find you havent a chance in hell to successfully use them unless you are adept at social engineering to convince your opponents to not min max is wrong.
I think its borderline criminal to sell models for factions that havent seen an update at all in four years now without a warning that playing that faction is not really viable.
Depends on how things are approached. A friend of mine collects KO only to paint and would fit nicely into the old Kirby thinking of "we are a model company first". I know my FLGS and the people who play there will actively help people if asked about the games in question. So far not a lot of people buy KO or Grey Knights unless they are doing it for fun and are aware that they are buying subpar models gamewise.
It is a failure of a system to have factions languishing for years.
Here where i am the majority of people dont buy armies with no intent of playing. You have to watch out for those people so they dont waste their money.
This speaks nothing of internal balance. So many factions that CAN be viable must use one certain build.
You are forced to field one of a handful of builds.
This speaks nothing of internal balance. So many factions that CAN be viable must use one certain build.
You are forced to field one of a handful of builds.
Only with a competitive mindset. See, the trouble with your point here is that it can only be true if we all follow the same mindset. Which isn't the case, obviously (damn those pesky narrative players !).
Fortunately, GW doesn't follow you, so we're safe for now. More choice for the choice God !
It only takes that one guy that brings the adepticon list to your campaign to break your campaign.
Social ostracization of players playing to the rules and having to be good at social engineering to convice others to not min max is not a desired game state.
(damn those pesky narrative players !)
I've spent the past 15 odd years doing nothing but narrative gaming. Narrative gamers aren't narrative gamers because they don't min/max. Most of the narrative gamers I've run into also build strong lists.
The adepticon narrative event is a big shining neon sign to that. It is a narrative event that had a lot of strong powerful tournament calibre lists.
So really your choice for the choice God is fine until you get a couple min max players that are going to min max, and then you get to decide to either be ok with being stomped (not a very fun game at least to me) or trying to socially engineer them to not bring a min max list (or have your group boot them).
Galas wrote: No, diversity doesn't comes from unbalance.
Diversity comes from asymmetrical balance.
When two terran marines era equal to one protoss zealot then those both options are balanced but they aren't equal or boring. Unbalance actually hinders diversity because you have less options that are viable.
I'm actually in your camp. I prefer more funky options than super streamlined ones. That's why I love my fantasy greenskins, with my giant rules, or the fantasy steam tank rules, and I dislike 9th age or Kings of War. Of course those are better competitive games, but for that experience I play computer RTS.
But that doesn't makes me unable to see and recognize the difference between an asymmetrically balanced game, that will have unbalances, of course, theres always some grade of unbalance, weaker and more powerful units. But that's a gradient, not an absolute. Is a form of quality in your rules writing. And you can ask for better balance in your asymmetrically balanced AoS without asking for it to become Kings of War.
(And to be honest, right now, AoS was streamlined, like, a LOT. In everything. Units have never been more similar in how they function in fantasy than they are right now in AoS, more samey. Statlines are much more similar, with a tons of 3+4 saves, +4 to hit and to wound, -1 rend values, 1-2 damage, etc...)
Some quotes from Jervis’s White Dwarf article on point costs/balance:
I think it’s important to address one issue, which is that the variables in a complex game like AoS make it almost impossible to come up with a points value that will be accurate in every single game of Age of Sigmar
He mentions how terrain can ruin a shooty unit in one game, then in the next a lack of terrain can make it wreck face. They strive to get between those extremes.
These (in reference to fan made points systems) proved to be extremely helpful, as I was able to take all of the different systems, feed them into a master spreadsheet, and check them against each other
Goes on to say that house rules in certain points systems and tournament packs would skew some point costs. Ended up going with a system that closely aligned with the Pitched Battle rules he was working on. We know which one and why, if you’ve been paying attention since AoS launch.
I then took this information, and used it to construct a spreadsheet that could be used to work out the points values of new units we wanted to add to AoS
Again says he used community comp systems to compare and average out costs. Expected damage output, survivability, abilities of a unit, is all factored into cost.
Referring to summoning and armies that don’t have the option:
But they’ll often find that they have their own army special rules that benefit them in a different way. Everything’s accounted for in the points
He also mentions how most armies have restrictions on how/where/what they can summon.
Playtesting - Paraphrasing here, as its three rather large paragraphs :
Tries to get as many games as possible in, with internal and external playtesters, still working out the points value. Mentions that they try to make choices difficult, rather than include no brainer choices. Playtesting generally reveals that roughly 20% get points adjustments at this stage.
I really like that they want to make choices difficult. Makes list building and testing them a fun endeavor, in my opinion. Though it usually means I end up buying more gak.
Review and modification after rules publishing:
Army list optimization is something that comes about because- after a battle tome is published- the army is used to play thousands of games, exponentially more that we were able to playtest it with
True enough. Its a small team, even with external playtesters, inevitable that some stuff slips through the cracks.
If left unchecked, this optimization can lead to cookie-cutter armies that are very similar in their composition.
Things like army list optimization and the changing tournament meta are almost impossible to anticipate in advance
However, if left unchecked, they can wreck the balance of a game, and because of this we have a biannual review process to look at points values in AoS and make adjustments that are neccessary.
Review includes feedback sessions with external playtesters, tourney organizers and gathering of various social media info.
Mentions that Errata is published to fix truly egregious imbalances, but I don’t recall that ever happening. Correct me if I’m wrong?
The majority of points fixes are left for the GHBs.
Final paragraph is patented JJ self deprecation, another admission that its not a perfect system and a call to feel free to reach them to continue to improve AoS at AoSFAQ@gwplc.com
All in all, a great article( 4 pages long with sidebars, I got you what I felt were the juiciest quotes) and not nearly as tedious a read as I was expecting it to be. I got the impression that the team takes points value/balance very seriously and that there is a method. All in all, I think they get the majority of it correct, its just that some of the broken stuff steals the show.
Looking forward to GHB3!
Edit: its March 2019 issue, for those that want to scope it out. Lots of good AoS content in that issue, overshadowed by the 40K Assassins thing.
nels1031 wrote: And I truly feel a significant change is coming to summoning. A few episodes ago on the Facehammer podcasts, they briefly mention their problems with summoning, and just focus on the boring and tedious nature of it. That seemed like a significant admission to me, as those guys are playtesters/friends with GW dudes.
I am really happy to hear that, thank you for mentioning it.
Their (the Facehammer guys) thoughts could mean change is afoot, but they’ve had other neat ideas that weren’t implemented, for what its worth.
I just thought it was worth a mention because it seems like some posters with a summoning hard-on(spanning like 4 threads it seems) think tourney players just love the summoning rules and don’t want anything to change.
NinthMusketeer wrote:Well if a player cares a lot about balance chances are they aren't a big fan of AoS as those two things are at odds.
I care, but being with AoS for a different reason
Galas wrote:Nah, saying Perfect balance is boring because nobody is asking for the game to become chess (And yes we all know chess isn't perfectly balanced).
Some people would have a word with you that chess is boring because it is balanced
Sarouan wrote:
Diversity comes from unbalance.
No, just no.
Just some thoughts on that one:
First of all, no one is asking for perfect balance, but for equal chances. No one is intrested in a game were the list decides if you win or lose.
GW tried to solve this over time by adding some strange rules mechanics based on single dice roles to make the outcome unpredictable even with one list being clear better (and players always found a list to break that system even more)
Talking about balance and diversity can mean several things.
Diversity on faction level, unit level, model level or tactic/strategic level
people think a game has most diversity if models/units are different. While there games out there that focus on diversity on an army level so that while units are looking similar, each army playes completly different.
Chess is a good example, as different models have completly different rules, you always play a mirror match so no difference on "army/faction" level but a lot of possibilities on tactic/strategic level based on who goes first and there is no "I win" button
Kings of War is also always mentined as blanced game without diversity and I have to disagree.
It is a good example of something were the diversity is on the faction/army level so that each faction and each list playes different even if they look similar.
It is also much more focused on tactic/strategic balance so taking an all corners list (is this the right english expression?) is the way to go
For me, KoW is more diverse than Warhammer ever was but also better balanced.
If I want AoS to be more balanced, I want 2 things:
- Being able of taking an all corners list and the units I like and have at least a chance to win against everything else
- that all options a faction have are viable options (otherwise they should be removed)
A reason why I stopped playing 40k, 8th edition non-index rules and the victory conditions on events here benift extreme lists that will easy lose against an opposing anti-list but also easy win against anything else (as winning 3 games 20:0 and at least 1 point in a lost game will place you higher than winning 5 games 12:8)
So I don't see sommuning in general as a problem as long as every other list has a chance to beat it (and not just a specific anti-list)
There is also no problem if there is just one playable list for each faction as long as there are no "dead" units in the book that will never be used
And I like the quote from JJ that they don't want to have obvious choices for each faction. Looking at Stormcast and one can get the impression that JJ did not played AoS since 2.0 came out.
There is actually one thing that could increase balance without potentially adding too many changes to the game.
I play a skirmish game called Batman Miniature Game or BMG for short. In BMG matches/tourneys they introduce a point spread you need to win/lose. If you are within a certain point spread you can actually get a tie against your opponent so if you really want to win you need to be ahead in points to a greater degree than normal. This is something I would like to see in AoS as I find a low point spread to not be decisive enough for a win.
The Jervis article is interesting but the way they act and what he says seems to sometimes be in conflict. There usually ARE cookie-cutter builds that you see at the competitive level, and only a limited number of factions ever see play in tournaments because they are the only ones that are viable, so it's maybe at best 50% of the game at tournaments and out of that 50% you're seeing at most a couple of viable builds and nothing else; entire swathes of the faction usually don't hit the table at all. There generally are only a handful of difficult choices; in most cases, it's pretty apparent within moments what is good and what is bad. They say that they are trying for balance, but put out armies that are just head and shoulders above the stuff that game before.
So that part, despite what he's saying, doesn't seem to gel with reality because we tend to see the exact opposite.
Yeah thats the internal balance problem that I have.
When people say the game is in a great place because the external balance is currently about 45-50% of all factions are viable externally, not only do I feel that that number is way too small... they gloss over the internal balance part where only a single build and minor permutations are largely what you see over and over again with some outliers.
Wayniac wrote: The Jervis article is interesting but the way they act and what he says seems to sometimes be in conflict. There usually ARE cookie-cutter builds that you see at the competitive level, and only a limited number of factions ever see play in tournaments because they are the only ones that are viable, so it's maybe at best 50% of the game at tournaments and out of that 50% you're seeing at most a couple of viable builds and nothing else; entire swathes of the faction usually don't hit the table at all. There generally are only a handful of difficult choices; in most cases, it's pretty apparent within moments what is good and what is bad. They say that they are trying for balance, but put out armies that are just head and shoulders above the stuff that game before.
So that part, despite what he's saying, doesn't seem to gel with reality because we tend to see the exact opposite.
I completely agree. It takes all of 45 seconds for an experienced player to see that the Archregent is broken and why, and there are a ton of examples of that.
Well for me it was more "the balance is the best its EVER EVER been and everything is viable! there is very little bad balance!"
And the tourney results are still like they were 10 and even 20 years ago, with three armies the bulk of the winner's circle and a smattering of misc armies sometimes grabbing a spot.
auticus wrote: Well for me it was more "the balance is the best its EVER EVER been and everything is viable! there is very little bad balance!"
And the tourney results are still like they were 10 and even 20 years ago, with three armies the bulk of the winner's circle and a smattering of misc armies sometimes grabbing a spot.
Yet surprisingly large number of people assume AoS is well balanced, because some of the armies considered to be subpar makes it to top 20 once or twice a year.
Funny how they focus on a rare example of subpar armies making it to top places, while ignoring that rest of top lists is dominated by overpowered factions(DoK, LoN, FEC, Skaven, etc).
The same arguments were had 10-15 years ago. When demons of 7th edition (arguably the most busted work GW has ever done) were running amuk, there were still a lot of people saying balance was fine, and people just needed to learn to play.
Yet surprisingly large number of people assume AoS is well balanced, because some of the armies considered to be subpar makes it to top 20 once or twice a year.
Funny how they focus on a rare example of subpar armies making it to top places, while ignoring that rest of top lists is dominated by overpowered factions(DoK, LoN, FEC, Skaven, etc).
It's not that people are "ignoring the rest of the top lists". It's that most people understand that an army with a Battletome will be better able to compete than one without any Allegiance abilities or anything of that nature.
Yet surprisingly large number of people assume AoS is well balanced, because some of the armies considered to be subpar makes it to top 20 once or twice a year.
Funny how they focus on a rare example of subpar armies making it to top places, while ignoring that rest of top lists is dominated by overpowered factions(DoK, LoN, FEC, Skaven, etc).
It's not that people are "ignoring the rest of the top lists". It's that most people understand that an army with a Battletome will be better able to compete than one without any Allegiance abilities or anything of that nature.
This argument has been around too. It used to be "armies without their own allegiance abilities" then "armies without their own allegiance abilities in a battletome" now it is turning into "armies without a 2.0 battletome." It is different shades of "power creep is a thing, so lack of balance is OK."
It's not that people are "ignoring the rest of the top lists". It's that most people understand that an army with a Battletome will be better able to compete than one without any Allegiance abilities or anything of that nature.
This argument was a thing during the time GW said "we don't make mistakes so we don't need FAQ or Errata" but now GW claims that they care and will adjust balance with the GHB if by mistake one army was stronger than another.
So with GHB18 this should not be a problem as there was the chance to get all armies on the same level for 2.0 and not only those that will get something new during that edition.
And now I doubt GHB19 will address that problem unless it takes another 4 months till release (as the book need to be done ~6 months before its release, everything released after is either already made with the changes of GHS19 in mind or will be broken until GHS20 is out).
I would say GW should stop caring about point costs in printed media (still release those with the GHB) but let the community combs come backe and let them adjust points and rules more often than once per year to help the game
I think ultimately, if everyone wants to get their cake and eat it too, AoS(and 40k) needs to go into Index/Alliance releases. No fluff, no decoration, just pure stats and abilities in several indices covering existing armies as a whole. Because it is quite obvious a staggered release can never really do what everyone wants. Release schedule would be slower, but more complete.
Then they can release fluff books on their own for those who want it.
I think they know if they went that route they'd be losing a shed load of money because a ton of people would never buy fluff books, and only ultimately care about the rules when they buy the army books.
But yes staggered release is the primary culprit of why GW games are always this way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is different shades of "power creep is a thing, so lack of balance is OK."
I had this *very* discussion on saturday when talking about AOS campaign. That was the exact thing said... "the game will never be balanced and there will always be armies that dominate other armies, and thats fine, just buy those armies or be ok with losing, lack of balance is not anything anyone really cares about."
Balance can be done with staggered releases. Look at Gloomspite, BoC, Khorne, Bonesplittaz, etc. Similarly, index releases can be horribly unbalanced, and have been. The reality is that some combination of apathy and incompetence will always hamper the balance of warhammer; changing the means of release will not address that.
The problem with staggered release is that when they get a new idea to shape the game older books will be inevitably left behind. This is why releasing index/alliance book makes more sense as they can try to keep game mechanics parity between factions. Then, with faction parity, they can use the GHB to balance the points further.
I mean, I know well that it will never happen, but it seems the most prudent method. Especially considering that the version people claim to have balanced the most is the one where most factions had mechanic parity and were released wholesale in Alliance books/free release.
changing the means of release will not address that.
It does if they want to keep the game progressive and evolving. Staggered release where everything is kept to a 4 year old version is a game that does not evolve or progress and will be inherently dead in the water or only appeal to a increasingly niche market.
My point being any change they make to how they release things will not improve balance so long as the lack of ability remains. They are not able to evaluate things even within a given paradigm; Gloomspite, perhaps the most balanced tome ever, was followed immediately by two of the worst. Any imbalances resulting from staggered releases pale in comparison to those resulting from their apathy and/or incompetence.
Imagine a world were GW uses an index system (for both AoS and 40k) and said index system is an online subscription service. All rules and points adjusted instantly and together. Could be the future.
That will never happen because they lose the revenue of books holding the rules that people are forced to buy. Unless that point / index system was subscription based. Say $10 a month subscription based.
Future War Cultist wrote: Imagine a world were GW uses an index system (for both AoS and 40k) and said index system is an online subscription service. All rules and points adjusted instantly and together. Could be the future.
Pass.
Biggest reason I don't play my Wanderers outside of my home is that I don't want to be running around with my tablet/phone.
NinthMusketeer wrote:Well if a player cares a lot about balance chances are they aren't a big fan of AoS as those two things are at odds.
I care, but being with AoS for a different reason
Galas wrote:Nah, saying Perfect balance is boring because nobody is asking for the game to become chess (And yes we all know chess isn't perfectly balanced).
Some people would have a word with you that chess is boring because it is balanced
Sarouan wrote:
Diversity comes from unbalance.
No, just no.
Just some thoughts on that one:
First of all, no one is asking for perfect balance, but for equal chances. No one is intrested in a game were the list decides if you win or lose.
GW tried to solve this over time by adding some strange rules mechanics based on single dice roles to make the outcome unpredictable even with one list being clear better (and players always found a list to break that system even more)
Talking about balance and diversity can mean several things.
Diversity on faction level, unit level, model level or tactic/strategic level
people think a game has most diversity if models/units are different. While there games out there that focus on diversity on an army level so that while units are looking similar, each army playes completly different.
Chess is a good example, as different models have completly different rules, you always play a mirror match so no difference on "army/faction" level but a lot of possibilities on tactic/strategic level based on who goes first and there is no "I win" button
Kings of War is also always mentined as blanced game without diversity and I have to disagree.
It is a good example of something were the diversity is on the faction/army level so that each faction and each list playes different even if they look similar.
It is also much more focused on tactic/strategic balance so taking an all corners list (is this the right english expression?) is the way to go
For me, KoW is more diverse than Warhammer ever was but also better balanced.
If I want AoS to be more balanced, I want 2 things:
- Being able of taking an all corners list and the units I like and have at least a chance to win against everything else
- that all options a faction have are viable options (otherwise they should be removed)
A reason why I stopped playing 40k, 8th edition non-index rules and the victory conditions on events here benift extreme lists that will easy lose against an opposing anti-list but also easy win against anything else (as winning 3 games 20:0 and at least 1 point in a lost game will place you higher than winning 5 games 12:8)
So I don't see sommuning in general as a problem as long as every other list has a chance to beat it (and not just a specific anti-list)
There is also no problem if there is just one playable list for each faction as long as there are no "dead" units in the book that will never be used
And I like the quote from JJ that they don't want to have obvious choices for each faction. Looking at Stormcast and one can get the impression that JJ did not played AoS since 2.0 came out.
If you could take a list of whatever random nonsense you plopped down and have a reasonable chance of victory against someone who actually carefully constructed their strategy...ew. Just ew. At that point I would just use Pogs as markers and save some cash, since it doesn't matter what you brought anyway.
Balance should be better, but you should never be able to beat a carefully constructed army by throwing darts at a GW catalogue. Personally, I'd be happy if what was powerful shifted around more.
auticus wrote: Well for me it was more "the balance is the best its EVER EVER been and everything is viable! there is very little bad balance!"
And the tourney results are still like they were 10 and even 20 years ago, with three armies the bulk of the winner's circle and a smattering of misc armies sometimes grabbing a spot.
Yet surprisingly large number of people assume AoS is well balanced, because some of the armies considered to be subpar makes it to top 20 once or twice a year.
Funny how they focus on a rare example of subpar armies making it to top places, while ignoring that rest of top lists is dominated by overpowered factions(DoK, LoN, FEC, Skaven, etc).
Most of the people who assume AOS is well balanced are narrative/casual players who have never gotten their face smashed in by a good DoK, or LoN, or 1.0 DoT army. The vast majority of people who play competitively know that it's pretty busted, they just don't bother with the stuff that isn't busted.
I've had people on TGA try to tell me that Kharadron are actually fine or that Tempestors are actually a really great unit they've had a lot of success with. Maybe when you're playing against your 9 year old cousing and his dispossessed army, but playing against adults with real armies, they suck.
Wayniac wrote: The Jervis article is interesting but the way they act and what he says seems to sometimes be in conflict. There usually ARE cookie-cutter builds that you see at the competitive level, and only a limited number of factions ever see play in tournaments because they are the only ones that are viable, so it's maybe at best 50% of the game at tournaments and out of that 50% you're seeing at most a couple of viable builds and nothing else; entire swathes of the faction usually don't hit the table at all. There generally are only a handful of difficult choices; in most cases, it's pretty apparent within moments what is good and what is bad. They say that they are trying for balance, but put out armies that are just head and shoulders above the stuff that game before.
So that part, despite what he's saying, doesn't seem to gel with reality because we tend to see the exact opposite.
I completely agree. It takes all of 45 seconds for an experienced player to see that the Archregent is broken and why, and there are a ton of examples of that.
I'd like to point out though, that said experienced player's solution to fixing the archregent(especially on dakka) is usually pants on head moronic.
Wayniac wrote: The Jervis article is interesting but the way they act and what he says seems to sometimes be in conflict. There usually ARE cookie-cutter builds that you see at the competitive level, and only a limited number of factions ever see play in tournaments because they are the only ones that are viable, so it's maybe at best 50% of the game at tournaments and out of that 50% you're seeing at most a couple of viable builds and nothing else; entire swathes of the faction usually don't hit the table at all. There generally are only a handful of difficult choices; in most cases, it's pretty apparent within moments what is good and what is bad. They say that they are trying for balance, but put out armies that are just head and shoulders above the stuff that game before.
So that part, despite what he's saying, doesn't seem to gel with reality because we tend to see the exact opposite.
I completely agree. It takes all of 45 seconds for an experienced player to see that the Archregent is broken and why, and there are a ton of examples of that.
I'd like to point out though, that said experienced player's solution to fixing the archregent(especially on dakka) is usually pants on head moronic.
I'd say that people toss out suggestions for how it could be better balanced at the given cost but only because the assumed default is that overpowered unit X should simply cost more points, which is an entirely reasonable solution.
If you could take a list of whatever random nonsense you plopped down and have a reasonable chance of victory against someone who actually carefully constructed their strategy...ew. Just ew. At that point I would just use Pogs as markers and save some cash, since it doesn't matter what you brought anyway.
Balance should be better, but you should never be able to beat a carefully constructed army by throwing darts at a GW catalogue. Personally, I'd be happy if what was powerful shifted around more.
We are not talking about a random selection of units being more powerful than a specific selection
And if just taking a random selection and one broken unit/spell/model is enough to win games, there is a problem
Thing is, a well constructed generic list should be able to win against a WAAC net-list or something that is spamming one unit
At the very least, if I can play kings of war, warlords of erehwon, and saga with a wide variety of list builds in each faction that don't get steam rolled, I'd expect AOS to be able to do the same.
And none of those games let you throw random units onto the table either and do well. But if I want to do a heavy infantry list, there's a way to do it, if I want to do a cavalry list, there's a way to do it, if I want to do a combined arms force, there's a way to do it.
In AOS its simply find the undercosted couple of items in your army book and then spam then infinitum. I haven't seen much thought go into most of the powerhouse AOS lists. There are a few that don't rely on the spam of the obvious put together by someone who is actually pretty good, but most of the lists are very elementary in their design and are spamming the most broken (undercosted for what they do) elements in their book.
Its true though that a lot of people that don't play against the powergamers will say the balance is fine. In my neck of the woods the powergamers are at least honest and will tell you that the game is busted and not try to pee on your leg and tell you that its raining (well most of them. There is one or two that will tell you you just need to l2p). There are a great number of people on the forums though that try to sell that their busted army is not really busted and its just you that needs to learn how to play and that the balance is just fine as well.
I have a well-optimized Skryre list that can and does mop the floor with the specifically constructed lists of other players. There are some armies that I know cannot build a list by any means which will give them a reasonable chance of success. But that isn't the worst of it; I am far from the top of the scale. There are lists I can go against where I know that not only will I almost certainly lose but I will almost certainly be tabled. Just from looking at the list. That is supremely unfun to me and I know I am not alone.
That is supremely unfun to me and I know I am not alone.
It is the #1 source of why people eventually ebay their stuff or turn to other games. Losing narrative or campaign players to this on the regular is very frustrating.
The tourney guys typically don't care as much if at all because they just ebay their list and then ebay or buy a tourney build and go from there.
Future War Cultist wrote: Imagine a world were GW uses an index system (for both AoS and 40k) and said index system is an online subscription service. All rules and points adjusted instantly and together. Could be the future.
Pass.
Biggest reason I don't play my Wanderers outside of my home is that I don't want to be running around with my tablet/phone.
Agreed. All of my Chaos stuff in AoS is in book format. I got e-versions of the 40k stuff, and I vastly prefer the hard copies, even though they don't update automatically. Nothing beats the feel of a book.
#1 DOK
#2 DOK
#3 Skaven
#4 skaven
#5 - order something
#6 demons of khorne
#7 - skaven
#8 - FEC #9 - skaven
#10 - FEC
DOK - top 2
Skaven - 4 of the top 10
FEC - 2 of the top 10
Was told FEC wasn't broken and they are just fine because they still aren't winning tournaments.
Hey wait I thought you guys said that tournament results don't matter and that just doing well at an event isn't an indicator of strength or quality.
Spoiler:
I have continually insisted that they do matter, and it is an indicator of which armies are strong. I recall laying it all out quite clearly with the tourney data as evidence, to you specifically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m been out of the loop again. Did anyone find a solution to the problem of summoning?
Well, Khorne happened. Khorne has the best designed and implemented summoning yet, something which has given hope GW will be toning it back in the future. Slaanesh is gaining new ways to generate summon points, making it as a faction less reliant upon what opponent it happens to be up against, and I have heard that the amount of points needed to summon units has been increased accordingly. With FEC being busted in all sorts of ways beyond just the summoning I have taken a 'wait and see' stance.
Hey wait I thought you guys said that tournament results don't matter and that just doing well at an event isn't an indicator of strength or quality.
Since you're here just to pick a fight I'll just respond briefly.
The opinion I held was that your assertion that the tournament scene had a variety of placings indicated the game as a whole was just fine, to include casual play and that we all just needed to... as people like you have claimed for a great many years, even during the demon list breakage of 7th edition (where I was top 10 placing GTs with said broken demon list), "learn to play".
My argument to you was that tournament play being broken leaks down into casual play and breaks the casual game apart, and that a wide variety of placings in a tournament does not indicate the game at the casual / narrative level is balanced, rather it indicated that the external balance will seem fine at the tournament level where everyone is powerlisting and bringing bent lists.
And now we're getting events with the same 3 army lists taking the lions share of top placings, which even blows the argument that the game is externally balanced just fine even at the powergamer level away.
And now we're getting events with the same 3 army lists taking the lions share of top placings, which even blows the argument that the game is externally balanced just fine even at the powergamer level away.
Could also be player bias, ie. a certain type of people go to tournaments and they are more inclined to use certain type of lists/factions. The most competitive players might not be inclined to take non-tome books, old tomes, or any other cofactor, and that may bias the overall outcome even if they could do surprisingly well otherwise(Chris's Order list is a bit of a testament to that as his list appears very unique). Just playing devil's advocate and have no interest in taking this argument further as I know we disagree very much on the definition of what GW considers active factions and non-active factions.
On another note I do find it interesting to see DoK having a comeback considering that in many of the big tourneys before they seemed to have dropped out of favor. Also, I was expecting more FEC than Skaven considering how much people have been talking about FEC. The "order something" list is an Alliance Soup if they are anything like the list Chris has made before. Ie. something like this: https://thehonestwargamer.com/aos-list-rundowns/order-the-chaos-of-my-mind/ Perhaps my biggest surprise is that faction favorites that were winning before(and winning DoK lists) such as Nagash and Stormcast have disappeared, but that might be because of the aforementioned bias with tournament players moving from one faction to another.
Khorne indeed has the best summoning mechanic ever made, and it seems like Slaanesh isn’t too far behind either. They do prove that it can be done in a fair manner.
I’m not too familiar with the FEC. What specifically is wrong with their summoning?
I’m not too familiar with the FEC. What specifically is wrong with their summoning?
They don't have to do anything to "earn" it. They get it by virtue of the very difficult choice of including the hero that gives it to them. And then spamming said hero. And then getting ALL of those juicy free points in turn 1.
In essence... there is a tick mark that says "would you like to include and deploy 640 or so free points at the beginning of the game?" and they tick yes. And it is done.
They don't have to do anything to "earn" it. They get it by virtue of the very difficult choice of including the hero that gives it to them. And then spamming said hero. And then getting ALL of those juicy free points in turn 1.
In essence... there is a tick mark that says "would you like to include and deploy 640 or so free points at the beginning of the game?" and they tick yes. And it is done.
They have to keep the said heroes all gathered in a very specific place - in the close reach of their throne.
But yes, it's not that terrible as condition and it's easy to abuse the system right now (like everything when it goes competitive). You could easily settle this by restricting either use of the throne for one character per turn (if you have to keep the heroes for multiple turns in the area, it can be quite crippling since FEC heroes are very important to boost their troops) or do it the fluff way : one archregent per army only. These guys are basically ghoul emperors, having more than one of them in the same army is stupid, especially at the scale AoS games are playing.
I know, you competitive players don't care about the background. So only game restrictions will work with you.
On the other hand, narrative players know the other way to play AoS - by restricting yourself and doing it accordingly to the story. It you include only one Archregent, suddenly that FEC "abuse" isn't looking that bad. That means making lists that are fitting to the narrative and make interesting games, of course. List building has always been the core of the abuse in competitive games. Once you put the players in front of their responsabilities, a lot of so called "problems" solve themselves.
That's what some competitive players have difficulties to accept : that they have always been part of the problem. They are mostly the cause of their own unfun, in the end. It's not the game that forces them to build uninteresting lists - it's their mindset that keep making them abuse the system.
But yes, I admit that the way a game system is made and armies lists are written makes it sometimes easier to abuse them. It's a shame that it always ends in restrictions, that hit all players and usually make the game with less choices than before, just for the sake of competition. Which is pointless, because as long as you have the same mindset, you will always find a way to abuse the system. Even in Saga, Kings of War, or whatever any other game you will think are better written/thought.
Even in a non-competitive arena I cannot just build a fun, thematic army that I want to play and expect to get good games in. I have to figure out where my opponent is at on the power scale, because my thematic list may still totally crush them or be totally crushed. It is frustrating not being able to play what I want to play--both it being too strong and too weak, and me having no idea where it will be until I see what I am up against.
FEC is an undead faction I have always been interested and I was considering getting into them with the new tome... Then I saw how busted it was. I can't run the -theme- army I would want to run without it being disgustingly strong. That sucks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Khorne indeed has the best summoning mechanic ever made, and it seems like Slaanesh isn’t too far behind either. They do prove that it can be done in a fair manner.
They don't have to do anything to "earn" it. They get it by virtue of the very difficult choice of including the hero that gives it to them. And then spamming said hero. And then getting ALL of those juicy free points in turn 1.
In essence... there is a tick mark that says "would you like to include and deploy 640 or so free points at the beginning of the game?" and they tick yes. And it is done.
They have to keep the said heroes all gathered in a very specific place - in the close reach of their throne.
But yes, it's not that terrible as condition and it's easy to abuse the system right now (like everything when it goes competitive). You could easily settle this by restricting either use of the throne for one character per turn (if you have to keep the heroes for multiple turns in the area, it can be quite crippling since FEC heroes are very important to boost their troops) or do it the fluff way : one archregent per army only. These guys are basically ghoul emperors, having more than one of them in the same army is stupid, especially at the scale AoS games are playing.
I know, you competitive players don't care about the background. So only game restrictions will work with you.
On the other hand, narrative players know the other way to play AoS - by restricting yourself and doing it accordingly to the story. It you include only one Archregent, suddenly that FEC "abuse" isn't looking that bad. That means making lists that are fitting to the narrative and make interesting games, of course. List building has always been the core of the abuse in competitive games. Once you put the players in front of their responsabilities, a lot of so called "problems" solve themselves.
That's what some competitive players have difficulties to accept : that they have always been part of the problem. They are mostly the cause of their own unfun, in the end. It's not the game that forces them to build uninteresting lists - it's their mindset that keep making them abuse the system.
But yes, I admit that the way a game system is made and armies lists are written makes it sometimes easier to abuse them. It's a shame that it always ends in restrictions, that hit all players and usually make the game with less choices than before, just for the sake of competition. Which is pointless, because as long as you have the same mindset, you will always find a way to abuse the system. Even in Saga, Kings of War, or whatever any other game you will think are better written/thought.
lmao. like you cannot have a completely busted list within the fluffy contours of the game.
you just change the meta. the game won't be balanced.
.
I agree fully with ninth, you cannot see what should have brought before you see what your opponent has. Or you will stomp or get stomped. and it presumes players have a lot of knowledge of ALL the armies.
Or are you sending that new player that just bought a few startersets of sacrosanct stormcast home because he should not build a competitive list? Same goes for night haunt? Or that FEC player that thought the army was cool so bought 3-4 start to collect boxes to save money... Just to show that you do not even need a netlist to arrive at your flgs with an utterly broken list....
Why is it that narrative players always expect that the units they bought was going to make a cool army and that they think everyone else should adapt to there list because they bought some random stuff and had a certain idea about it.
My biggest problem with FEC summoning is that it appears to not really scale properly on point size unless I am missing some FAQ or something. Which means Archregent is always summoning at full capacity. This means 20% extra points per turn at 1000 points(200/1000) while that summoning is 10% at 2000 points. Overall the ability feels just too variable to balance around.
However, I do feel like we are in a bit of a death spiral about this and it is just bumming me and others out. So let us discuss something new and exciting.
What are people's opinions about the current selection of missions and how they affect the game balance?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Khorne indeed has the best summoning mechanic ever made, and it seems like Slaanesh isn’t too far behind either. They do prove that it can be done in a fair manner.
I’m not too familiar with the FEC. What specifically is wrong with their summoning?
You keep a couple of Archregents and you can summon up to 200 points with each. Then you add a Charnel Throne(which costs nothing) and you can do those summons without spending a Command Point.
Why is it that narrative players always expect that the units they bought was going to make a cool army and that they think everyone else should adapt to there list because they bought some random stuff and had a certain idea about it.
I don't really have a lot of experience with that. Typically the issue is that the narrative player is in a group that does not want to tone their list down at all and thus can't get a game in that they would find enjoyable.
Which also comes down to the game not having any balance and forcing you to have to play the powergamer meta to get good games in in many cases. Which means you have to be willing to constantly buy or acquire new models and paint or have them painted pretty much regularly in order to continue to have games that are fun and not blowouts.
This is why I harp on the balance all the time. Because this is the only game (as well as 40k) that I play where this is really this bad of an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Curiously I pulled Azyr comp back out and have it retrofitted with the new books.
Amazingly many of the balance issues became a lot smaller. So again its the point costs being so horribad that is the prime culprit. Now to see if I can get my campaign group to use it for its points on the regular.
minisnatcher wrote: Why is it that narrative players always expect that the units they bought was going to make a cool army and that they think everyone else should adapt to there list because they bought some random stuff and had a certain idea about it.
This does not reflect my experience at all. Not once have I seen or heard of a narrative player acting this way. Tourney players I have seen it, but not narrative. But really it is more of a TFG thing. TFG trend towards the min-maxxy end so there is a similar trend but the attitude is not inherently tied to any game mode, just to douchebags.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: What are people's opinions about the current selection of missions and how they affect the game balance?
The ones in the current GHB are really good. The ones in the Core Rulebook are a bit more simple but in a manner that is good for the 'core' scenarios to be. Overall I think AoS has consistently had strong scenarios for matched play with a few duds here and there. The current ones are relocation orb, the one where you need artifacts/wizards to hold objectives, and the one where the deployment zones are a complete pain to measure out. One in particular I like is the one where no army can take reserves, in that it mixes up the meta and forces players to adapt. I would like to see more along those lines. However, I feel like flat-out denying reserve rules is a bit too harsh and can rob certain armies of their main mechanic. IMO a middle ground where reserves cannot be brought in rounds 1 or 2 would be better
Off the top of my head some ideas:
-A scenario where units on an objective ignore MWs on a 6+ or can re-roll 1s if they already have a similar mechanic
-Where heroes can't be used to control objectives
-Objective control is 9" instead of 6" but all units only count as one model
-New/returning units (summons) must be more than 9" from any objectives
-New/returning units cannot shoot or charge the turn they show up
-Heroes get look out sir from the objectives
-There is just one objective in the middle which does damage to units nearby
-Units that fight at the start of the combat phase are -1 to hit, but can opt to fight normally instead
Stuff that screws around with different mechanics a little without flat-out screwing anyone unless they are over-reliant on a single mechanic. It promotes more well-rounded builds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: Curiously I pulled Azyr comp back out and have it retrofitted with the new books.
Amazingly many of the balance issues became a lot smaller. So again its the point costs being so horribad that is the prime culprit. Now to see if I can get my campaign group to use it for its points on the regular.
Wow, so after what you guys told me and having done some reading...I’ve concluded that the FEC are taking the piss.
This could be a test case for us here. We could work on fixing it.
So, the command ability is one use isn’t it? And the throne makes it CP free, for all of them? I think the first step is to limit it to 1 character per turn.
Curiously I pulled Azyr comp back out and have it retrofitted with the new books.
Amazingly many of the balance issues became a lot smaller. So again its the point costs being so horribad that is the prime culprit. Now to see if I can get my campaign group to use it for its points on the regular.
Stuff that screws around with different mechanics a little without flat-out screwing anyone unless they are over-reliant on a single mechanic. It promotes more well-rounded builds.
I agree.
There is one mechanic I truly dislike as it tends to favor certain factions over others and that is the one where you can win the game by holding all objectives or easily burn them and therefore block any chance for the opponent to make a comeback. I feel those missions are problematic especially since some armies promote bodies more effectively as well as relocation of those bodies.
I also agree that scenarios are key to well rounded lists. If you do the scenarios properly. I prefer scenarios that require well rounded lists to do well and those that if you generate them can really hammer an overbearing list in the area that they MIN'd out on in favor for their MAX. But my preference is also for varied and well rounded lists over having to play min/max spam over and over.
I agree fully with ninth, you cannot see what should have brought before you see what your opponent has. Or you will stomp or get stomped. and it presumes players have a lot of knowledge of ALL the armies.
Or are you sending that new player that just bought a few startersets of sacrosanct stormcast home because he should not build a competitive list? Same goes for night haunt? Or that FEC player that thought the army was cool so bought 3-4 start to collect boxes to save money... Just to show that you do not even need a netlist to arrive at your flgs with an utterly broken list....
That's why I say competitive players are part of the problem. Do you remember when Jervis Johnson was talking about the "social contract" of a game ? This is exactly that - you can talk with your opponent about what would make a game interesting to play, you don't have to play it blind. Doing like this means that you can't trust your fellow player about building an interesting game together - that's the competitive mindset.
Once you do it with a different mindset, a lot of the problems don't mind anymore. Because you don't abuse the system. The truth is - list building has always been the core of the abuse. There is not much skill needed in building a list in itself, honestly. However, using the units appropriately and deal with what you have given the scenario and what you are facing on the battlefield, that's where the skills can be seen and the fun to be had.
However, I agree that competitive mindset gives another point of view that is useful for tests. It's good to keep in mind that only considering it can be harmful to the rest of the game and players as well, as we have seen it multiples times in the past.
Why is it that narrative players always expect that the units they bought was going to make a cool army and that they think everyone else should adapt to there list because they bought some random stuff and had a certain idea about it.
Narrative players don't really do that. It's actually the other way around ; competitive players always pushing for their balance agenda, because they can't think of another way to play than abusing list building with their competitive mindset. They simply can't do it another way.
Do we really need to play lists with 3-4 archregents,for example ? Or do we have to play a ghoul king on Terrorgheist as warlord with as many terrorgheists we can fit in in a Gristlegore list ? The answer is no. This is a choice from the player to take it that way. If your warlord as Gristlegore is an archregent, suddenly its command ability isn't as powerful as with a ghoul king on Terrorgheists. Or if you mix zombie dragonsas monsters.
Sure, it's nice to have different choices, but you know perfectly well that the main reason some lists are used is because of abuse in optimization, not because they offer a cool way to play them. The player does it that way with that intent somewhere in a small piece of his mind. And he will keep doing it even if restrictions/nerfs hit the FEC hard - just with different lists.
The "don't abuse the system" concept has its flaws and merits, but doesn't even apply here because lists can be wildly different in power even with two players of a similar mindset. Besides, I really don't want to have to hash out a list individually for every match.
Oh yeah. The command ability, wild imbalances between delusions/grand courts/traits, massive internal imbalance, overpowered revival based summoning, undercosted units, the works. FEC has every category of OP covered. Do you want a full breakdown?
Oh yeah. The command ability, wild imbalances between delusions/grand courts/traits, massive internal imbalance, overpowered revival based summoning, undercosted units, the works. FEC has every category of OP covered. Do you want a full breakdown?
That would be nice thank you, if it’s not too much trouble.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Feeding Frenzy. One CP, target unit must be wholly within 12" of a hero or 18" of the general (which they will be anyways), spend it after the unit has fought for the first time in the combat phase and it immediately fights again. Not only is this an overpowered command ability for anyone it is especially so for FEC; they rarely need the CP elsewhere (in theory they need it for summons, in reality they do not). They also have some seriously powerhouse combat units, making this ability stronger still.
Delusion/Subfaction Imbalance: FEC theoretically have six delusions they can pick from, I do not even remember what the other ones are because they are so massively and utterly worse than Feast Day they may as well not exist. Feast Day gives you a free feeding frenzy (see above) every turn. Instead of a delusion they can pick one of four Grand Courts, of which two are grossly OP enough to be on par with Feast Day; Blisterskin and Gristlegore. Gristlegore stands out for the general (which will always be a mounted terrorgheist) being able to attack at the start of the combat phase all the time (note he can then feeding frenzy to be attacking twice at the start), while Blisterskin stands out for getting a free CP on a 4+ every turn and an artifact that makes units wholly within 12" be -1 to hit with shooting (strong shooting being the main weakness of FEC, this is potent in a tourney setting against triple-ballista stormcast). They each have several additional benefits as well, but you get the idea.
Trait Imbalance: FEC theoretically have twelve mount traits to chose from; 6 for a mounted terry and 6 for a mounted dragon. Again, from an effectiveness perspective all but one of those may as well not exist because one of the terry traits is so much stronger (re-roll failed hits on maw attacks).
Mounted terrorgheist. Incredibly undercosted unit. Fast, durable, heals automatically, a wizard with one of the strongest warscroll spells in the game, hits like a truck, and summons a 170 point unit (though this summon actually requires a CP as mounted kings do not benefit from the throne terrain piece). Main feature is it has 3 maw attacks that on a hit roll of 6 deal 6 mortal wounds (not d6, 6). Refer back to the mount trait that allows re-rolling said hits. Bonus cheese is that the archregent's warscroll spell gives it d3 extra attacks, and it can do that feeding frenzy bit to go twice. I have seen this guy wipe out a 10-man blightking unit in one combat phase.
Other undercosted units. Archregent has been mentioned, though I will add that he is still a bit undercosted even without any summoning ability at all. Flayers are undercosted just showing up, horrors are reasonably priced, neither properly account for the ease of summoning/returning slain models in that point cost (note that the basic ghouls very much do). The unmounted terry is undercosted due to having the same maw attack. The varghulf coutier is undercosted based on what he does, as are the ghast and haunter courtiers, though you would never actually put them in a list anyways (see below).
Internal imbalance. Some units vary between hugely OP and slightly OP, while others are perfectly fine. But more so, the summoning screws it up. An archregent summons in any courtier for free, and costs 200 points. Since all courtiers are equal when summoning, only the varghulf courtier is summoned. Since that courtier is 160 points it will never be included in a list since for 40 points more you can have it come in from any board edge and have an archregent. So out of four courtier choices, three are theme-only, and the fourth is never included in a list proper unless deliberately toning down. The exception to this if a battalion needs to have a courtier in it.
Mechanical imbalance. FEC shooting revolves around the typical banshee-like scream that deals MWs based off a roll against enemy bravery. It is one thing for a mechanic to be stronger against some armies over others, but the difference is such that shooting can be 400-500% more effective against low-bravery armies than high.
Returning slain models. Those courtiers that were mentioned (varghulf) roll six dice in every hero phase; each 2+ can return a slain ghoul to a unit within 10" while each 5+ can return a slain flayer/horror instead. In practice this amounts to ~250 points returned during an average game, which for exponentially compounding imbalance comes from a model that was summoned in for free.
Your forgot the spell the Archregent has, and that can be stacked with the one from the Ghoul king on foot, that even increases the melee power of some units - especially the Ghoul King on Terrorgheist with Command Ability from Gristlegore.
Of course, you don't have to stack it, but the fact you can cast both in the same turn sure give more options to (ab)use in game as well, and increase the optimization of Feeding Frenzy as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Feeding Frenzy. One CP, target unit must be wholly within 12" of a hero or 18" of the general (which they will be anyways), spend it after the unit has fought for the first time in the combat phase and it immediately fights again. Not only is this an overpowered command ability for anyone it is especially so for FEC; they rarely need the CP elsewhere (in theory they need it for summons, in reality they do not). They also have some seriously powerhouse combat units, making this ability stronger still.
Delusion/Subfaction Imbalance: FEC theoretically have six delusions they can pick from, I do not even remember what the other ones are because they are so massively and utterly worse than Feast Day they may as well not exist. Feast Day gives you a free feeding frenzy (see above) every turn. Instead of a delusion they can pick one of four Grand Courts, of which two are grossly OP enough to be on par with Feast Day; Blisterskin and Gristlegore. Gristlegore stands out for the general (which will always be a mounted terrorgheist) being able to attack at the start of the combat phase all the time (note he can then feeding frenzy to be attacking twice at the start), while Blisterskin stands out for getting a free CP on a 4+ every turn and an artifact that makes units wholly within 12" be -1 to hit with shooting (strong shooting being the main weakness of FEC, this is potent in a tourney setting against triple-ballista stormcast). They each have several additional benefits as well, but you get the idea.
Trait Imbalance: FEC theoretically have twelve mount traits to chose from; 6 for a mounted terry and 6 for a mounted dragon. Again, from an effectiveness perspective all but one of those may as well not exist because one of the terry traits is so much stronger (re-roll failed hits on maw attacks).
Mounted terrorgheist. Incredibly undercosted unit. Fast, durable, heals automatically, a wizard with one of the strongest warscroll spells in the game, hits like a truck, and summons a 170 point unit (though this summon actually requires a CP as mounted kings do not benefit from the throne terrain piece). Main feature is it has 3 maw attacks that on a hit roll of 6 deal 6 mortal wounds (not d6, 6). Refer back to the mount trait that allows re-rolling said hits. Bonus cheese is that the archregent's warscroll spell gives it d3 extra attacks, and it can do that feeding frenzy bit to go twice. I have seen this guy wipe out a 10-man blightking unit in one combat phase.
Other undercosted units. Archregent has been mentioned, though I will add that he is still a bit undercosted even without any summoning ability at all. Flayers are undercosted just showing up, horrors are reasonably priced, neither properly account for the ease of summoning/returning slain models in that point cost (note that the basic ghouls very much do). The unmounted terry is undercosted due to having the same maw attack. The varghulf coutier is undercosted based on what he does, as are the ghast and haunter courtiers, though you would never actually put them in a list anyways (see below).
Internal imbalance. Some units vary between hugely OP and slightly OP, while others are perfectly fine. But more so, the summoning screws it up. An archregent summons in any courtier for free, and costs 200 points. Since all courtiers are equal when summoning, only the varghulf courtier is summoned. Since that courtier is 160 points it will never be included in a list since for 40 points more you can have it come in from any board edge and have an archregent. So out of four courtier choices, three are theme-only, and the fourth is never included in a list proper unless deliberately toning down. The exception to this if a battalion needs to have a courtier in it.
Mechanical imbalance. FEC shooting revolves around the typical banshee-like scream that deals MWs based off a roll against enemy bravery. It is one thing for a mechanic to be stronger against some armies over others, but the difference is such that shooting can be 400-500% more effective against low-bravery armies than high.
Returning slain models. Those courtiers that were mentioned (varghulf) roll six dice in every hero phase; each 2+ can return a slain ghoul to a unit within 10" while each 5+ can return a slain flayer/horror instead. In practice this amounts to ~250 points returned during an average game, which for exponentially compounding imbalance comes from a model that was summoned in for free.
I think that's everything.
Thank you for detailed response. It’s much appreciated.
As for the FEC...gak, where do we even begin with fixing that?
I say we should pitch in ideas to fix FEC, to bring them into line with the likes of the Gitz, Fyrselayers...you know, those nice balanced middle of the road armies. I’ll start:
Feeding Frenzy: a fight twice in one turn ability that isn’t limited to once per game or costed into a warscroll is always op. So let’s knock this in the head. I don’t know what the alternative should be though; maybe something like...extra damage? Add 1 to the damage of their melee attacks? Something like that?
Delusion/Sub-faction imbalance: fixing feeding frenzy might help address this.
Trait Imbalance: rerolling all hits seems ott. Maybe just 1s?
Mounted Terrorgiest: as it stands, it should probably cost twice as much as it does. Everything considered, you should probably only be able to afford 1 in a 2k game. Although I hate non random mortal wound abilities like that too. Sounds like lots of things need increased in cost though.
Since the battery on my tablet is about to run out I’ll stop there for now.
Feeding Frenzy: a fight twice in one turn ability that isn’t limited to once per game or costed into a warscroll is always op. So let’s knock this in the head. I don’t know what the alternative should be though; maybe something like...extra damage? Add 1 to the damage of their melee attacks? Something like that?
I'd just make it be more like Catechism. 6s mean double hits.This way the ability can have impact, but does not give you double activation in the combat phase. Having it as an extra attack is a bit much if you can proc it each turn. If it were only once then it would probably be better or have it a prayer that procs on a 4+ to reduce the overall impact throughout the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Delusion/Sub-faction imbalance: fixing feeding frenzy might help address this.
Indeed. The problem with synergy traits/artefacts that boost powerful abilities is that they tend to become autotake.
Another take: Make feeding frenzy a 2 CP ability and the trait only reduces it by 1(if we keep Feeding Frenzy as is that is). This means that you are still committing CP into it.
As for the FEC...gak, where do we even begin with fixing that?
Honestly, you just don't. It is a really bad situation; never have I seen an army book/codex/battletome that is flawed on a fundamental mechanical level this badly on release. Balancing costs could potentially bring some sanity, but so much of it needs to be changed that the battletome needs a huge rework. That further means it will be extremely difficult to come up with a concise list of changes to fix things that work and, more importantly, -that people will agree on-. If someone can manage that I will be impressed.
I say we should pitch in ideas to fix FEC, to bring them into line with the likes of the Gitz, Fyrselayers...you know, those nice balanced middle of the road armies.
Well... I guess can always try!
Looking to make the fewest number of most simple changes possible to fix things, this is what I would do (in no particular order):
-Rebalance points. This is obviously a category on its own, and is dramatically impacted by what else changes so I'll leave it be for now.*
-Only the general summons a new unit. Change all the relevant command abilities to be "if this model is your general and uses this command ability..." I know I will get rage for this one, but the alternative is massively increasing the cost of all the ghoul kings to compensate for them all being able to summon and I do not think even FEC players want to see that.
-Feeding Frenzy is used when the unit is picked to attack (as in, before they roll) and gives d3 extra attacks; still plenty powerful but not busted and has diminishing returns with other attack-boosting abilities. Alternatively bring back an element of the old feeding frenzy and make it so it can only be used on a unit that wiped out another unit with its melee attacks; inconsistent but also a smaller change to the mechanic.
-Change all of the scream attacks to be binary; if the score beats the enemy bravery it does X mortal wounds regardless of how much it beats that bravery by. That way the 'attacking bravery' mechanic is maintained without the difference being so dramatic. Make the terry scream do d3+1 mortal wounds and the flayer scream do 1. Alternatively just make it a high-rend attack that hits automatically (but still rolls to wound).
-Remove the Varghulf's ability to return slain models. This brings him in line with the usefulness of the Ghast/Haunter courtiers thus resolving the issue of auto-pick Varghulf when summoning. A huge benefit here is that it gives the army a non-monster combat hero that it actually does not have, when mechanically and thematically it should. The other courtiers fight well but are still support models to be protected since they bring things back, while the foot kings are split between a combat and magic support role.
-Drop the terry doing MWs with the maw entirely. Just remove it. The model does not need it, it is not important to the theme, and it solves the mount trait issue along with reducing the point increase needed.
-Make feast day every round, in addition to nerfing feeding frenzy. It is still a big benefit (4-5 CP worth).
-Blisterskin is already brought mostly into line since its bonus CP are not nearly as useful with a balanced frenzy in play, but I would still change the 2" move to an extra 2" on run moves instead; having the extra on base move makes them too reliable at pulling off charges starting 20+ inches away IMO. For Gristlegore make the command trait once per game; a big nerf but one they need badly.
-Returning slain models; the way GW wants to do this is by making the 'target' unit cost more points. Personally I feel that is nonsensical for FEC when it could be baked into the cost of the courtiers. Do one, the other, or some of both, but make it so the units involved are deliberately overcosted to compensate for their resurrection mechanic. Basic ghouls are the example here; they suck compared to other 10-point models, but this is compensated for when they get a bunch of free dudes returning every game.
I think im going to finish the power calculator project. It lets you see how much more powerful by points an army is over another. You plug in the forces, it shows you the handicap score. Or otherwise just how many points you were really operating at.
Can then have your bellcurve listed overall and you will get tweaked point values to bring the two sides down close to each other.
If nothing more it will help two players who WANT to have a fun game construct for that so there is no accidental blow out caused by gross list disparity. It will also show you how much over / under cost something is by GW points.
11-20 is mostly the same as 1-10, with 2 Khorne, 1 Nighthaunt and 1 Sylvaneth up in the top 20 mix. Legion of Azgorh made a solid attempt to crack into the top 20, but came up short, falling in at 21.
Though I don’t take as dim of a view on overall balance as some in this thread* I feel alot is banking on what changes end up in this years GHB. Whether its the obligatory changes to points, new summoning rules or a few quality of life tweaks to some warscrolls, I don’t feel like this GHB can afford to be like previous versions that were mainly points tweaks with a spreading of Allegiance abilities. I think its time for something more comprehensive. Tourney attendance seems like its going through the roof everywhere, and to have such dominance amongst a few factions, that won’t last.
*FEC and Skaven just feel like mistakes, compared to everything else released in this cycle and I have a feeling next GHB will course correct them with some hard swings of the nerfbat. Like I say above, I feel like it has to.
With Slaanesh being non-cheese I am feeling more and more that FEC and Skaven were anomalies in how busted they are. Everything else has at worst a handful of overpowered elements in the whole book. Granted these can still be game breaking (looking at you, hearthguard zerkers) but that is still miles better than the state of Skaven where 2/3 the book is flat out OP or FEC which is 50 shades of busted.
The big question is if the next GHB was already formatted and off to the printers before feedback of FEC & Skaven came in. If it was then it will be a full year of those two wrecking face after the inevitable nerf of LoN, DoK, Eels and Sacrosanct. If that does happen I'll probably just drop out of the tourney scene entirely until it gets fixed. Even as a Skaven player that would not be much fun.
NinthMusketeer wrote: . If it was then it will be a full year of those two wrecking face after the inevitable nerf of LoN, DoK, Eels and Sacrosanct. .
I think we’ll see the return of community made tourney comp packs, if FEC and Skaven aren’t adressed in some manner. Maybe not wholesale rejection of GHB points, but fan made point adjustments and/or unit/ability restrictions outside of GW’s official rules, for instance.
I think GHB was written before the FEC and Skaven release so there probably won't be point changes.
However, and I have a dim memory of this, but GW is willing to do gameplay adjustments in FAQ. They might not do point changes there(it is rare, but happens), but they might reword how certain abilities work and/or limit them. I think we'll inevitably see some changes to FEC and Skaven there.
GHB will most definitely affect DoK as they are that old an army. FEC and Skaven I am doubtful about as I doubt any of the books released this year came before they finished GHB. I would have loved for them to readjust Bloodreavers, but my guess is that is at least a year away if ever.
However with those three in the mix, they blow out any fun one can have barring super competitive play.
I would add Nagash there. Such a boring damn army to fight against. Was at a tourney yesterday where two Nagash armies fought each other and it was just a snorefest through and through. Resurrection as a game mechanic needs to be reevaluated alongside summoning.
If I ruled the world, its a mix of points and warscroll modifications.
However the low hanging fruit can often be handled simply by properly pointing items.
Daughters of Khaine, for example, could benefit from several cleanups such as "wholly within". But making the dirt cheap hag a 100 or 120 point model based solely on how much of a force multiplier it is would do wonders. Witch Elves should have their horde discount looked at as well. They are obscene.
FEC I would limit arch regents to one, no points change. It is the emperor of ghouls. There wouldn't be four hanging out doing tag team action on people. And then I'd examine the monsters that make up the other half of the busted.
Skaven - points changes would largely help bring that army back on keel. They have several units that sit well beyond the bell curve in terms of power per point cost.
Nagash - I'm on the fence with. I hate the level of recycling that they can do because I feel its busted, but on the other hand you can often circumvent it by keeping dudes near their grave sites to block it.
If they made it like gloomspite where you only can recycle the unit ONCE and its only half their numbers, they'd be sane and I think pretty much perfect (despite me hating recycling units).
In general I think GW need to comb over all the rules and FAQ it so that more or less all rules requiring 1 or 6 need a "natural" 1 or 6. There are a few things in the game that can spike if you allow for modified rolls and greater than.
FEC I would limit arch regents to one, no points change. It is the emperor of ghouls. There wouldn't be four hanging out doing tag team action on people. And then I'd examine the monsters that make up the other half of the busted.
I honestly feel GW intended him to be just one per army but didn't have the foresight to actually add that into the warscroll. It's something that is easily FAQ'd if they want to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But making the dirt cheap hag a 100 or 120 point model based solely on how much of a force multiplier it is would do wonders.
My estimation is that they will put her at 80-90 compared to many other approaches. I am kinda leaning on they'll go for a soft nerf and move her up to 80 with the possibility of FAQ-ing her ability later on if the nerf proves too little.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nagash - I'm on the fence with. I hate the level of recycling that they can do because I feel its busted, but on the other hand you can often circumvent it by keeping dudes near their grave sites to block it.
I just think their Invigorating Aura should not stack on each nearby gravesite. This is horrible for smaller games where all the gravesites are often relatively close. Gravesites should also maybe follow some deployment rule where you can't place gravesites within X inches of each other. I also think the redeployment near a gravesite(6 inches) should also not be summonable exceeding 6 inches of a gravesite.
We are currently finishing an Escalation League at my FLGS and of all the factions people played against most people were annoyed with Nagash even if DoK(1 player) were strong. (For the record that DoK player was not me. I played Blades of Khorne)
I honestly feel GW intended him to be just one per army but didn't have the foresight to actually add that into the warscroll. It's something that is easily FAQ'd if they want to.
GW is very very very ANTI restricting models to X per army because it limits sales. They stopped doing that roughly in 2007 or so when the Rick Priestleys, Allesios, etc... left the company.
I know when I read that suggestion online (restricting arch-regents), FEC powerlisters get VERY salty and angry at that idea because its such a powerful optimal choice to spam them.
Our narrative non-powerlister players are very annoyed with Nagash as well. And DoK, and FEC, and Skaven. It is something I have to deal with to keep people playing.
Genestealer Cult book begs to differ with you, since it's literally limiting the characters to 1 per detachment there.
Frankly there's no "good" way to do it, outside of making the Arch-Regent a "Unique" character or adding in weird arbitrary restrictions for one army on him and only him.
I have the same issue with regards to my Idoneth and the Akhelian Kings. I don't feel I should be able to have more than one, but if I want any non-Isharaan character my options are:
-Eidolons of Mathlaan
-Akhelian Kings
-Volturnos(unique)
It's why I'm hoping we'll see an Akhelian Prince riding a shark or eel as a character with a non-"this model as your General" command ability at some point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: In general I think GW need to comb over all the rules and FAQ it so that more or less all rules requiring 1 or 6 need a "natural" 1 or 6. There are a few things in the game that can spike if you allow for modified rolls and greater than.
Oh for sure. It's happening with them revamping the books though.
FEC I would limit arch regents to one, no points change. It is the emperor of ghouls. There wouldn't be four hanging out doing tag team action on people. And then I'd examine the monsters that make up the other half of the busted.
I honestly feel GW intended him to be just one per army but didn't have the foresight to actually add that into the warscroll. It's something that is easily FAQ'd if they want to.
I'd highly suggest reading the article on summoning in the May White Dwarf for a look into the mindset they tend to have for some of this stuff. They really do seem to believe that players will self-police.
They absolutely require players to self-police. Every last interview with them alludes to "don't play with gits" (quote from Phil Kelly at Games Day 2011).
From what I gather, thats a lot easier done in the UK. In the USA competition is the bread and butter of why a lot of people play, and they subscribe to the Cobra Kai philosophy in gaming: "sweep the leg... no mercy".
Genestealer Cult book begs to differ with you, since it's literally limiting the characters to 1 per detachment there.
I'll have to take your word, I don't get into 40k much as all of my factions are basically jobbers that suck. But is that the exception rather than the rule?
I've not seen them restrict anything (outside of that I suppose) since 7th ed whfb and 4th or 5th ed 40k.
It is the exception, but it's also been in the design framework from the outset for them. Both iterations of the GSC book have had that requirement.
And Alessio is why we had those restrictions removed. He didn't like "keeping players in boxes" and was a cheesemongering powergamer if you ever saw his lists.
They've actually been a bit hands-on with limiting in 40k. First they made it so you could only have one Tau Commander per detachment and then they introduced the Rule of 3 to limit units in general(as well as the Genestealer Cult limit). So unless the AoS team is completely divorced from the people that are working on 40k I am willing to believe they might impose limitations to a single unit or two.
Yes, and Ward's Daemons were a direct result of Cavatore--as Cavatore was one of the senior designers while Ward was new.
Which is why it is mindflippingboggling that people continuously blame Ward for that nonsense. Did people really think that a relatively new designer wasn't being overseen by a senior designer?
One thing all those have in common is that it would not have happend if GW would have allowed play testing in house
Kanluwen wrote: Frankly, words cannot describe how awful Alessio was for WHFB.
He's why Vampires and Skaven were broken for quite some time.
This depends on whom you ask as there is the story that his first draft was printed while he warned that it was broken and need testing to balance it
There is also the story that Kings of War was written because Cavatore complained in a pub that he could do much better if the business guys let him do his job
The rules changes to fix FEC would need to be considerable, but a handful could at least bring them into line with everyone else's cheese. Limiting archregents to 1/army would be nice but honestly not do much. The archregent is the poster boy for FEC balance concerns but is only slightly more OP than the mounted terry. If the regent goes to 1 per people will just drop 200 points elsewhere in the list (or two archregents if they already had three) and bring a mounted terry, which amounts to a very small nerf that does nothing to address the overall balance concerns.
The thing is, summoning and Feeding Frenzy would each make FEC an overpowered, even tier-1, army on their own. To bring them into line with standard cheesing those both need to be addressed in a significant way.
As for Skaven, I do not see how rules changes could help. The balance issue is not their rules, it is that so many of their units are way undercosted. For starters, nothing in Skaven should have a horde discount. At all. The allegiance ability already makes hordes the most points efficient option by a landslide, discounting them further at max size is explicitly making the best option stronger. All the vermin lords, thanquol, furnace, and bell need to go up because they got a 5+ fnp (which is analogous to a 50% wounds increase). I could go on lifting units individually but it is most of the army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: More armies like the Gloomspite please. That was an actual triumph in terms of balance imo.
So much this! I think Gloomspite is probably the best balanced tome they have put out overall, and it extremely well designed. Yeah boingrots/manglers/stone trogs are a bit undercosted but it takes some serious optimization for that to start breaking things and those are a tiny fraction of the options in a battletome with a huge number of units. That they managed to balance out so many units so well is shocking and an extremely good sign. It also made the drop of FEC/Skaven immediately after that much more jarring.
After those two things have gone back to BoC level where a skilled min-maxxer can figure out a cheese build here and there but it would be inaccurate to say the battletome as a whole is imbalanced. Fyreslayers in particular is well done IMO; I see it as analogous to Bonesplittaz where most everything is fine except one entry that is glaringly overpowered. For Bonesplittaz it was kunnin' rukk, for fyreslayers it is hearthguard berzerkers. They are so out of place I am wondering if there was an error where their fnp was supposed to be removed/replaced but was not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Oh man, how could I forget the Tau Commander thing! I play Tau!
I guess it's just become second nature to do 1/Detachment at this point.
1/detachment does not mean one per army though... Or is it a case where theoretically more than one can be taken but in practice that is unreasonable to do?
Kanluwen wrote: Oh man, how could I forget the Tau Commander thing! I play Tau!
I guess it's just become second nature to do 1/Detachment at this point.
1/detachment does not mean one per army though... Or is it a case where theoretically more than one can be taken but in practice that is unreasonable to do?
It's more that the Commander was being spammed because he was a more effective Crisis Suit. And given the fact that rule of 3 is usually in play, specific detachments aren't liked or get specific HQs attached to them, etc--it becomes very restrictive to work around even though it's open.
First off, I can’t do quotations at the moment, so I’ll just say thank you for the responses guys.
Second, I’ve got a bit of a problem with the Ahorrant Arch-Regent in general, and not just because of the rules. But here isn’t the place for fluff discussions. Since it’s not a named character I wouldn’t be comfortable with limiting it to just 1, but if it was properly pointed...
Third, if the FEC’s summoning command abilities where all limited to the general only, would that be a good first step in addressing their balance issues?
Fourth, Feeding Frenzy...would returning it to its previous form be acceptable? I like it as a command ability but what it can do is ridiculously over the top. What if it was a hybrid? Use this command ability if an FEC unit destroys an enemy unit in the combat phase...it can immediately pile in an attack again. By putting that ‘break’ on it it stops it being ridiculous, but is it still too powerful?
Finally, how does the zombie dragon king stack up against the Terrorgheist king? If there is no competition, maybe they could be tweaked so that the Terrorgheist is a straight up fighting murder machine whilst the dragon has the better spell and command ability? Keep choice and internal competition going?
Making the summoning general-only would single-handedly fix FEC summoning in regards to new units. FEC players would not like it, but the alternative is to bake in a cost on the summoning models to compensate; +80-160 points on all their kings is probably not what they want to see.
The previous form of feeding frenzy was abysmally terrible, I think your suggestion of making it only usable when a unit wipes out another would be an appropriate hybrid option.
The dragon/mounted dragon is not bad, it is just that the terry/mounted terry is so much better due to the MW maw. IMO just get rid of it. No mortal wounds on the maw is a small, simple change that immediately balances the two options. And I think it is among the most unfun things to play against in the army.
Those would both be good. And both cause some rage.
If you make summoning general-only I'm pretty sure the regent spam would die and they'd just take one (which would fit the fluff and I would be for that)
Removal of mortal wounds from the maw or severely tuning them down would also help, but the rage. Oh the rage. Simply because people bought several to spam for that purpose.
People love to insist that their obviously OP faction is anything but, and have double-rage when it gets taken away; rage from their army being nerfed and rage because it confirms the army was indeed OP.
Absolutely. Its a time honored tradition for people running OP armies to tell everyone they just aren't playing right and their army isn't THAT bad and just l2p. I can trace all the way back to the late 90s where forums were full of bickering on that topic on whatever was busted at the time and its players saying "nah brah you just need to l2p".
Have that going on locally now with a couple FEC players.
And I will say that when I was powerlisting and doing the GT circuit, I was telling people to l2p too, so I'm certainly no angel, but I recognize where it comes from and why.
One thing I've noticed is that some lists really rely on synergy to become truly powerful. One thing I'm contemplating is keeping track of any time a unit is subject to more than one ability not found on it's own warscroll. So it's fine for a wight to grant a bone rattle unit extra attacks, but then if a necromancer also casts danse macabre then you'd note it. Then if a vampire also uses it's command ability on the unit you'd note that as well.
Another example would be a unit of liberators benefiting from staunch defender and then a castellant shines a lantern on them.
It seems like many of the strongest lists rely on stacking abilities on a single target.
A question arises though about what to do with this information once you have it. Sure, undead puts multiple abilities onto one 40 strong unit of skeletons. And when they get hurt they recover both from battle traits as well as character abilities to return models. It seems some armies rely more on this than others, so perhaps addressing this simply elevates other lists to become problems.
I'm glad though that I don't really have to solve this as my regular opponents don't build for list strength nor intentionally construct combos.
The synergy thing has always been a somewhat AoS thing since 1.0 was a thing. I find AoS much more synergy reliant on force multipliers compared to say Warhammer 40.000* as a lot of stuff can boost each other in AoS whether it be attack, regeneration, or something else. This is a cool design, but at the same time much more fragile as it means it gets harder to price units as their price starts to reflect certain combo-wombos. Doesn't help if a unit almost becomes an auto-take like the Bloodsecrator or say Gore Pilgrim in 1.0.
*According to friends who play CSM this synergy thing has now started to creep into the CSM codex.
A question arises though about what to do with this information once you have it. Sure, undead puts multiple abilities onto one 40 strong unit of skeletons. And when they get hurt they recover both from battle traits as well as character abilities to return models. It seems some armies rely more on this than others, so perhaps addressing this simply elevates other lists to become problems.
With undead, or at least Nagash, the problem I see is that in a small game they tend to synergize way too much as all the buffs they have are usually in close proximity to their blobs and their flaw - their speed - is not as much of a flaw as a blob can cover a good portion of the table.
It seems like wombo-combos don't happen by accident. To have the skeleton bomb you need to take the needed characters, take one huge skeleton unit and deploy them and grave sites in such a way to make sure a 30+ skeleton unit gets into combat after getting all the power ups. It's simply not going to happen unless you intend to have it when you build your army.
Same with 20 sequitors/liberators with a staunch defender castellant combo.
Taking a unit and applying a single power up doesn't usually result in a wombo-combo situation.
I wonder what effect an event rule would have that said something like "other than battle traits, a unit can only benefit from a single ability not found on it's warscroll in a given phase"? For example, a player with a unit of skeletons that has both an extra attack from a wight lord and danse macabre cast on it by a necromancer would have to choose which bonus to apply when it came time to actually fight with the skeletons. If they chose the extra attack, danse macabre would have no effect.
There are actually simple ways to fix the problems with FEC Courts, I believe.
Just put the mortal wounds of Terrorgheist's maw on 6 to wound, and D6 instead of full 6. Would still be interesting, but far more difficult to achieve - and give a more fair choice with Zombie Dragon.
For Feeding Frenzy, just remove the part saying it's "immediate" - just let it attack another time, but as normal activation or end of combat phase. Even if it's just normal activation, it would already change a lot of things, even with Gristlegore warlord.
For Summoning, just price accordingly like Karanak. It will mean the Archregent would get way more expensive, as it should be. I still believe these guys shouldn't be allowed more than one per army, but I understand people wanting to have the choice of taking multiple warscrolls for whatever reason.
Throne should give free summoning only once per turn.
A lot of people drawn to aos (including the devs) are drawn to it FOR the wombo combo listbuilding so i think limiting it would break the target demographic.
auticus wrote: A lot of people drawn to aos (including the devs) are drawn to it FOR the wombo combo listbuilding so i think limiting it would break the target demographic.
Sure, but let's just assume that I have among my local players enough people who are anti-wombo-combo to have a 6 or 8 or 12 person sorta narrative event happen where you can't combo. One ability from off the warscroll per phase.
Would this actually work or is the game going to totally break? Or is it going to get better?
A lot of armies are built around stacking more than one buff, and it is not inherently a bad thing. For example, nighthaunt models get +1 to wound from a guardian of souls, and re-roll hits of 1 from a spirit torment. Limiting to one buff would mean one of those characters aura abilities would then do nothing at least some of the time, which isn't very fun. Any buff spell would mean giving up one of those, as would any of the buff command abilities.
Armies that do not rely on buffs would have a massive advantage.
I think you might be right about some armies needing it. The issue seems to be that the various abilities are designed to be used here and there and combined to a small degree, but when people select them and build the army around them, they have a much larger impact.
I find that when an exploit is happening there is always an undercosted unit(s) involved. In an appropriately pointed environment buff stacking is, in my experience, just another tactic available to players.
frozenwastes wrote: I think you might be right about some armies needing it. The issue seems to be that the various abilities are designed to be used here and there and combined to a small degree, but when people select them and build the army around them, they have a much larger impact.
So...the problem is designing an army...well?
There are 3 actual problems with GW balancing. Outside of ambiguous wordings at least.
1. GW has no concept of a power ceiling. They create combos that are just...just way too much all the time. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes on accident. But yeah, they are the kings of create a single unit or combo that just utterly eclipses everything else. I think part of this comes from them not fully understanding that putting many buffs on one unit is almost always going to be superior to putting singular buffs on many units. This is actually not usually a huge problem these days because they do tend to fix them with points increases and FAQs a lot of the time. But still, it is an issue.
2. They create units that are obviously above everything else in the battletome and never fully acknowledge it. The idea that someone put a Retributor next to an Evocator and though, 'yeah, those are about the same' is insanity.
3. The BIGGEST problem with GW balancing is actually how many just...dogshit units they come out with. Look at Stormcast. Literally no one is using Palladors, any of the 4 units of Dracoths, Vanguard Hunters, Hurricane Crossbows, Castigators, any of the 3 units of Paladins, about Half of all the characters, liberators, etc. 3/4ths of that book ranges from mediocre to terrible. GW has trouble balancing the top end, but they're terrible at balancing the bottom.
To be fair to GW though, some of the issue does legitimately lie on the backs of the player. I know L2P is somewhat of a meme, but it's also a VERY REAL THING. The vast majority of people who play GW games are bad at them. Most of the time, it's due to lack of practice. Most players are lucky to get more than a game a week. Getting competitive, tournament style games you're lucky if your area supports getting you one a month. BUT there are areas, like Southern California, that you can get dozens of games in per week if your occupation and family give you the time to do so. Those two players meet at tournaments all the time and when Mr. 200 games this year stomps Mr. 20 games, it's very easy to put the bulk of the game on the list and not Mr. 20 games' complete lack of experience in dealing with what's out there, vs Mr. 200 games who knows what every unit is going to do before it does it.
ERJAK wrote: 3. The BIGGEST problem with GW balancing is actually how many just...dogshit units they come out with. Look at Stormcast. Literally no one is using Palladors, any of the 4 units of Dracoths, Vanguard Hunters, Hurricane Crossbows, Castigators, any of the 3 units of Paladins, about Half of all the characters, liberators, etc. 3/4ths of that book ranges from mediocre to terrible. GW has trouble balancing the top end, but they're terrible at balancing the bottom.
I think you're right that this is the biggest issue. I still like taking my retributors, my knight-questor and my castigators. Combo or not, that's probably the greatest cause of my tendancy to lose against anyone who actually built a list to be powerful. My group tends to field things based on what they think looks cool, want to paint or like in the lore/novels, but we're adjacent to an active tournament scene so we occasionally end up with a game with someone who's looking to test out their gristlegore tournament list. Our army lists are built almost by accident and when we play against one that's made up of the best stuff and has combos, it's pretty much a single gaming experience over and over. "I'm here to do my powerful thing and you're here to have it done to you."
I've taken to not engaging and just sort of politely declining tournament practice games, but I feel like that's just ignoring the problem. At this point I usually just say that I don't play matched play anymore or decline to play with unpainted models on the table and that seems to cut out 90%+ of the problem, but it does seem like GW's balance failure is necessitating such a division.
Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe tournament minded gamers are best served by playing in events and playing practice games against other people who plan on attending the same events and those of us not interested in that can just do our own thing elsewhere. Maybe it's okay that GW's balance failure means that when those worlds collide it's just the same steamroller over and over again, so why bother?
GWdevs have said time and again they expect the community to police themselves.
So the best approach is to do exactly what you said and let the tourney minded guys bash each other and let the others play themselves and not try to mix the two.
Some of us are lucky enough to be in a community that supports both. I think that is one of the biggest factors that leads me to be so critical of balance; I see and play on both sides of the coin. I bring deliberately weak lists to run against new players, moderate lists against players with some experience, and also run in tournaments (and do well). I experience first hand how insane the difference in power level is and experience how player skill factors in.
I play pretty much every week, mostly to playtest campaign scenarios. Our tournament guys have either moved on to 40k (where the bulk of the powerlisting is now) or have formed a small cell in a new store where they do tournament leagues.
I'm critical of the balance for mostly the same reasons as you. I watch a constant stream of players exit AOS for other games due to the whacked out list disparities and it sucks.
Recruiting is not that hard. Its retainment thats very difficult.
People are always interested. Its when they come in you have to let them know whats going to be a trap for their money and whats not. There is almost always a universal expectation that all of the factions are viable in some way.
Once they find out thats not the case they either adopt the competitive ebay attitude or they cut their losses and move on.
I hear you guys. I have to admit, I feel ‘conned’ by the KO. I’ve spent over £400 on an army that can barely function in the game due to a mixture of inherent design flaws and the competition completely outclassing it in every regard. If I was ‘new’, I’d be very peeved...to the point that I’d consider walking.
Also, I tried my hand at adjusting some warscolls; the Abhorrant Ghoul King on Terrorgheist and the Arkanaut Frigate. I would like to have posted the new warscrolls here but they don’t seem to work on iPads. So I’ll just post the basics:
Abhorrant Ghoul King on Royal Terrorgheist:
Fanged Maw still retains the Gaping Maw ability (on an unmodified hit roll of 6, it inflicts 6 mortal wounds instead of normal damage) but it is now modified so that it’s more like a Levidon’s crushing jaw. That is to say, it’s 1” range, 1 attack, hits on 3+, wounds on 2+, has -2 Rend and does D6 damage. So it’s just a single, powerful, potentially very powerful attack rather than a ridiculous unit deleting potential 18 mortal wound spamming insult to every opponent.
Death Shriek is now just D3 mortal wounds if it beats the targets bravery. That’s it.
Summon Royal Guard is now only usable if the model is your general. Instantly cuts down on spamming nonsense.
Meanwhile, the Arkanaut Frigate is more, significantly, changed:
It now has a movement of 12” and a 4+ save.
The range of the heavy sky cannon and heavy sky hook have been bumped up to 32”. And I will fight people on this. You know how annoying it is to have your supposedly magical high tec for the setting artillery significantly outranged by simple catapults?
Belaying Values now start at 6 Attacks and degrade to 2, but are still 1”/1/4+/4+/-/1.
Detonation Drills and Grudgesettler bombs are now two separate abilities: drills are dropped against enemy non flying chargers and force them to fight last as before, but they now work on a 2+. Grudgesettler bombs are now dropped on 1 enemy unit that the frigate flew over; on a 2+, it takes D3 mortal wounds.
Skymines are now roll a D6 if a flying enemy unit ends it charge within 1”; on a 2+, the unit takes D3 mortal wounds.
The skyhook ability is modified to match the errata.
Tireless Endrinrigger is now automatic.
Finally, disembarking is done in the movement phase, with it counting as the units movement. Embarking is also done in the movement phase. Basically, 40k rules are in effect now.
There was another change that I’ve been considering; using the garrison rules for ships. Which means that units embarked upon them are still in the game, can attack (and be attacked in return) and use their abilities. I tried it once before in a test game; it made a massive difference, but because I still lost, it still seemed fair.
What do you guys think? I hope these changes give an insight into my thinking about what’s fair and balanced.
I would change the ships to work like garrisons in all respects, including how getting in and out works. Bump the save up a point. Change nothing else. The key is to make as few changes as possible, and make said changes as simple as possible. It would be great to do a full rework but as a fan change it needs to be as palatable as you can make it.
That 1 maw attack is going to turn into 3-5 when FEC attack buffs get involved. 1" range doesn't make sense when every other dragonoid still has a 3" one. IMO just drop the MWs, no other dragonoid maw does that and it is completely unnecessary. I agree with the scream change, though just d3 may be overdoing it; personally I would go with d3+1.
I suggested the FEC changes in my campaign channel. If i do them we will have no FEC players lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post: SMH. They released a fyreslayer errata which states you cannot stack the battlesmith save bonus.
And people are going ballistic that they just painted six of them because they wanted to stack those onto a couple of already undercost hearthguard berzerkers.
Because we all need invulnerable death star units to return that also have high damage output.
And people are upset because GW put a stop to that.
SMH. They released a fyreslayer errata which states you cannot stack the battlesmith save bonus.
And people are going ballistic that they just painted six of them because they wanted to stack those onto a couple of already undercost hearthguard berzerkers.
Because we all need invulnerable death star units to return that also have high damage output.
And people are upset because GW put a stop to that.
Not seeing anyone rage about it on the Fyreslayer pages that I belong to. Mostly seeing people being reasonable about how it was an obvious breakable exploit and they were grateful that it was addressed so quickly for the health of the overall game.
Only "raging" I saw was how the first FAQ neutered the Forge, which was also fixed today.
I've seen three people now say something to the effect that they just bought and painted or bought and assembled six battlesmiths and GW just ruined them and invalidated their purchase in one fell swoop.
auticus wrote: I've seen three people now say something to the effect that they just bought and painted or bought and assembled six battlesmiths and GW just ruined them and invalidated their purchase in one fell swoop.
This morning.
Are they perhaps talking tongue-in-cheek with regard to the change.
auticus wrote: I've seen three people now say something to the effect that they just bought and painted or bought and assembled six battlesmiths and GW just ruined them and invalidated their purchase in one fell swoop.
auticus wrote: I've seen three people now say something to the effect that they just bought and painted or bought and assembled six battlesmiths and GW just ruined them and invalidated their purchase in one fell swoop.
This morning.
Well I do believe they're in the minority here.
Also, it's not specific to AoS. When it was still Battle or it happens in 40k, it's the same : optimized hardcore competitive players whining about their "smart" combo list being broken by the nerfs/fix of new edition/FAQ/erratas for some time, before they get forgotten. You can see that as well in Warmachine/Horde, actually.
Unless I'm missing something, 6 Battlesmiths would also max out the Leader allotment at the 2000 point level. With the B-smith being the most expensive hero on foot in the book, that's 840 points before any battalions or other units.
No Droths, no prayers or magmic invocations, no way to tap into the Magmic Battleforge to get the most out of your Ur-gold Runes at no points cost, limit the command traits and command abilities to the Lodge specific options, and if you did take a Lodge, none of the Relics that must be taken first are particularly useful to B-smiths, no Runesmiter tunnelling, and crucially no Hearthguard Berzerkers as Battleline. I'm sure there's more I'm missing, but this is right off the top of my head.
Its entirely possible that someone went out and bought 6 Battlesmiths, but I find it highly, highly unlikely. No serious player would do that. It makes no sense. Most of the chatter in the FB groups and Twitter threads about stacking B-smith aura was in the context of "It'll definitely get FAQ'd. They generally frown on stacking the same abilities." And here we are.
There was wording in the first errata/faq that said the buffs that the Forge provides went off in a different phase then when you'd cast the actual spells, or something to that effect(I may have it backwards). Was an obvious boo-boo and was quickly fixed by the FAQ team, to their credit.
Anyone play against the new Slaanesh? How anyone can say its not just a TOTAL hard counter to FEC..? Its so frustrating because it pushes the game towards rock paper scissors with tiny plastic people instead of hand gestures. I love the new Slaanesh book. On point in terms of style, theme, models..even the rules seem strong but not OP. Hate that it all seems planned and pre-mediatated to move the game in this direction. Also the depravity summoning is insane. Being able to summon 2 Keeper of Secrets per game is fething ludacris. In my Nurgle army I havent even been able to SNIFF summoning a GUO in the 1.5 years the book has been out.
Slaanesh is a good counter to FEC, the problem being that they aren't strong enough to wipe the FEC before they swing. And when they do, it's some very dead Slaanesh. Summoning is nice and all, but the FEC did all of theirs turn 1.
Well you're getting 3 per dead blight king. 51 depravity is likely the D3 for the general getting near them, maybe another 3 or so from some other buff, and then thats 15 dead blight kings in turn 2.
A sizable chunk of the army. Over 500 points or a quarter of the opposing army. Thats some pretty good killing.
Well I had killed his KoS, chariot, epitome and masque by turn 2. I know this player and trust him implicitly. Also my maruaders has two wounds a piece.
Well it was because of fleshy abundance that I was able to kill his kos. But also because of fleshy abundance would have caused a kos summon...so ehhh not sure
Sidenote; hard counter to Slaanesh--90 plaguebearers. Their offense is terrible so they won't wound much but their defense is great and they have 1w. So the Slaanesh player spends most the game slapping them around and getting little depravity for his trouble. He'll get to the objectives first, but the plaguebearers will outnumber him when they do. By the time they are dead... Summon more plaguebearers!
That is the big issue with Slaanesh balance--it can be OP against certain armies. This is true with almost any build and is not inherently bad as it promotes more rounded listbuilding, but when the strong counter is that generic (and for some armies unavoidable) it is a problem.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That is the big issue with Slaanesh balance--it can be OP against certain armies. This is true with almost any build and is not inherently bad as it promotes more rounded listbuilding, but when the strong counter is that generic (and for some armies unavoidable) it is a problem.
Yes I agree with this so much.
My looncurse gobo focused list barely notices the depravity summoning, he is limited by his own stuff dying and usual in army tricks for them.
Against my Iron Jawz so much gets summoned against my already awful army (they really need to combine bonesplittaz, Ironjawz and Greenskinz...) that I simply cannot compete.
But I will add, crushing a new KoS with Da Foot of Gork from full health is Ironjawz equivalent of a aphrodisiac...
I think one way to have better adjusted the depravity would have been to put generation for it on some of the troops for the army. Perhaps allowing them to generate it even if they die (since most only have 1 wound).
That would increase generation across the board so would require a rise in costs to summon models; but it would give Slaanesh more reason to take more troops (right now you basically always want to fill out the leaders slot which can mean nearly 3/4 of points ends up all leaders and almost no troops) and also more ability to adapt to armies like Skaven who have a lot of 1 wound models which aren't going to generate depravity and where they are quite happy to tie your keeper up for ages with weak clanrats that might never hurt it much; because its at least holding it at bay and sapping your depravity generation.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That is the big issue with Slaanesh balance--it can be OP against certain armies. This is true with almost any build and is not inherently bad as it promotes more rounded listbuilding, but when the strong counter is that generic (and for some armies unavoidable) it is a problem.
Yes I agree with this so much.
My looncurse gobo focused list barely notices the depravity summoning, he is limited by his own stuff dying and usual in army tricks for them.
Against my Iron Jawz so much gets summoned against my already awful army (they really need to combine bonesplittaz, Ironjawz and Greenskinz...) that I simply cannot compete.
But I will add, crushing a new KoS with Da Foot of Gork from full health is Ironjawz equivalent of a aphrodisiac...
I’m hoping for that too. A combined “waaagh!” book full of all kinds of orruks. And a combined Ogryn book too, with Beastclaw Raiders as one play style.
But anyway, I took on board that advice about changing warscrolls. Small changes for now.
Say, remind me again, how do Seraphon and Tzeentch handle summoning?
Do you have the GHB? Both Seraphon and Tzeentch summoning are in there.
But to give a rundown of how they are actually used:
A slaan general can opt not to cast a spell to general 3 summon points instead. The army also gets 1 per round for having a slaan general, and d3 if there is at least one astrolith around. This has the unfortunate effect of tying seraphon army viability to a slaan general. The slaan has 3 spells for showing up, so 9 summon points, plus the d3+1 means an average of 12 per turn. The two summons I see used are 10 skinks for 6 (objective snagging) and a bastiladon for 24. Note this means that just for bringing a slaan general and an astrolith bearer a seraphon player gets a free bastiladon every two rounds on average. The bastiladon is a extremely durable monster mainly used for its strong shooting attack, meaning it is a tactically potent option to summon to begin with.
Means to get additional spellcasts (cogs/balewind) can also be used for the slaan to general additional spells, and thus additional summon points. He is rarely used to actually cast, this is instead done by support heroes and/or a second slaan.
The seraphon also have the engine of the gods, which rolls 4d6 dice dropping one of choice at comparing it to a table to generate an effect. The notable ones are a 6-10 shooting a 25" laser that does d6 mortal wounds, and a 14-17 summoning in a free unit of 20 skinks or 3 ripperdactyls. Note that the number of dice rolled does decrease as the engine takes damage, and only when near a slaan does it get to add an extra dice then drop one of choice (the default roll is 3d6).
Tzeentch gets a summon point every time a spell is successfully cast (not unbound) by either player. This theoretically means Tzeentch summoning is much stronger against magic-heavy armies but in practice the effect is small; enemy magic armies unbind more of the Tzeentch cast attempts and thus counteract the imbalance, and the lion's share of summoning points is still often coming from the Tzeentch army itself anyways.
Additionally every time a pink horror dies the player can choose to do a MW effect or gain 2 summon points that can only be spent to summon blue horrors. Every time a blue horror dies they can choose to do a MW effect or gain 1 summon point that can only be spent to summon brimstone horrors.
I don't recall the numbers needed for Tzeentch summoning off the top of my head, but it is not that bad save the blue/brim summoning which is very spammable.
Thanks for the rundown. I didn’t have the GHB at hand at the time.
I can really see the problem with Seraphon summoning already. It’s a bit similar to FEC summoning; you’re effectively just getting free units more or less. No skill or random chance involved there.
How do we fix this? Maybe change it so that a spell swap only generates D3 summoning points? Remove the +1 for having a slann general too? Too little or too much?
Tzeentch however seems to be much fairer, spammable horrors aside. Systems like that (gain a point for something happening) are the fairest and most balanced. Khorne’s blood tithe system (1 point per destroyed unit), Slaanesh’s depravity system (points for injuring models), these are are great ways to handle summoning.
Seraphon are sitting on some very dated point costs and mechanics, but are rumored to be getting a new battletome this year. I have confidence they will come out of that in a much better state. In the meantime, yeah, making it d3 per uncast spell would push things towards being a choice and take the edge off the summoning. Changing the 14-18 results on the engine to 'pick another option on the chart' is the simplest way to addressing that I can think of. (18 is essentially auto-win; double the movement and attacks of all Seraphon that round.) The other way would be perhaps halving the number of models summoned or changing the list of what is summoned.
For Tzeentch, it is a matter of addressing the point cost of pink horrors, which suffer incredibly from the fixed-cost of AoS points. The initial 10 is worth far more since it provides casting ability, 11-20 the least, and 21-30 a bit more than the previous because of size-scaling bonus. The best way as it stands would be to up the cost of the initial 10, make a huge horde discount, and just accept that 20 will never be used.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Seraphon are sitting on some very dated point costs and mechanics, but are rumored to be getting a new battletome this year. I have confidence they will come out of that in a much better state. In the meantime, yeah, making it d3 per uncast spell would push things towards being a choice and take the edge off the summoning. Changing the 14-18 results on the engine to 'pick another option on the chart' is the simplest way to addressing that I can think of. (18 is essentially auto-win; double the movement and attacks of all Seraphon that round.) The other way would be perhaps halving the number of models summoned or changing the list of what is summoned.
For Tzeentch, it is a matter of addressing the point cost of pink horrors, which suffer incredibly from the fixed-cost of AoS points. The initial 10 is worth far more since it provides casting ability, 11-20 the least, and 21-30 a bit more than the previous because of size-scaling bonus. The best way as it stands would be to up the cost of the initial 10, make a huge horde discount, and just accept that 20 will never be used.
Hopefully their new Battletome will be more in the spirit of the Gloomspite or BoC rather than FEC. Some points adjustments and a simple swap to D3 per uncast spell would work wonders. They’re still a mighty powerful army. Just not ridiculously powerful.
And as for Tzeentch, what if the cost of pink horrors was bumped up to 300 per 10? With a 40pt per 10 horde discount, for a cost of 780 for 30? Is that too much? It feels expensive but then again you’re getting so many models for that price.
That seems like a huge markup. And honestly, blues and yellows aren't good for much more than being a tar pit. I think a bump like that would see Pinkies occupying the painting shelf and not the table.
Having played against Pink horrors a few times, they seem to be more than fairly priced to me. Most of the Blue and Brimstone Horror's cost is covered by the the Pink horror's cost.
As for the Seraphon, its not their summoning that has given me the most issues but their ability to freely teleport any unit to practically any where on the board, and to a lesser extent Skinks. Now that's not to say that their summoning isn't broken and i will get into that later. As for the teleporting other armies have the ability to teleport as well but they tend to have greater restriction on this ability; casting a spell or prayer, being held in reserves or going into reserves for a round, the use of a command point, standing within range of a terrain feature, a one use artifact, ect. Seraphon with little to no effort can move a valuable asset across the battlefield and if there are any uncontested objective on the battlefield they will belong to the Seraphon. I also mentioned Skinks as being a problem. Mostly I think that they are too cheap(both in point and summon points) once you add in everything they can do. There stats don't look that bad at first but they are a dirt cheap unit with 10 models, that move 8", can back out of combat, have bravery 10, and have a ranged attack . Now combine that with the army's ability to summon 20 of them a turn and the ability to teleport 2 units a turn and you have an army that can basically grab any objective and hold it with overwhelming numbers.
As for there summoning I don't think its a problem because they can generate too many points, but rather that the cost on their summoning chart are too low. After all you can generate 100 summon point a turn but if the lowest thing to summon was 200 summon point that wouldn't mean much. Also my problem with Seraphon summoning is that all the summoning is on the Slann, and as long as it is, you will never see any of the other possible Warlord option that Seraphon should have.
Very good points Venerable Ironclad. I played against Seraphon a couple of months back and I remember some kind of frog or something allowing a unit of ripperdactyls to teleport right beside my ships. I also remember the army finishing larger than it was when it started. Both need addressing, but of course if they’re getting a new book soon then I’m confident that they will be.
Agree with Venerable Ironclad. I really don't miss the days where Pink Horrors were horrible for a low price and spawning blue and brimstone horrors, making them certainly one of the most fitting units to hold an objective.
Hm, I'll take people's word for it saying pinks are OK. I do maintain they need a steeper horde discount, however.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Very good points Venerable Ironclad. I played against Seraphon a couple of months back and I remember some kind of frog or something allowing a unit of ripperdactyls to teleport right beside my ships. I also remember the army finishing larger than it was when it started. Both need addressing, but of course if they’re getting a new book soon then I’m confident that they will be.
That's a battalion, I think it is the last means which ignores the 9" minimum (barring vanguard, but they don't count). No doubt a battletome update will fix that. The toad gives the rippers extra attacks on their best weapon if it is near you when they swing; the best-named ability of AoS "Toad Rage"!
Interesting spread in the BOBO (192 person event. Well 191 and whatever the feth Jack Armstrong is) Results:
1. DoK 2. Skaven
3. Gloomspite Gits. (Yes. You read that correctly.)
4. Skaven
5. Beasts of Chaos
6. Sylvaneth
7. FEC 8. DoK 9. BoK
10. FEC
11-20 Has a Tzeentch, Mixed Order and Fyreslayers amongst the usual suspects. Good to see BoK getting into their stride, as well as a Duardin faction back in the top 20. No non-FEC Death Grand Alliance Armies in the top 20, and Hedonites came in at a high of 28th. No Stormcast in the top 20.
Sometimes a good amount of luck combines with a very skilled player to push an otherwise mid/low-tier army to the upper rankings. A GT near me had a KO player come 5th, for another example.
Still, the majority of the top 10 is taken by the current big three--DoK, FEC, and Skaven. I am thinking LoN is getting pushed out because it can't recover fast enough against the raw offense of FEC and loses to skaven on board control. Both those armies counter LoN pretty hard.
I think Blades of Khorne have the tools to keep the top 10s interesting. I’ll see if I can track down that GG list, very keen to see what its all about.
Oh wow, LoN fell from grace very quickly after less than half a year of domination.
Still, looks like a fairly healthy mix. No SCE is indeed a surprise too. You would think the shooting list would be able to counter a lot of these builds.
PS: Even with the old book, BoK was able to mix it up with the big guys regularly, so it's not like they were completely impotent before. It was just very mono-build-ish.
nels1031 wrote: I think Blades of Khorne have the tools to keep the top 10s interesting. I’ll see if I can track down that GG list, very keen to see what its all about.
BoK reminds me a bit of 5th edition Dark Eldar. They weren't maybe winning tournaments, but they had the toolset to throw in a lot of wrenches for other armies. Their anti-spell ability along with their utility toolkit with Blood Tithes probably make them a surprise counter to a lot of setups.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Bloodthirsters are still undercosted IMO, so I'm betting something based on 2-3 of them.
Surprisingly you would be wrong then.
Mark Wildman was in 9th place with a very special list. Only one Bloodthirster, but the main attraction is the Archaon.
Elmir wrote: Oh wow, LoN fell from grace very quickly after less than half a year of domination.
Still, looks like a fairly healthy mix. No SCE is indeed a surprise too. You would think the shooting list would be able to counter a lot of these builds.
PS: Even with the old book, BoK was able to mix it up with the big guys regularly, so it's not like they were completely impotent before. It was just very mono-build-ish.
I attended BOBO this year with a borrowed Stormcast army (finished 185th) and my first game was against LoN. I lost, but let me tell you, had Translocation went off, and the Stardake not suddenly died due to piss poor save rolls, I would have won a Major victory. A very major victory. It was a fantastic game and although I was not optimistic going in, by the half way point I didn’t feel like it was a hopeless situation. It actually came down to the wire.
Having said that, had they not been able to summon so many replacement troops through the four grave sites, I definitely would have had it. I’m not an expert but I think perhaps that four grave sites is a little too much. I think three is a better number; one for your own territory, one for no mans land and one for enemy territory.
Having said that, had they not been able to summon so many replacement troops through the four grave sites, I definitely would have had it. I’m not an expert but I think perhaps that four grave sites is a little too much. I think three is a better number; one for your own territory, one for no mans land and one for enemy territory.
I agree. The problem with the gravesets becomes much more aggravating when you play smaller games as they don't seem to scale accordingly.
GW doesn't know how to scale their game. Its written for 2000 pts.
Now ... they have their new 1000 pt format coming in the GHB and that will be interesting to review how they dealt with scaling issues there, since it seems to be a clarion call to rally behind for a great many people trying to get that point cost to be the new "standard" as it means faster and more games.
They should in my mind focus on proper balance in regards to table sizes. 1000 points are usually on 4x4 with 1500 and 2000 on 4x6. The problem is that some factors in each faction tend to scale disproportionately in this regard. Take for example the free terrain. Something like the Khorne Shrine that has a 12 inch range means much less on a large table compared to a smaller one. Same goes for various Endless Spells and gravesites.
Table size isn't something GW can control with regards to balance.
People should damn well know by now that 4x4 isn't meant for anything in the quadruple digits, and given that these "free terrain" pieces can't be deployed within a certain range of other scenery it makes me question how barren these tables are allowing for the free terrain to be so dominant.
Barren tables seem to me to be, and have always been since 20 years ago, the common scenario.
At the very least I notice from every city I've gone and played in that tables try to emulate the tournaments, which having walked through adepticon many times, I always lamented how bare the tables were there as well.
Kanluwen wrote: Table size isn't something GW can control with regards to balance.
People should damn well know by now that 4x4 isn't meant for anything in the quadruple digits, and given that these "free terrain" pieces can't be deployed within a certain range of other scenery it makes me question how barren these tables are allowing for the free terrain to be so dominant.
1000 points on a 4x6 is a slog where people are running across the board like braindead marathon runners. They are not fun battles. 4x4 for 1000 at least allows you to attempt board control and maneuvering and it is only certain armies that seem to overpower that setup such as LoN due to how close the gravesites end up being.
Free terrain has to be at least 1 inch away from other terrain so it is not impossible to set it up unless you are playing such a cluttered table that any unit over 5 is going to get annoyed traversing over it. As much as I like putting on a lot of terrain I also accept that there is a saturation level where the board is better off as a Mordheim table than an AoS table. I mean, if you want to make a table where it is challenging to put a Khorne shrine then you are making a table where it will be challenging to deploy and move a 10 man squad, and unless that terrain is highly LOS blocking then Shootcast is going to love having their opponent's melee armies trudge through that pit of debris while they get to shoot at it. Also remember that all free faction terrain must be placed in your own zone so if your own zone is super cluttered you are going to have less than optimal experience placing your forces.
However, I would love to see some table setups from people so feel free to post some.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: Barren tables seem to me to be, and have always been since 20 years ago, the common scenario.
At the very least I notice from every city I've gone and played in that tables try to emulate the tournaments, which having walked through adepticon many times, I always lamented how bare the tables were there as well.
Well, my experience is that WHFB was always a bit barren, but that might account for the fact that you moved units on movement trays and too much debris made that a less than stellar experience.
Regarding tourneys they tend to be very standardized and limited to what the tourney organizers have at their disposal.
Personally I have always been a bit vocal about the fact that I would love for GW to release "Matched Play" maps indicating table setup, but that is perhaps more because of my background in games like StarCraft.
My WHFB were not barren, and I took a lot of flack for that because they were not tournament standard, and terrain was horribad and made bad experience because it slowed you down and was not "fun".
Every other whfb table, yeah. Terrain might as well not be a thing. It was usually a hill or two and then some trees shoved off in a corner where they couldn't impact the battle.
AOS tables at all of my stores are also barren of terrain unless you have sylvaneth player, in which case there are 12-15 tree bases everywhere.
AOS tables at all of my stores are also barren of terrain unless you have sylvaneth player, in which case there are 12-15 tree bases everywhere.
Could be a remnant of the WHFB era in a way. Despite being a different game I would not be surprised if people held onto old WHFB thinking when it comes to playing AOS.
I have also not forgiven GW for cancelling Dreadhold. I always wanted to collect a large fortress but now I only have 2 walls, a gate, and a tower.
This could also be a bit of a problem with AoS. Its terrain has seen as much explicit love as 40k in my opinion. They've tried to remedy it, but price and accessibility has always been an issue, with their cemetery probably being the most accessible price-wise. I mean, with Dreadhold you got one measly wall(and very basic blocky plastic) for 15 pounds compared to 20 pounds giving you a decent building in the old Sector Imperialis set. Even the new set in preorder feels a bit heavy price-wise, with the Shattered Temple probably the best buy from it.
Best thing I bought was several boxes of Ruins of Osgiliath to add to my table.
One - you don't *need* it to play. So it becomes just another thing people have to buy and paint. And getting people to buy and paint is many times a cancer.
Two - it is an extra cost that people don't want to incur. People tend to spend as little as possible. Buying terrain has a cost. Making scratch terrain takes time and effort. Neither are things people want to do.
Quite honestly if GW released "terrain cards" which were card cutout bases with a picture of a tree or a hill or whatever, I'd bet the farm you would see that in use often.
Ouch to people playing AoS on barren boards. We did things pretty barren in WHFB 8th because terrain was just unfun but discovered very quickly that AoS is better loaded up with terrain. From experience I'd say 8 pieces on a 6x4 table is a good amount to aim for. Adjusting for the size of terrain in question, of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elmir wrote: Oh wow, LoN fell from grace very quickly after less than half a year of domination.
Still, looks like a fairly healthy mix. No SCE is indeed a surprise too. You would think the shooting list would be able to counter a lot of these builds.
PS: Even with the old book, BoK was able to mix it up with the big guys regularly, so it's not like they were completely impotent before. It was just very mono-build-ish.
I don't understand how three armies taking the majority of the top 10 is a healthy mix...
auticus wrote:People tend to spend as little as possible.
They really don't. GW has shown with terrain release after terrain release that people want it. GW has return on capital targets they evaluate at the board of directors level and the fact they keep releasing terrain year over year (and have been expanding it) shows they are meeting their targets (likely exceeding them).
Quite honestly if GW released "terrain cards" which were card cutout bases with a picture of a tree or a hill or whatever, I'd bet the farm you would see that in use often.
When mousepad terrain proliferated in Warmachine & Hordes, it was the beginning of the end of the local community for that game. If cut outs as terrain become common for warhammers, I would cease playing with anyone who used them and really re-evaluate whether I was going to stick with AoS at all. If I'm not going to be taking advantage of being part of a larger local community, I'll just put more focus on hosting gaming dinner parties with my historicals.
The new AoS terrain shows that they are thinking about the rules implications when designing their terrain. It's of a height to block LOS to foot troops for most armies and the stairs are made so that if you stand one guy at the bottom and one guy at the top they'll still be in 1" horizontal coherency.
For a long time I've been suspicious of any attempt to generate points that are at all accurate without being able to take into account the terrain being fought over, the type of target being attacked or receiving attacks from, and (especially) the synergy between units. Now if GW is trying to encourage people to buy big stone sigmar slab hills to block LOS, how are they supposed to balance the game for such drastic differences in terrain? A mostly empty table vs a table with 3 or 4 of those pieces is going to be very different.
I think it's best to view "balance" as a pipe dream confounded by too many variables. Instead points and scenarios and all that stuff should be viewed as a tool to help set up games. This idea of two people designing half a board game on their own, showing up and arranging the board and hoping it all works out is just wishful thinking.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The "balance can never be good so give up" argument strikes again!
It's possible it reoccurs so often because it's based on sound reasoning.
I think success at balance is a distribution and as you increase the variables the tails of the curve fatten and the centre of the distribution flattens. The tails in this case are an extreme likelyhood of victory or an extreme likelyhood of a loss. The centre is where each player could have won based on decisions made during the game.
The solution is not to give up though, it's to recognise the limitation and solve any problems as the individual cases happen. In game. If someone is taking an army that shoots the other off the table by the end of turn 2, add more terrain. Maybe add free cover fortifications to be placed as units dig in before the first battle round.
Consider the following:
1) there are different terrain layouts that can have a massive impact on the game 2) units have different offensive and defensive capabilities 3) units in the list can be identified as more or less efficient for a given goal 4) synergy between units can drastically increase the effectiveness of a given unit 5) different people build lists with different goals
The only way to have balance is to have a normal distribution along the spectrum of options related to each of those facts. Some sort of set expectations for terrain, some sort of average distribution of attacking and defending specialist units and generalist units, people willing to pass over the most egregiously efficient and inefficient units and taking only the more average ones, some sort of limit to combos like not taking 4+ piece combos, and generally being on the same page when it comes to a game.
Skew on any axis and things can break down rapidly. Go test it. Go build a list with 5+ part synergy combos and a list where a given unit will never be the beneficiary of more than one off-warscroll ability in a given phase. Heck, just take different goals and have one list built for power and another based on the forces present in a battle in a novel.
The designers have even said that their points formula doesn't even take into account the battletraits in the very battletome the warscrolls are published. Those adjustments are all based on what "feels right" in playtesting by a surprisingly small group of testers.
Heck they can't even make a points system that takes into account synergy. Is a lord-castellant more or less powerful if there's no viable target for his lantern?
Recognising variables isn't giving up. The solutions just happen to be specific to each actual instance of play. They need to be solved by the players on a case by case basis. The designers or some top down system of house rules simply can't account for the multiplication of variables. Unless of course, the house rules restrict variables.
Tournaments are basically these types of restrictions. 1) terrain provided by organizer 2) take units that will help you win the scenarios in the tournament pack 3) take the most efficient possible units 4) maximize synergy 5) build to win or go to the bottom tables.
Tournaments provide enjoyable balanced experiences for their participants because they rely on the participants to adjust to the specific situation. They rely on the player base to not take 90%+ of the units available to them. They rely on the players to maximize efficiency and synergy. They set the terrain and scenarios.
The solution is specific, not general. GW's designers or some house rule group on a forum can't account for the number of variables present if you don't define your goals to the same degree as a competitive event. Competitive events also have the benefit of swiss pairings sorting players. People have a great time in the last couple rounds at the bottom tables. Their win loss record sorts them into appropriate pairings.
That sorting into appropriate pairings just might be the most powerful thing possible in terms of actually achieving balance. That's why I advocate having regular opponents who are on the same page as you. The distribution of along the spectrum of options decreases by definition when the participants are doing the same sort of things in terms of army selection, terrain expectations, scenarios, power level of army builds, degree of seeking efficiency and synergy and the like.
The hunt for balance might be an attempt to find a game mechanic based solution to what is ultimately a social issue.
Given how a couple people are whining in the forbidden power thread over a nasty combo in a game that is all about synergy, nah, I don’t think people can ever be happy about balance.
The only way to balance the game is to only allow warscrolls, no items, no traits, no endless spells, no battalions. Oh, wait; that was the release of AoS. And it sucked. I’ll stick with the “chess” it’s fleshed into; the unhappy players can go back to “checkers”.
It might sound condescending, but I’m intending it to be more of a wake up call. It’s not as doom and gloom as people make it out to be.
timetowaste85 wrote: Given how a couple people are whining in the forbidden power thread over a nasty combo in a game that is all about synergy, nah, I don’t think people can ever be happy about balance.
Synergy is a choice, it's not mandatory. The way people build their armies can include as much or as little as they like. I'd advocate for the amount chosen matching your opponent's choice, or at least being in the same direction.
The only way to balance the game is to only allow warscrolls, no items, no traits, no endless spells, no battalions. Oh, wait; that was the release of AoS. And it sucked. I’ll stick with the “chess” it’s fleshed into; the unhappy players can go back to “checkers”.
That would be a type of variable reduction. Not one I want though.
It might sound condescending, but I’m intending it to be more of a wake up call. It’s not as doom and gloom as people make it out to be.
I think the idea that in matched play any combination of units in any faction should have an equal chance of winning might actually be a flawed premise. An impossibility that ignores the limitations of points systems and refuses to accept that the players need to be the source of variable reduction by finding like minded opponents who want the same power level of game as you.
It only seems to be a doom and gloom issue for those who have some sort of ideal sense of balance rather than comparing things to real world game play by those who accept the reality of the situation. For example, the only people who seem to have a bad time at tournaments are those who end up in the middle third but believe they belong in the top third. Those having a blast at the bottom tables are doing it right despite their horrible records. As well as anyone else that can accept the reality of the event. It's all too easy though to blame the game designer though. Especially with some appeal to an ideal like all units in all factions in all possible arrangements, with all terrain set ups and all possible victory conditions could and should be accurately point costed.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The "balance can never be good so give up" argument strikes again!
Spoiler:
It's possible it reoccurs so often because it's based on sound reasoning.
I think success at balance is a distribution and as you increase the variables the tails of the curve fatten and the centre of the distribution flattens. The tails in this case are an extreme likelyhood of victory or an extreme likelyhood of a loss. The centre is where each player could have won based on decisions made during the game.
The solution is not to give up though, it's to recognise the limitation and solve any problems as the individual cases happen. In game. If someone is taking an army that shoots the other off the table by the end of turn 2, add more terrain. Maybe add free cover fortifications to be placed as units dig in before the first battle round.
Consider the following:
1) there are different terrain layouts that can have a massive impact on the game
2) units have different offensive and defensive capabilities
3) units in the list can be identified as more or less efficient for a given goal
4) synergy between units can drastically increase the effectiveness of a given unit
5) different people build lists with different goals
The only way to have balance is to have a normal distribution along the spectrum of options related to each of those facts. Some sort of set expectations for terrain, some sort of average distribution of attacking and defending specialist units and generalist units, people willing to pass over the most egregiously efficient and inefficient units and taking only the more average ones, some sort of limit to combos like not taking 4+ piece combos, and generally being on the same page when it comes to a game.
Skew on any axis and things can break down rapidly. Go test it. Go build a list with 5+ part synergy combos and a list where a given unit will never be the beneficiary of more than one off-warscroll ability in a given phase. Heck, just take different goals and have one list built for power and another based on the forces present in a battle in a novel.
The designers have even said that their points formula doesn't even take into account the battletraits in the very battletome the warscrolls are published. Those adjustments are all based on what "feels right" in playtesting by a surprisingly small group of testers.
Heck they can't even make a points system that takes into account synergy. Is a lord-castellant more or less powerful if there's no viable target for his lantern?
Recognising variables isn't giving up. The solutions just happen to be specific to each actual instance of play. They need to be solved by the players on a case by case basis. The designers or some top down system of house rules simply can't account for the multiplication of variables. Unless of course, the house rules restrict variables.
Tournaments are basically these types of restrictions. 1) terrain provided by organizer 2) take units that will help you win the scenarios in the tournament pack 3) take the most efficient possible units 4) maximize synergy 5) build to win or go to the bottom tables.
Tournaments provide enjoyable balanced experiences for their participants because they rely on the participants to adjust to the specific situation. They rely on the player base to not take 90%+ of the units available to them. They rely on the players to maximize efficiency and synergy. They set the terrain and scenarios.
The solution is specific, not general. GW's designers or some house rule group on a forum can't account for the number of variables present if you don't define your goals to the same degree as a competitive event. Competitive events also have the benefit of swiss pairings sorting players. People have a great time in the last couple rounds at the bottom tables. Their win loss record sorts them into appropriate pairings.
That sorting into appropriate pairings just might be the most powerful thing possible in terms of actually achieving balance. That's why I advocate having regular opponents who are on the same page as you. The distribution of along the spectrum of options decreases by definition when the participants are doing the same sort of things in terms of army selection, terrain expectations, scenarios, power level of army builds, degree of seeking efficiency and synergy and the like.
The hunt for balance might be an attempt to find a game mechanic based solution to what is ultimately a social issue.
This is a argument I have gone over before, and my past experience with people who held this position has been rather poor in terms of them being reasonable. You may be perfectly so and I don't mean to say anything in regards to you personally, it is just that prior discussions have soured me on explaining it all out again. Let's just agree to disagree.
I don't understand how three armies taking the majority of the top 10 is a healthy mix...
Well, to be fair, he did say “fairly healthy”
And compared to the last tourney results that I posted this top ten was indeed a bit more diverse. Or at least had some fresh blood up in the mix. I suspect they are outliers or one trick ponies coupled with expert players and probably don’t have the staying power of the current big three, but it was still interesting. And great to see, for the game.
I don't understand how three armies taking the majority of the top 10 is a healthy mix...
Well, to be fair, he did say “fairly healthy”
And compared to the last tourney results that I posted this top ten was indeed a bit more diverse. Or at least had some fresh blood up in the mix. I suspect they are outliers or one trick ponies coupled with expert players and probably don’t have the staying power of the current big three, but it was still interesting. And great to see, for the game.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The "balance can never be good so give up" argument strikes again!
Spoiler:
It's possible it reoccurs so often because it's based on sound reasoning.
I think success at balance is a distribution and as you increase the variables the tails of the curve fatten and the centre of the distribution flattens. The tails in this case are an extreme likelyhood of victory or an extreme likelyhood of a loss. The centre is where each player could have won based on decisions made during the game.
The solution is not to give up though, it's to recognise the limitation and solve any problems as the individual cases happen. In game. If someone is taking an army that shoots the other off the table by the end of turn 2, add more terrain. Maybe add free cover fortifications to be placed as units dig in before the first battle round.
Consider the following:
1) there are different terrain layouts that can have a massive impact on the game 2) units have different offensive and defensive capabilities 3) units in the list can be identified as more or less efficient for a given goal 4) synergy between units can drastically increase the effectiveness of a given unit 5) different people build lists with different goals
The only way to have balance is to have a normal distribution along the spectrum of options related to each of those facts. Some sort of set expectations for terrain, some sort of average distribution of attacking and defending specialist units and generalist units, people willing to pass over the most egregiously efficient and inefficient units and taking only the more average ones, some sort of limit to combos like not taking 4+ piece combos, and generally being on the same page when it comes to a game.
Skew on any axis and things can break down rapidly. Go test it. Go build a list with 5+ part synergy combos and a list where a given unit will never be the beneficiary of more than one off-warscroll ability in a given phase. Heck, just take different goals and have one list built for power and another based on the forces present in a battle in a novel.
The designers have even said that their points formula doesn't even take into account the battletraits in the very battletome the warscrolls are published. Those adjustments are all based on what "feels right" in playtesting by a surprisingly small group of testers.
Heck they can't even make a points system that takes into account synergy. Is a lord-castellant more or less powerful if there's no viable target for his lantern?
Recognising variables isn't giving up. The solutions just happen to be specific to each actual instance of play. They need to be solved by the players on a case by case basis. The designers or some top down system of house rules simply can't account for the multiplication of variables. Unless of course, the house rules restrict variables.
Tournaments are basically these types of restrictions. 1) terrain provided by organizer 2) take units that will help you win the scenarios in the tournament pack 3) take the most efficient possible units 4) maximize synergy 5) build to win or go to the bottom tables.
Tournaments provide enjoyable balanced experiences for their participants because they rely on the participants to adjust to the specific situation. They rely on the player base to not take 90%+ of the units available to them. They rely on the players to maximize efficiency and synergy. They set the terrain and scenarios.
The solution is specific, not general. GW's designers or some house rule group on a forum can't account for the number of variables present if you don't define your goals to the same degree as a competitive event. Competitive events also have the benefit of swiss pairings sorting players. People have a great time in the last couple rounds at the bottom tables. Their win loss record sorts them into appropriate pairings.
That sorting into appropriate pairings just might be the most powerful thing possible in terms of actually achieving balance. That's why I advocate having regular opponents who are on the same page as you. The distribution of along the spectrum of options decreases by definition when the participants are doing the same sort of things in terms of army selection, terrain expectations, scenarios, power level of army builds, degree of seeking efficiency and synergy and the like.
The hunt for balance might be an attempt to find a game mechanic based solution to what is ultimately a social issue.
This is a argument I have gone over before, and my past experience with people who held this position has been rather poor in terms of them being reasonable. You may be perfectly so and I don't mean to say anything in regards to you personally, it is just that prior discussions have soured me on explaining it all out again. Let's just agree to disagree.
Do you have a link where you've dealt with these issues in the past? I totally get it if you've already dealt with the problem of multiple confounding variables in the past and don't want to go over it again.
Do you have anything to say about the bolded text? The utility of the pairing mechanism is a swiss tournament in creating balance? I highly doubt anyone who ever made the case against balance made that point before as it is a pro balance point. In fact, it may be the single most demonstrated technique for achieving balance in miniature gaming ever. If we have a proven technique for balance, maybe we should investigate it?
Or is any solution that creates balance that is not doing so with game mechanics somehow not valid? Even if the people playing are reporting having a great time at the events and finding their pairings producing great games?
"As in a Swiss tournament, all players compete in the same number of rounds against various other players. Unlike Swiss, the players do not all start with zero points, but are awarded initial points based on their rating prior to the tournament. This gives starting advantage to higher rated players, but they will play tougher opponents from the very start."
With increasing amount of data available, is it possible that we could apply the advantages of such a system more readily? For example, if ITC events used past or inter-event standings to assess the initial points for pairing purposes?
Is the limitation on this solution just the rolling out of technology to solve it? Apps for games like chess (or a variety of video games) already pair based on rankings, so perhaps with the application of some math we might get something like both players use an app when they schedule a game and based on combined player/faction standings the app will apply bonus points to the underdog or recommend a scenario that puts the better player in a tougher situation?
This will also eventually allow informed decisions to be made about game mechanics and points costs. If thousands of games are logged and GW can seee that the knight-questor has never appeared in a list of any ranking, that maybe that might be a candidate for an adjustment?
Perhaps the social approach combined with technology can eventually provide the big data needed for the non-confounded analysis needed to make points actually work?
NinthMusketeer wrote: The "balance can never be good so give up" argument strikes again!
Spoiler:
It's possible it reoccurs so often because it's based on sound reasoning.
I think success at balance is a distribution and as you increase the variables the tails of the curve fatten and the centre of the distribution flattens. The tails in this case are an extreme likelyhood of victory or an extreme likelyhood of a loss. The centre is where each player could have won based on decisions made during the game.
The solution is not to give up though, it's to recognise the limitation and solve any problems as the individual cases happen. In game. If someone is taking an army that shoots the other off the table by the end of turn 2, add more terrain. Maybe add free cover fortifications to be placed as units dig in before the first battle round.
Consider the following:
1) there are different terrain layouts that can have a massive impact on the game
2) units have different offensive and defensive capabilities
3) units in the list can be identified as more or less efficient for a given goal
4) synergy between units can drastically increase the effectiveness of a given unit
5) different people build lists with different goals
The only way to have balance is to have a normal distribution along the spectrum of options related to each of those facts. Some sort of set expectations for terrain, some sort of average distribution of attacking and defending specialist units and generalist units, people willing to pass over the most egregiously efficient and inefficient units and taking only the more average ones, some sort of limit to combos like not taking 4+ piece combos, and generally being on the same page when it comes to a game.
Skew on any axis and things can break down rapidly. Go test it. Go build a list with 5+ part synergy combos and a list where a given unit will never be the beneficiary of more than one off-warscroll ability in a given phase. Heck, just take different goals and have one list built for power and another based on the forces present in a battle in a novel.
The designers have even said that their points formula doesn't even take into account the battletraits in the very battletome the warscrolls are published. Those adjustments are all based on what "feels right" in playtesting by a surprisingly small group of testers.
Heck they can't even make a points system that takes into account synergy. Is a lord-castellant more or less powerful if there's no viable target for his lantern?
Recognising variables isn't giving up. The solutions just happen to be specific to each actual instance of play. They need to be solved by the players on a case by case basis. The designers or some top down system of house rules simply can't account for the multiplication of variables. Unless of course, the house rules restrict variables.
Tournaments are basically these types of restrictions. 1) terrain provided by organizer 2) take units that will help you win the scenarios in the tournament pack 3) take the most efficient possible units 4) maximize synergy 5) build to win or go to the bottom tables.
Tournaments provide enjoyable balanced experiences for their participants because they rely on the participants to adjust to the specific situation. They rely on the player base to not take 90%+ of the units available to them. They rely on the players to maximize efficiency and synergy. They set the terrain and scenarios.
The solution is specific, not general. GW's designers or some house rule group on a forum can't account for the number of variables present if you don't define your goals to the same degree as a competitive event. Competitive events also have the benefit of swiss pairings sorting players. People have a great time in the last couple rounds at the bottom tables. Their win loss record sorts them into appropriate pairings.
That sorting into appropriate pairings just might be the most powerful thing possible in terms of actually achieving balance. That's why I advocate having regular opponents who are on the same page as you. The distribution of along the spectrum of options decreases by definition when the participants are doing the same sort of things in terms of army selection, terrain expectations, scenarios, power level of army builds, degree of seeking efficiency and synergy and the like.
The hunt for balance might be an attempt to find a game mechanic based solution to what is ultimately a social issue.
This is a argument I have gone over before, and my past experience with people who held this position has been rather poor in terms of them being reasonable. You may be perfectly so and I don't mean to say anything in regards to you personally, it is just that prior discussions have soured me on explaining it all out again. Let's just agree to disagree.
Do you have a link where you've dealt with these issues in the past? I totally get it if you've already dealt with the problem of multiple confounding variables in the past and don't want to go over it again.
Do you have anything to say about the bolded text? The utility of the pairing mechanism is a swiss tournament in creating balance? I highly doubt anyone who ever made the case against balance made that point before as it is a pro balance point. In fact, it may be the single most demonstrated technique for achieving balance in miniature gaming ever. If we have a proven technique for balance, maybe we should investigate it?
Or is any solution that creates balance that is not doing so with game mechanics somehow not valid? Even if the people playing are reporting having a great time at the events and finding their pairings producing great games?
"As in a Swiss tournament, all players compete in the same number of rounds against various other players. Unlike Swiss, the players do not all start with zero points, but are awarded initial points based on their rating prior to the tournament. This gives starting advantage to higher rated players, but they will play tougher opponents from the very start."
With increasing amount of data available, is it possible that we could apply the advantages of such a system more readily? For example, if ITC events used past or inter-event standings to assess the initial points for pairing purposes?
Is the limitation on this solution just the rolling out of technology to solve it? Apps for games like chess (or a variety of video games) already pair based on rankings, so perhaps with the application of some math we might get something like both players use an app when they schedule a game and based on combined player/faction standings the app will apply bonus points to the underdog or recommend a scenario that puts the better player in a tougher situation?
This will also eventually allow informed decisions to be made about game mechanics and points costs. If thousands of games are logged and GW can seee that the knight-questor has never appeared in a list of any ranking, that maybe that might be a candidate for an adjustment?
Perhaps the social approach combined with technology can eventually provide the big data needed for the non-confounded analysis needed to make points actually work?
I do not have a link, I should saving my responses to common arguments to have them ready. In broad terms; even a basic mathematical analysis and/or playtesting could improve balance dramatically. Either GW is not doing it or there is a barrier somewhere in the process, because things like FEC/Skaven being disgustingly OP are immediately obvious with even a brief skim. A comparatively tiny amount of effort could dramatically improve balance. Getting the finer details down may not even be worth developing techniques required to do so because beyond a certain point the variation between unit effectiveness due to point costs becomes less than the variation due to other factors such as scenario or matchup. And I think such a circumstance is all anyone is really asking for; not perfect balance, not even great balance, just decent balance.
I think that's a very realistic position. If we take a variety of possible match ups of units and factions we want the majority of the results to be in the centre where either side could win and fewer of the results on the tails where the results are one sided. It just needs to be "good enough." So I'd like to revise my earlier statement to be that balance is only impossible if both the variables are too numerous *and* the standards are too high. Though with the caveat that enough variables (especially synergy related ones) can overwhelm even the lowest of standards. I think we can get games into the nice centre where either side could win, especially if we are willing to adjust locally on a individual game by game basis.
The barrier to a more universal sense of balance seems to be disparate goals within their own design approach. They want the game to function both with the warscrolls only (free rules + free warscrolls + your models, get playing!) and with the battle tomes. And yet they only have one points system. In the Stormcast episodes they've outright stated that their points formulas don't compensate for the rules in the battletomes not on the warscrolls. But if they did, then they'd be wrong for the free rules + warscrolls type games.
This intentional contradiction doesn't get in the way of a type of play at tournaments that the current fans of them love. It's the same thing people often love about magic card tournaments or x-wing tournaments. Many people want a small set of lists to become the dominant ones so they can make decisions about their own army in response to some meta analysis of the field of possible opponents. To many, this is a feature.
So if they have their tournaments in a state that they are well attended and growing and still loads of more casual people are buying and playing with friends, what incentive does GW have to put any more resources at all into this? All the stuff related to real data, ITC results, etc., is all done by non-GW people.
The people who suffer are those who want to do matched play but not necessarily tournament type play. Where they want to take a wider variety of units and factions than the proven lists and possible counters to those proven lists.
The people who are not suffering a lack of balance are the people who accept the limitation of variables and the filtering of appropriate pairings provided by the tournament structure on one hand. And on the other the more community and scenario minded casual players who are willing to talk about making sure the power levels of lists match up and make sense with the scenario and terrain. The matched play pick up game players seem to be the ones left in the cold while the game works well for the open, narrative and tournament crowd.
So what is the goal then? Do we actually want better game play given the current situation, or will we insist we don't do anything until GW fixes it for us? If the balance isn't good enough with their current point system, then do you shelve the army or talk to your regular opponents about maybe giving some thought to setting the games up more evenly? Even if "we shouldn't have to" it is still an option. The game is working for a lot of people, so maybe the balance answer is doing what they do? If you're competitive then join in the tournament approach and don't play a non-proven/counter list. Or if you're not stop relying on GW's points to be right if you feel they are obviously not. Set up your games like how historical gamers have been doing it for decades. Just use the points as a starting point and adjust from there. Shooting army blasting other armies off the table? Add more terrain and maybe have some fortifications/more cover granting terrain.
NinthMusketeer wrote: don't understand how three armies taking the majority of the top 10 is a healthy mix...
Well, you are looking at it from a glass half empty situation again. You see three armies in the majority (because there are 2 of each those 3 armies).
I see 7 different armies in a top 10 with any one faction only being there twice (and the faction that's often considered the most controversial/broken on this forum, not even getting into a top 5). I call that a fairly healthy mix, yes.
As an actual question: when would you consider it "fairly healthy mix" of armies in a top 10? When there are 8, 9 or 10 different armies in a top 10? Or is it a complete failure of game balance (at the top level, which is what I'm discussion when looking at top tables of a major event, let's not bog this down to a casual gameplay discussion) if there are any repeats.
I'm actually curious,because around this time last year, about half of the top 10 armies in serious competitive events, used to be Tzeentch.
Regarding the terrain stuff I do believe there is a healthy venue for terrain as many Third Party studios can attest to. I think the problem is more that those who buy terrain are a sort of 10% in the hobby. When they buy terrain they buy big, but everyone else leaves to the FLGS to provide. Since I have space to play at my home I have accumulated a lot of terrain(mostly for 40k though), but everyone else I know - except for a few mad like me - tend to only buy faction specific terrain at best.
Balance is always going to be tricky, but it also requires some modifications to truly be an approachable thing. One, as I have mentioned before, there should be Matched Play maps. Having something static to compare against means it is easier to balance. Also, people should be mirroring terrain to some extent. Second, everything in the game needs its own point value. Whether artifact, command trait, spells, prayers, etc. Having them all be 0 cost or somehow calculated in a unit's base cost is incredibly stupid and just encourages min-maxing. As long as GW refuses to take that into account we're always going to see point disparity.
(and the faction that's often considered the most controversial/broken on this forum, not even getting into a top 5).
I was actually surprised by that myself considering how much people have been lambasting the faction.
I back matched play maps too, for sure. Would really help with terrain. Incidentally in nearly game I’ve played in terrain was a big feature of it. No barren wastelands for us. It even decided a couple of games.
Also if you’re talking about what’s an indication of a good, healthy, balanced mix up, I would say it would be something like this;
In the top ten, there’s at least 8 different factions, with only 2 duplicates. With neither duplicate appearing more than once in the top five. And at least one faction from each GA makes it in to the top ten too. So something like this:
1. Flesh Eater Courts
2. Stormcast
3. Skaven
4. Gloomspite Gitz
5. Fyreslayers
6. Gutbusters
7. Blades Of Khorne
8. Flesh Eater Courts
9. Legions Of Nagash
10. Mixed Order
If tournaments all over had tables repeatedly showing similar results then you could say that the game has a healthy balance. Obviously some factions will be more powerful than others and will appear more often but it should only be by a small margin. Basically, it should come down to player skill and a little luck, not inherit over the top power inherent in the faction.
Future War Cultist wrote: I back matched play maps too, for sure. Would really help with terrain. Incidentally in nearly game I’ve played in terrain was a big feature of it. No barren wastelands for us. It even decided a couple of games.
Also if you’re talking about what’s an indication of a good, healthy, balanced mix up, I would say it would be something like this;
In the top ten, there’s at least 8 different factions, with only 2 duplicates. With neither duplicate appearing more than once in the top five. And at least one faction from each GA makes it in to the top ten too. So something like this:
1. Flesh Eater Courts
2. Stormcast
3. Skaven
4. Gloomspite Gitz
5. Fyreslayers
6. Gutbusters
7. Blades Of Khorne
8. Flesh Eater Courts
9. Legions Of Nagash
10. Mixed Order
If tournaments all over had tables repeatedly showing similar results then you could say that the game has a healthy balance. Obviously some factions will be more powerful than others and will appear more often but it should only be by a small margin. Basically, it should come down to player skill and a little luck, not inherit over the top power inherent in the faction.
I can see that... more destruction in the top 10 would be a good thing.
I could actually see "standard tables" with a strong symmetry in them as a possible positive thing for matched play. To take it more into an RTS type realm. I guess they first need to get their act together for modular terrain to really make that happen though.
I really hope GW didn't put too much effort into balancing matched play at 1k points and that this is mostly a gimmick to entice more players and give smaller stores a way to get people more involved in the hobby. I really hope they spent the bulk of there efforts in the GHB to re-balancing 2k games and getting their point costs strait. Because the power creep is really getting reminiscent of the worst excesses of 7th and 8th editions of Fantasy. I say this for basically 2 reasons:
1. It is going to be literally impossible to balance 1k and 2k at the same time without essentially having 2 completely different sets of rules, not only in terms of universal rules, but for every single rulebook and unit. This would be extraordinarily impractical and would split their resources and attention when they can barely keep on top of the one tentpole fantasy ruleset they already have. The models just cannot be scaled for both. What is OP at 1k can be just good or even mediocre at 2k. Some things that are out of control at 2k are untakeable at 1k because they need to be massed or supported in ways that are not possible at the lower point leve. That is all to say unless GW is willing to do something they have not ever been willing to do since at least 6th edition warhammer and put hard comps on units and force orgs, even going as far to exclude certain units from 1k play. I find this highly unlikely especially given the financial stupidity at forbidding units to be taken at certain play levels. And again even this I think would overtax their resources trying to keep up with the meta.
2. As nice as it is for smaller shops and players hoping to just get a quick game in to have a smaller point value that is fairly balanced, it is just not something competitive players are going to be attracted to. No one is going to travel for a 1k tournament, the attraction of the game is massed forces and giant monsters none of which is really possible at 1k. This is what warbands and skirmish level games are for and if I had a desire to play a glorified skirmish game in a matched play/tourney environment I would not be looking towards GW... 1k is what you play if you need a quick game while you drink a beer with your pal on a weeknight, or are just starting to learn the rules/buy your army. In neither case am I remotely concerned about balance or strategy. I am throwing dice while I blow off steam for an hour. If I want to actually play the game I want to use all my toys, not just a few of them.
Again if this is just a quick realignment of the 1k pt force org, with some extra restrictions on endless spells, monsters/special characters and summoning that is mostly just there to give small stores and clubs without a lot of space some love, awesome I am all for it. But I really hope no one is under the impression that this is actually going to balance 1k. You can either balance 1k or 2k with a single set of rules, you can't do both. Unless they are prepared to back essentially 2 sets of rules for every army on each release it is just not going to happen.
Heres hoping they spent a lot of time on point re-balancing this year because I can think of 4 armies that desperately need it. As a Deepkin player I am as tired of eels spams being our only viable build as I am sure everyone else is. I am all for making morrsarr 200 + pts a pop, so long as all of the awesome models in the army that are currently unplayable get the desperately needed pt reductions they need to finally see competitive play. And they don't even need pt changes the most, FEC, DoK, Skaven I am looking at you.
tripchimeras wrote: I really hope GW didn't put too much effort into balancing matched play at 1k points and that this is mostly a gimmick to entice more players and give smaller stores a way to get people more involved in the hobby.
That seems essential rather than a gimmick to me.
1. It is going to be literally impossible to balance 1k and 2k at the same time without essentially having 2 completely different sets of rules, not only in terms of universal rules, but for every single rulebook and unit. This would be extraordinarily impractical and would split their resources and attention when they can barely keep on top of the one tentpole fantasy ruleset they already have. The models just cannot be scaled for both.
If this is the case, then I guess game size (and game size relative to table size) is yet another variable potentially confounding points as a means to balance the game.
What is OP at 1k can be just good or even mediocre at 2k.
I think I agree. One thing I like about 1k is that lots of the stuff no one would ever claim is good at 2k is perfectly fine at 1k. Other things though suddenly becoming game dominating at 1k. Some times it's obvious though, like taking huge monsters or a combo core of a 2k army at 1k.
2. As nice as it is for smaller shops and players hoping to just get a quick game in to have a smaller point value that is fairly balanced, it is just not something competitive players are going to be attracted to. No one is going to travel for a 1k tournament, the attraction of the game is massed forces and giant monsters none of which is really possible at 1k.
I agree that events should probably stick to larger games. Though I understand why stores and clubs often run smaller games and don't always concentrate on tournaments. The local stores that sell GW have hundreds and hundreds of customers but local tournaments tend to top out at around 100 participants including those who might travel for the event. Neither the GW store nor the handful of independent stores ever have anything other than a smaller minority show up for gaming nights or tournaments, but the gaming nights being smaller allows for more tables to be set up and more games to be gotten in before the shop closes. So I'm actually for 1k as a standard store based matched play pick up game size for those reasons.
You can either balance 1k or 2k with a single set of rules, you can't do both. Unless they are prepared to back essentially 2 sets of rules for every army on each release it is just not going to happen.
If GW is currently relying on what can compete in the tournament meta to produce balance for them, why wouldn't that same approach work for 1k? There will be things that are the best things to put in your list given the 1k game size. It'll take a couple of events, but I'm sure that'll all get shaken out.
EnTyme wrote: Standardized battle maps would be a great idea for balance! I can already hear the complaints about "GW forcing you to buy more terrain!1!!!1" though.
I feel the argument that'd had the most weight would be against creativity. Being forced to set the table just as described otherwise it'd be invalid.
On other note, I feel some of you are neglecting mutliplayer games and formats (two on two or free for all), those can have good entertaining value, keeping the armies small allows smooth and fast play.
tripchimeras wrote: I really hope GW didn't put too much effort into balancing matched play at 1k points and that this is mostly a gimmick to entice more players and give smaller stores a way to get people more involved in the hobby. I really hope they spent the bulk of there efforts in the GHB to re-balancing 2k games and getting their point costs strait. Because the power creep is really getting reminiscent of the worst excesses of 7th and 8th editions of Fantasy.
2 of the main armies that need to be balanced are Skaven and FEC, but Generals Handbook was most likely done before they came out. They did ask how offen they should balance things in the survey, so hoping we will not have to wait for GH 2020
(and the faction that's often considered the most controversial/broken on this forum, not even getting into a top 5).
I was actually surprised by that myself considering how much people have been lambasting the faction.
As we can see from the tourney stats Flesh Eater Courts really aren't doing well (STRONG sarcasm).
It is pretty lame to use one tournament where they failed to make top 5 to take a jab at those of us who have spoken about them being OP.
Just before the release of the latest tome they spiked and kinda ruled for several tourneys before evening out a bit more. Don't get me wrong, they are a very powerful faction which has things that need to be addressed, but at the same time they don't seem to be the alpha and the omega of winning as a lot of the discussions were centered around(probably colored by the shakeup in the meta they brought). People made it sound like that the game was lost the minute a FEC player put an Arch-regent on the table.
Which brings up a point that gets muddled in the hyperbole: as much as FEC need to be addressed(I personally think the Arch-regent should be limited to 1 only as an example) there needs to be great care not to nuke them to the stone age as some people have wishlisted. I have seen some of the suggestions people have been making and if they were all applied(most people tend to want multiple nerfs instead of surgical nerfs) then FEC would most likely be KO/Grey Knights tier, and those factions need to be rewritten and brought up if anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really hope GW didn't put too much effort into balancing matched play at 1k points and that this is mostly a gimmick to entice more players and give smaller stores a way to get people more involved in the hobby. I really hope they spent the bulk of there efforts in the GHB to re-balancing 2k games and getting their point costs strait. Because the power creep is really getting reminiscent of the worst excesses of 7th and 8th editions of Fantasy.
Balancing for 1000k games can be minimal. Mostly 1k specific missions and maybe certain limits on trait shenanigans(like free terrain and multiple gravesites). Limitations on the overt problems are probably simpler than an antirely new point system for that size.
Balancing for 1000k games can be minimal. Mostly 1k specific missions and maybe certain limits on trait shenanigans(like free terrain and multiple gravesites). Limitations on the overt problems are probably simpler than an antirely new point system for that size.
I agree with you. That would be the road I hope they are taking with this. Something simple and small just to give those who need to play at lower levels a little love. A couple of simple rules changes to cover the worst excesses of the current system at that point spread is perfectly fine and easy to accomplish. But it is a far cry from how they are advertising it. I just hope both GW and fans don't inflate what is possible with 1-2 pages of new rules and a couple of new missions. It is not going to be tournament balanced. GW games are just not built in such a way they can be easily balanced for any point level, and I am fine with that. So long as 2k remains the primary focus, and most balancing efforts remain focused on that point level, I am fine. A couple rules to make summoning less outrageous, put further limits on monsters or whatever will be appreciated, but the second they try to make 1k the new standard or support it equally with 2k that is when they are going to have a problem. For better or worse the game just is not built to scale like that, and without completely re-releasing a new edition and starting from scratch on battletomes there is no way they are going to be able to change the fact that the game is balanced for 2k mid-stream like this.
As for the question I've seen posed as to whether there is time to update point costs for FEC and Skaven? We will see. Considering they are little more then an index of names and pts I would imagine it isn't too difficult to make changes there. It all depends on if/when they realized they had made massive mistakes with those tomes and when printing started/starts on the books. Especially with the prevolense of digital copies these days I think it becomes significantly easier to do that type of thing change on the fly now. Also remember that last year they released it with point changes for Deepkin and immediately retracted those pt changes. I don't see why it can't be done the otherway. alter the digital books and then for print just release a faq, same as deepkin except actually change the points instead of reversing them back. Not saying I am hopeful, but I don't think its a done deal they won't get changes. Timeframe is tight, but I think at least for FEC there was probably enough time to make the changes if they realized it soon enough, which admittedly knowing GW is a big if.
An idea just came to me and I need someone to tell me if it’s stupid or not.
If you’re looking to balance the game at smaller levels, what about a “rule of x” (sorry, crap name I know) were, with the exception of battleline units, each warscroll entry can only be taken once per 1000 points.
Future War Cultist wrote: An idea just came to me and I need someone to tell me if it’s stupid or not.
If you’re looking to balance the game at smaller levels, what about a “rule of x” (sorry, crap name I know) were, with the exception of battleline units, each warscroll entry can only be taken once per 1000 points.
That’s a crap idea isn’t it?
I think it would help with balance, though I doubt it would fix everything. I don't think its crap, but I do think a lot of people would hate it and it would be a design philosophy GW has not shown an inclination towards since 6th. I think unit limitations like that would help in general to significantly balance their games, but it isn't a great short term financial decision, and non competitive players pretty much hate anything that even approaches that type of restriction in my experience. Maybe I am wrong though, either way I do think it would be an easy way to help. Though their are plenty of singular units that would still be able to rip through entire armies alone.
It would definitely help because instead of taking, for example, three of the best thing you'd have to take one of each of the best 3 things. An army like that is far more likely to be an even match for someone who didn't spend as much time on figuring out the most efficient things to take.
What it might do though is have people take max sized units of the best things and min sized of everything else, but it's still probably better than just *all* units being the single best unit for that role.
A rule of 1 or highlander ("There can be only one!") format would probably be pretty cool for 1000 points. I'd play it. I'd even take my garbage tier lists against tuned lists in a format like that.
In my FLGS we tend to not allow Endless Spells and Battalions at 1000 or lower. We've also tried limiting Behemoths but BCR make that a bit more tricky.
That’s kind of the thing isn’t it? GW are in the game of selling minis, so restrictions like that probably won’t appeal to them. Nor will they appeal to non competitive players who want to build thematic lists. And yes, some units can slaughter their way through the enemy just as a single entity.
@frozenwastes
That was my reasoning. You’d no longer be able to spam the best unit but you could still just max out it’s size and minimise everything else. Although that comes with its own issues; less tactical flexibility, more vulnerability to battleshock and so on.
@Eldarsif
I think endless spells should become an entry on the pitched battle chart, sitting alongside Leaders, Battleline etc. They’re pretty much units in all but name so why not?
I think endless spells should become an entry on the pitched battle chart, sitting alongside Leaders, Battleline etc. They’re pretty much units in all but name so why not?
on principle I agree with you, but experience has taught me that some spells are more problematic than others.
Take for example Everblaze Comet. It has a 10" inch threat radius in a zone that is only 48 by 12 in most cases, sometimes smaller. I have seen fights where in a 1000 point games where one such spell destroyed a good portion of the enemy forces and that before the Stormcast player deepstruck with their knights and charged the enemy. If you know your enemy has that spell you can't really deploy in an strategic manner and have to thin out your forces only to leave them exposed for a deepstrike later on.
It's one of those spells that is average in 2000 point games but can easily snowball in smaller games.
I think endless spells should become an entry on the pitched battle chart, sitting alongside Leaders, Battleline etc. They’re pretty much units in all but name so why not?
on principle I agree with you, but experience has taught me that some spells are more problematic than others.
Take for example Everblaze Comet. It has a 10" inch threat radius in a zone that is only 48 by 12 in most cases, sometimes smaller. I have seen fights where in a 1000 point games where one such spell destroyed a good portion of the enemy forces and that before the Stormcast player deepstruck with their knights and charged the enemy. If you know your enemy has that spell you can't really deploy in an strategic manner and have to thin out your forces only to leave them exposed for a deepstrike later on.
It's one of those spells that is average in 2000 point games but can easily snowball in smaller games.
And this comes full circle back to the base problem. The game is built around 2000pts. There is no easy and quick solution to this. The damage profiles, pt costs, special rules, army synergies all of it make a set of assumptions that make it balanced for a 2000pt game. The further you get from that magic number, the less things work as intended. There is no 1-2 page ruleset that is going to fix all of these issues at 1k. I think some of the things suggested here would certainly help, and I hope GW implements them, and they will help to make casual games at the local shop more enjoyable. But advertising them as a way to hold 1k tourneys seems like a bad direction to go. It is not going to be balanced at all, just better when both participants are participating in good faith play. It makes it less likely that you steamroll accidentally, but even something as simple as wanting to try out that new endless spell, or that new monster you got for the army you still are under 2k points for. You are going to find all sorts of units and abilities having unintended behaviors and affects at the reduced point cost. Without a full rules overhaul its just not going to work. Which is why again, as long as this venture by GW is limited in scope and properly marketed it is fun and will help everyone out. But anyone hoping that this is going to introduce a new age where 1k and 2k can be put on equal footing is going to be disapointed, and imo if GW tries to do this they are just going to end up ruining the balance at both levels rather then having balance at atleast 2k.
I feel the problem of not having a playable 1000 point game is that it makes joining the game an all or nothing experience and I have some vague memory of what that did to the old WHFB.
On the other hand, the problems I have with 1000 point games have little to do with unit costs and more to do with extraneous faction traits and spells, and for the most part my FLGS has found a sweet balance by not allowing Battalions, Endless Spells, and Behemoths(which does pose a problem for BCR players, but they are nearly nonexistent around here). Apart from those three things I think the only problem area is LoN gravesites and if that is addressed 1000 points becomes infinitely more playable.
It's funny that you mention the Everblaze Comet, as I've never had an issue with it once I realized "If I just consider it as dangerous terrain--I'm fine".
The trap in it is Unbinding the spell after it's been cast. Then the Stormcast can just keep dropping it.
(and the faction that's often considered the most controversial/broken on this forum, not even getting into a top 5).
I was actually surprised by that myself considering how much people have been lambasting the faction.
As we can see from the tourney stats Flesh Eater Courts really aren't doing well (STRONG sarcasm).
It is pretty lame to use one tournament where they failed to make top 5 to take a jab at those of us who have spoken about them being OP.
Just before the release of the latest tome they spiked and kinda ruled for several tourneys before evening out a bit more. Don't get me wrong, they are a very powerful faction which has things that need to be addressed, but at the same time they don't seem to be the alpha and the omega of winning as a lot of the discussions were centered around(probably colored by the shakeup in the meta they brought). People made it sound like that the game was lost the minute a FEC player put an Arch-regent on the table.
Some people may have, but I do not recall anyone here making that assertion. Also, did you look at those stats? FEC are wrecking the tourney scene with Skaven not far behind. They do need multiple nerfs from multiple angles because they have several areas that make the army OP (summoning, MW Output, and Feeding Frenzy).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: An idea just came to me and I need someone to tell me if it’s stupid or not.
If you’re looking to balance the game at smaller levels, what about a “rule of x” (sorry, crap name I know) were, with the exception of battleline units, each warscroll entry can only be taken once per 1000 points.
That’s a crap idea isn’t it?
Limited and uneven impact. For something like the Stormcast ballista it works great, but for Evocators it does not since the person can just take a bigger unit if they wanted more of them. For the most part, only single-model units that are low-costed enough to spam at 1000 points are affected.
There is no single rule that will make 1000 points viable balance wise, though 'no unit that costs more than X points' and endless spell restrictions help. Battalions are rarely worth taking if they can even fit in the list at all, so that is one area where I think it can be left alone. Summoning would be the top thing to address since so many of the armies do not scale, healing mechanics come to mind next, teleportation, character sniping, uberbuff-one-unit mechanics, and who knows how many one-off warscroll/allegiance abilities would also be potential problems.
Some people may have, but I do not recall anyone here making that assertion. Also, did you look at those stats? FEC are wrecking the tourney scene with Skaven not far behind. They do need multiple nerfs from multiple angles because they have several areas that make the army OP (summoning, MW Output, and Feeding Frenzy).
Do I even have to go back three pages to find you and auticus saying tournament results don't matter because tournaments don't represent the majority of players? It's almost like tournaments didn't fit your narrative back then, but they do now. Odd.
At some point, you two are going to have to realize that you're really good at identifying potential imbalances in the game, but horrible at estimating the impact of that imbalance. Yes. DoK, FEC, and Skaven need nerfs to bring them back in line with other recent releases, but I'm seeing a wide variety of factions doing well in both tournament settings and casual setting, provided the casual players are capable of having a conversation about the type of game they're looking to play and setting expectations properly.
Some people may have, but I do not recall anyone here making that assertion. Also, did you look at those stats? FEC are wrecking the tourney scene with Skaven not far behind. They do need multiple nerfs from multiple angles because they have several areas that make the army OP (summoning, MW Output, and Feeding Frenzy).
Do I even have to go back three pages to find you and auticus saying tournament results don't matter because tournaments don't represent the majority of players? It's almost like tournaments didn't fit your narrative back then, but they do now. Odd.
At some point, you two are going to have to realize that you're really good at identifying potential imbalances in the game, but horrible at estimating the impact of that imbalance. Yes. DoK, FEC, and Skaven need nerfs to bring them back in line with other recent releases, but I'm seeing a wide variety of factions doing well in both tournament settings and casual setting, provided the casual players are capable of having a conversation about the type of game they're looking to play and setting expectations properly.
Quote me saying that. Find one quote. If you can I'll apologize, admit I was wrong, and drop it. If you can't, you admit I know better than you. Deal?
Went back to page six (so further back than I thought it was. auticus was actually the one arguing that tournament results were irrelevant. You were just arguing that a series of charts showing multiple different allegiances winning tournaments somehow doesn't show a diverse selection of viable factions because more people play certain factions. Sorry. I forgot which goalpost you were moving.
EnTyme wrote: Went back to page six (so further back than I thought it was. auticus was actually the one arguing that tournament results were irrelevant. You were just arguing that a series of charts showing multiple different allegiances winning tournaments somehow doesn't show a diverse selection of viable factions because more people play certain factions. Sorry. I forgot which goalpost you were moving.
A month or less until GHB 2019! Might be seeing some previews in the near future, hopefully.
I suspect at least one of the current big three will get knocked down a peg(DoK), and maybe if a tweak or change to summoning happens, FEC as well. I think its too late for FEC and Skaven to get points adjustments, so we may be stuck with them for the next year.
I tried to find the AoS facebook post that requested GHB feedback to pull some juicy quotes to bounce off the dakka crowd and to see if any still apply in the face of FEC and Skaven but it looks like its gone. Thats a bummer, though that was back before Christmas I think. Such an innocent time, before FEC were boosted and Skaven finally came together to take over the surface world.
Some people may have, but I do not recall anyone here making that assertion. Also, did you look at those stats? FEC are wrecking the tourney scene with Skaven not far behind. They do need multiple nerfs from multiple angles because they have several areas that make the army OP (summoning, MW Output, and Feeding Frenzy).
And I would begin nerfing so:
A: Summoning isn't free with throne(could also make so that each individual unit type could only be summoned once, so if you've summoned 1 Varghulf Courtier you can't summon another with a different unit)
A1: Maybe make it so only the Arch-Regent can use the freebie. I mean, he is the ARCH-regent after all. Would tie nicely into part C.
B: Remove the Feast day Delusion(It's a third wheel anyway as people are slowly moving over to courts instead).
C: Only one Arch-regent per army
These three changes would mean a player would have to make meaningful choices in regards to their CP use.
Again, I am not saying FEC are not strong and couldn't do with adjustments. I agree on that part. What I am saying, however, is that nerfing is a surgical maneuver and not a napalm run. I've seen too many broken collections because GW did a napalm run like some people wished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote: A month or less until GHB 2019! Might be seeing some previews in the near future, hopefully.
I suspect at least one of the current big three will get knocked down a peg(DoK), and maybe if a tweak or change to summoning happens, FEC as well. I think its too late for FEC and Skaven to get points adjustments, so we may be stuck with them for the next year.
I tried to find the AoS facebook post that requested GHB feedback to pull some juicy quotes to bounce off the dakka crowd and to see if any still apply in the face of FEC and Skaven but it looks like its gone. Thats a bummer, though that was back before Christmas I think. Such an innocent time, before FEC were boosted and Skaven finally came together to take over the surface world.
I imagine Hag Queen will be bumped up at least 20 points(safe nerf), maybe 40 points if GW is feeling frisky. Sisters of Slaughters might also see a change as they've become very popular. Strangely enough I could see some stuff get point drops like Khinerai Lifetakers and Doomfire Warlocks.
In regards to FEC, Skaven, and some DoK stuff I think they need to release a FAQ or something that changes/limits certain things.
Eldarsif wrote: Again, I am not saying FEC are not strong and couldn't do with adjustments. I agree on that part. What I am saying, however, is that nerfing is a surgical maneuver and not a napalm run. I've seen too many broken collections because GW did a napalm run like some people wished.
I agree--I simply think that the nerfs need to be significant. You mentioned removing feast day, for example, but that leaves Blisterskin and Gristlegore and thus does near-nil to improve the situation overall. Better to cut to the heart of the matter and nerf Feeding Frenzy IMO--that command ability would be overpowered with any army, let alone a high-powered melee one!
If it was that Feeding frenzy could only come from the general, or from arch-regents then it would be less of a problem i feel, but it coming from ANY hero makes every unit dangerous.
Another suggestion would be they would be allowed a second pile in later on. This would work like the DoK and Slaanesh second activation mechanics.
As usual my comments are being half stated and the context is being changed to fit a narrative.
Its never been “tournament results cant be used to evaluate the state of the games balance (full stop)”
Its “tournament results cannot be used to evaluate anything more than the balance of the game at the powergamer level. Incidentally right now thets also bad.
It does nothing for the casual level and ignores the giant gulf that exists between someone powergaming and someone bringing a casual list.
Because people rolling in saying the game is balanced because at the powergamer level there is a diversity (and right now there isnt) and that a book like flesh eater courts is fine because powerlists can deal with them is ignoring that you have to have powerlists to deal with them, which is most definitely the opposite of balance. Its both bad external and internal balance.
Having to socially engineer your groups to not play powerlists because you made the mistake of buying slaves to darkness or beastmen or kharadron overlords is also not an answer that any other game requires. And thats the common answer to bad balance. The hand waive. “Just talk to your opponent”
Except when your opponents buy a powerlist to roll into adepticon and thats the only models they have.
Carnith wrote: If it was that Feeding frenzy could only come from the general, or from arch-regents then it would be less of a problem i feel, but it coming from ANY hero makes every unit dangerous.
Another suggestion would be they would be allowed a second pile in later on. This would work like the DoK and Slaanesh second activation mechanics.
Agreed, there have been mechanics like that around since the start but they have always been a second pick instead of immediately getting to go again.
So, I’ve had some more thoughts, about balance and about Feeding Frenzy.
First, and I think I may have mentioned this before, but what if restrictions came on a point basis rather than a unit basis? As in, in a 1000pt game, you must have 200pts worth of Battleline units and 200pts worth of Leaders, and you can’t have more than 200pts each of artillery, behemoths, other units, endless spells or allies. Price the bigger stuff out of the smaller games basically.
...that’s a crap idea isn’t it?
As for feeding frenzy...what if it was changed to “if an enemy unit is destroyed, then any FEC units wholly within 12” of it that haven’t already fought can immediately pile in and attack.” Is that too much?
Having to socially engineer your groups to not play powerlists because you made the mistake of buying slaves to darkness or beastmen or kharadron overlords is also not an answer that any other game requires.
Kharadron Overlords is in an especially bad state, I don't think anyone is denying that. Beasts of Chaos, however, are a decent tome. The problem I see with Beasts of Chaos is that their line is very much Direct Order only which means they are a not as accessible to new players.
So I have been thinking about Nighthaunts. Specifically their ethereal rule (ignore all save modifiers). When applied army-wide I find it to not be a fun mechanic to play with (verses just on a few units) and the way it works is narrative-breaking. The idea is that it takes willpower and/or magical weaponry to damage them, but the way it works now the most effective offense against Nighthaunt is loads of rend - attacks, so swarms of crappy units are a great choice. The best alternative I have thought of is to tie the rend-ignore to the bravery of the attacker.
Instead of just ignoring all modifiers, they ignore all positive modifiers and all rend (allowing save-reducing magic to affect them) unless that rend came from a unit with bravery 7 or more. But I feel like there's a better option out there. What do you guys think?
First, and I think I may have mentioned this before, but what if restrictions came on a point basis rather than a unit basis? As in, in a 1000pt game, you must have 200pts worth of Battleline units and 200pts worth of Leaders, and you can’t have more than 200pts each of artillery, behemoths, other units, endless spells or allies. Price the bigger stuff out of the smaller games basically.
...that’s a crap idea isn’t it?
As for feeding frenzy...what if it was changed to “if an enemy unit is destroyed, then any FEC units wholly within 12” of it that haven’t already fought can immediately pile in and attack.” Is that too much?
Better to make it so feeding frenzy can only be triggered when a FEC unit wipes an enemy unit out (remove the 'must be within 3"' restriction). So instead of being able to use it whenever it is much more niche and requires some tactical planning in getting the right unit to wipe out the enemy at the right time.
Overlords are indeed in a terrible shape. It’s actually shocking how hard GW nerfed them. And they had some inherent weaknesses in their profiles to begin with.
We’ve spoken a lot about how to tone down the FEC. How do we power up the KO? I mean I’ve got plenty of ideas but I don’t want to derail the thread.
Better to make it so feeding frenzy can only be triggered when a FEC unit wipes an enemy unit out (remove the 'must be within 3"' restriction). So instead of being able to use it whenever it is much more niche and requires some tactical planning in getting the right unit to wipe out the enemy at the right time.
So something like “if a FEC unit destroys an enemy unit in the combat phase, pick one other FEC wholly within 12” of the destroyed unit that has not yet fought. That unit can immediately pile in and attack.”
Future War Cultist wrote: Overlords are indeed in a terrible shape. It’s actually shocking how hard GW nerfed them. And they had some inherent weaknesses in their profiles to begin with.
Overlords literally just need one major tweak to be far more viable:
Frigates and Ironclads receive the rules for being able to be garrisoned.
Their "nerfs" have been thanks to people abusing things, not unlike the tweaks that Stormcast saw when they dropped. The new Thunderers are a far more interesting unit to play and play against than the initial "Spam X weapon, Khemist buffs X weapon".
Kanluwen wrote: Overlords literally just need one major tweak to be far more viable:
Frigates and Ironclads receive the rules for being able to be garrisoned.
Their "nerfs" have been thanks to people abusing things, not unlike the tweaks that Stormcast saw when they dropped. The new Thunderers are a far more interesting unit to play and play against than the initial "Spam X weapon, Khemist buffs X weapon".
I once played a game against Ironjawz using those rules. The results where amazing; the navigator could speed up all the ships and dispel magic from the safety of the ironclad, the admiral’s opportunistic privateers command trait affected every unit in the army at once, and when the ironjawz hit the ships, instead of rolling over them unharmed they suffered very heavy casualties. I still lost the game, but because of objectives...in terms of casualties, we were neck and neck. Very close...much better.
If you had those rules, improved the saves and innate healing ability of the ships, allowed the ships to launch bombing runs, let navigators outflank ships, let khemist boost ships and put embarking and disembarking in the movement phase, Overlords would work.
I’d also tweak the code a little too. Update them to match current trends. Make custom ports a more attractive option. And get an artifact and command trait for all 6 ports too.
Ditto to the make them work like garrisons option. That alone single-handedly fixes the battletome. There are still rough spots but it makes KO function properly (and like they do in the fluff). Simple, easy change everyone can get behind. Even naysaysers get something as it means units can be targeted when embarked (albeit with cover and -1 to hit).
Having to socially engineer your groups to not play powerlists because you made the mistake of buying slaves to darkness or beastmen or kharadron overlords is also not an answer that any other game requires. And thats the common answer to bad balance. The hand waive. “Just talk to your opponent”
It is actually false that no other game requires this. In fact, the entire tradition of wargaming going back to the early 1800s functions that way. The 1824 version of Kriegsspiel (as well as those published in later decades) required that the participants set up the game including the terrain/map and the forces involved. This was especially true of the version published in the 1870s and later.
In the early 20th century HG Wells published a couple books (Little Wars and Floor Wars) which also assumed that the participants would figure out the terrain (he called it "the country") as well as the forces.
In the late 1950s when the current type of miniature wargaming began to spread more widely the rules all assumed the same thing. And it's been like that ever since. I can post the names of thousands of titles of miniature wargames that all have this same assumption.
This idea that two people can each set up half a board game, without knowing the layout of the board and come together and have it work is actually the aberration. The abnormality. And the only way it really works are when the people have a similar vision or the game drastically reduces the variables. Infinity, for example, is better at balance than 40k or AoS because even the different things in the game sort of do the same sort of things across the different types of soldiers. A sniper from one faction isn't that different from a sniper from another. Same goes for hackers. I'm sure fans would argue how distinct they are, but they really are within a bounded range of abilities.
Furthermore people who play competitive games want the wide disparity in power levels. They want a degree of outright errors and traps in the army list point values. They want list building to be a feature of the matched play scene as just like deckbuilding in Magic the Gathering, building a bad army list is the first skill test people need to pass in order to compete. I don't like it. I don't play that way, but lots of people do. You even posted in this thread about how when you did a better job at balance people contacted you to complain.
I think things just need to be good enough. Clustered around 5-8% of either side of the average win-loss ratio.
GW isn't going to do that, so why not go with the technique that has worked for running successful games since 1824? Get on the same page with your opponent.
frozenwastes wrote: why not go with the technique that has worked for running successful games since 1824? Get on the same page with your opponent.
How many players did those games have? Was the style of play (meet up, set up, play over a couple hours with someone you may or may not know) similar? Honest questions because I don't know.
I argue that GWs games are popular despite poor balance, and that is why smaller games go to much further lengths to ensure it; they cannot match the appeal of GWs fluff, miniatures, and ease of finding players, so they go for the one thing they can beat them on. If balance was not a selling point they wouldn't do that.
This idea that two people can each set up half a board game, without knowing the layout of the board and come together and have it work is actually the aberration
I would add that even online digital games require social contracts to work. Take for example Heroes of the Storm or League of Legends. If you want to have an enjoyable game where you are not rofl-stomped you must engage with your team mates on potential combos and take into account the map(in Heroes of the Storm especially).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe then the thing missing in the other half dozen games i play are the competitive attitudes that strive to break the game?
My experience is that competitive players tend to congregate in bigger and popular games. I see this especially in digital games and would not be very surprised if the same applied to tabletop gaming.
There is also the possibility that with smaller niche games the playerbase could be a little older and more casual. The 30k group where I live is much more relaxed and easy-going compared to the 40k group for example, even if there are some overlaps of players. For me, at least, the only games that have engendered a very competitive attitude in the player bases is 40k and Warmahordes(when they were doing well). All the other games I've played have been much more relaxed.
frozenwastes wrote: why not go with the technique that has worked for running successful games since 1824? Get on the same page with your opponent.
How many players did those games have? Was the style of play (meet up, set up, play over a couple hours with someone you may or may not know) similar? Honest questions because I don't know.
I really have no idea how large the communities were for various games back in the 19th century or the early 20th century. We barely know about the gaming done in the late 50s from some typed up newsletters and accounts from those involved. The 60s and 70s we know more about and the wargaming books at the time ended up in most libraries in many countries.
If I had to guess the most common format would have been for one person to supply all the miniatures and terrain and host the game. Only later in the 70s and later decades did people get the idea of making "their" army. I think I read some newsletters from the 60s where people talk about how they are painting roman infantry and whatnot to match up with a friend's celts. Or british to match up against some germans.
The 80s, 90s and 2000s saw a true explosion of the number of games. There are too many historical miniature games for me to list here. Some of which were specifically designed so that you could indeed make "your army" and play it against any other. DBA for example, had many lists where you'd make 12 elements for a particular nation and year and could play against any other up until maybe the early 17th century. So you could have hundred years wars knights vs macedonians. It also really restricted terrain and game set up. So every army had 12 units and you played the same scenario on a very few handful of terrain maps.
And it was still pretty tier based at the competitive level. There were tournaments and some armies were clearly better than others. Even with a short list of units (what, skirmishers, blades, spears, auxiliaries, bows, artillery, cavalry, knights, elephants and pikes) and with a spear unit in one army being identical to the spear unit in another army and a fixed army size of 12 units, the game just couldn't withstand the competitive mindset. It was either play a proven competitive army, one you thought would be a counter to the most popular armies or enjoy your time at the bottom tables.
auticus wrote:So there must be something else missing there thats present in the gw fanbase that creates this gross disparity.
I think you're right about that.
Youre right people complained a lot when azyr was a point system used in tournaments and it was blocking list disparities.
I try to be positive about tournament people's preferences even if I don't share them, but the GW crowd tends to be closer to the Magic the Gathering tournament mindset. List building and deck building and doing what you need to in order to win is pretty analogous between the two.
From what I understand the magic development team intentionally undercosts and overcosts cards so decks become more predictable so they can craft the play experience more directly. They have a "future future league" and a "play design" team that tests the combinations of the cards that they intentionally make the most efficient against one another and don't bother testing the majority of the cards that they know are simply not good enough to make it into a tournament deck.
GW (inadvertently?) does the same thing by using tournament people as their playtest teams. Only tournament type lists against existing tournament type lists will get tested.
Maybe then the thing missing in the other half dozen games i play are the competitive attitudes that strive to break the game?
Thats certainly possible.
I'm finding that when my friends and I specifically don't tune our armies in any way and make what tournament players would call bad list building decisions, our games work great. We barely have to solve problems. Only sort of when someone accidentally happens upon part of a tournament level combo or something. Thankfully the types of builds that truly shoot the power level up really can only be made intentionally. I still have not played a game with stormcast using staunch defender. I'd actually have to take it at least once to have a chance of ending up anywhere near a lord-castellant, staunch defender and a max unit of guys with shields. I still haven't taken a unit of stormcast over 10 models so I know I'm not getting the most out of any buffs I could apply to a given unit.
There's also a design failure in that GW goes for cool over balance. Balance is barely an afterthought. So on top of this massive disparity between the goals of the participants you also have an unnecessary laziness. And contradictory design goals like where the points need to reflect the capabilities of just the warscrolls but also the warscrolls + allegiance abilities.
It's just a mess. A perfect storm of crazily incompatible list design approaches and lazy game design and going for cool over balance. And the amount of playtesting is just so small. A few groups here and there and then internal playing. It's simply impossible for them to get games in with even a smattering of all the possible armies so they're likely only getting testing of tournament type lists made from the new material against existing tournament lists. GW decided for some reason they recruit tournament regulars and organizers to do their balance playtesting.
And then there's the constant rotation in of new army books and the long lead time between the army book and when it's tested. Stuff will simply be out that was not when the book was tested.
I don't mean to come across as championing a social approach to balance because it is the *best.* Clearly if you have even reasonable data and a head for math and modelling and can track some game results you can make a system to balance AoS that is way better than the current one. I champion the social solutions because it's really all we have left at this point. GW is simply not going to make their games give results within an acceptable distribution around 50-50 wins and losses.
And tournament results might also mask the problem. If GW doesn't adjust the current top armies then more people shooting for the top tables will switch to them and future events will show a reduction in their win rates. Just because they'll be playing each other more and more. And less skilled players will jump into them thinking it will give them the edge needed to win. As it takes time to paint armies this isn't as quick of a process as it is for a card game where people can just buy the cards and put them in sleeves, but I suspect it still has an impact. I think we'll see the next big tournament concentrate more entrants onto the proven factions.
For playtesting you absolutely need tournament players.
But you also absolutely need guys that are coming at it from the casual as well.
You can read it all the time here, on facebook, on twitter, on tga... "the game is in a great place because the tournament diversity is so mixed!"
The standards that are being used right now are as such that if the tournament experienced is diverse, thats good enough for everyone else.
Thats where the failure comes in.
That goes hand in hand with "all you have to do is talk with your opponent if you don't want a tournament powered game".
So the game is fine so long as tournament results have a lot of mixed and varied top 10 place finishers (right now no one can argue thats not the case at all) and if you are a casual then you just have to discuss things with your opponent and they will gladly tone down their list for you.
Thats the attitude that I see as pretty prevalent in the overall GW fan-verse.
That however fails because a lot of people ONLY buy whatever they need to be competitive, and even if they wanted to they could not tone down because they only have what they have. Thats the default where I live.
Then the next obstacle are the guys that feel that everything should be tournament level and if you aren't list building to break the game you either are stupid, don't know how to play right, or are just asking for whats coming to you.
We have listed in this thread a solid dozen ways to treat the game right now that would bring it back into some semblance of sanity so we all know that it can easily be done.
But you can't do that with guys that are only concerned with tournament health. You have to have a mix of players from the various view points of the game.
That however fails because a lot of people ONLY buy whatever they need to be competitive, and even if they wanted to they could not tone down because they only have what they have. Thats the default where I live.
The key to more happiness in the 40k side of things is to play the missions in the Open Play section. I think 3 out of the 4 assume unequal points. One is even made for one side to double the other. It's sad that people jump to equal points matched play so readily when they could really use some training in playing games where one side has more points than the other. It has applications to matched play as well.
Then they could say "My stuff is all strong tournament stuff, so I'll take 1250 to your 2000 and we'll see how it goes."
And if that works, what a testament to how badly GW has done with the points system.
As someone who has made a functioning points system you must find the current state of things both frustrating and vindicating.
I think the core issue is in many ways that when a game reaches a critical mass it becomes much more competitive minded and tourney centered. Moving away from that or trying to center the experience after that milestone is often a very difficult task if I am to compare it to MtG and digital games. Almost every company wants a competitive tourney game and GW finally has that, warts and all.
As someone who has made a functioning points system you must find the current state of things both frustrating and vindicating.
Very frustrating, but not vindicating in the least because I learned that the mainstream GW fan-verse ideology is about list building, and list building cannot exist if everything were balanced. If everything were balanced, list building would not be as important. The tighter the balance in a game, the less of an impact list building will have. Creating a functioning game point system means nothing when the goal was not a functioning game point system, but rather a game point system that supported and enhanced list building as a "skill". Mine was intentionally designed to make list building less of a "skill" and to make gameplay on the table more of deciding who wins. That was its biggest complaint, it killed listbuilding and was boring because of it.
I think the core issue is in many ways that when a game reaches a critical mass it becomes much more competitive minded and tourney centered. Moving away from that or trying to center the experience after that milestone is often a very difficult task if I am to compare it to MtG and digital games. Almost every company wants a competitive tourney game and GW finally has that, warts and all.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a competitive game. I play the hell out of SAGA and I'm in Kings of War, and both of those games have wide competitive presences, and both are seen at the large conventions with competitive events.
The disparity in those games is only a fraction of 40k or AOS though. Kings of War does have a couple deep issues with their balance, and I think a lot of that is also driven by a lot of those guys wanting the list building and the game devs giving it to them.
Unfortunately with Kings of War, you DO have to rotate your army out every year, and thats a complaint I have in both AOS/40k and Kings of War. The burn and churn. With SAGA and Warlords and Middle Earth I don't have to constantly get and paint new models to have good games. Conquest releases in a couple weeks and I'm interested to see how that balance will be as well. They (their devs) claim they want balance to be #1 there.
I've been to enough game developer conferences (game dev is something I've been involved in since the late 90s) and have sat through magic the gathering development conferences to recognize that they are appealing to the spike personality in GW as well intentionally.
Spike would go away if you took away list building presence. The biggest reason AOS flopped in 2015 release was not that the old world was exploded. It was that there were no points, and therefore no listbuilding at ALL.
I think a competitive game is just fine. However, it is not acceptable that all of your factions are not viable in the first place and that additionally you have really bad books like the top three right now running amuk. Those are either a sign of incompetence or intentional injection to appease Spike.
I am betting its the latter and not the former because I know the game devs are not stupid people.
I think a competitive game is just fine. However, it is not acceptable that all of your factions are not viable in the first place and that additionally you have really bad books like the top three right now running amuk. Those are either a sign of incompetence or intentional injection to appease Spike.
I am betting its the latter and not the former because I know the game devs are not stupid people.
Not stupid, but they are human and will do mistakes. I have worked in a game development long enough to realize that a strange amount of issues get through even when everybody tries to be on guard. Considering the churn they are going through I bet they are just aiming for those unittests to meet deadlines before moving onto the next faction, because they are aiming to do what you want which is to get every proper faction up to date at the end of 2020(I think it was 2020).
I don't think it's stupidity, I think it is apathy. They don't care because they don't particularly need to; people will still play and find ways to live with it because at the end of the day the games are fun and the miniatures great. Now personally I feel there is strong evidence for better balance improving sales, and that it is only a small (vocal) minority that actually desires imbalance. Also worth noting players with a strong desire for balance are more likely to play other games, while players with a desire for imbalance are going to gravitate to warhammer as the best place where they can still find players to crush.
auticus wrote: Maybe. But with the fec and skaven book the community picked the op bits out in minutes of the community previews.
It's possible that they want a new higher base line for power levels and from here on out books will come out that can make lists in a distribution around DoK in terms of power level. Maybe their trying to hook tournament players to a plow by forcing them to buy a new army twice a year now more. If the old LoN top tier army can't compete in the new field, there's also a ton of armies even less competitive than that.
If intentional and obvious power creep is the new normal then things are about to get way worse for the pick up game oriented matched play crowd.
Churn and burn (buy army then sell army for better army repeat) is definitely a thing i think intentional. And my local meta is flush with it. (Right now there are a few dok armies that just hit our buy sell groups in anticipation of their ghb fall)
But that still sucks for everyone else not wanting to do that.
Now as far as using those armies as baselines, they have pretty much failed hard in that regard since books like the goblin book, or slaanesh, or khorne, or the leaked sylvaneth don't come close to the top 3 shennanigans. They have powerful options but are blown out of the water by the things those three books can do.
auticus wrote:At that point you have a bell curve and a standardized baseline to work with and you tweak here and there as needed.
Since I upkept Azyr I have kept up with the current models and the bell curve was shattered a few times. Lately by the FEC book.
The goblin book largely fell within the bell curve so was mathematically pretty balanced overall.
The FEC book has builds that shifted the entire bell to be more narrow which made a lot more builds useless.
A side effect of the FEC book was that things like evocators suddenly fell into the bell curve instead of being broken over the bell curve.
So how would you handle assessing the point cost the basic FEC units given the drastic impact list building has? Load all the increased cost onto the heroes until it falls into the old bell curve? Something else?
Making arch regents a one choice only since they are the emperor. Correcting the over powered scrolls in general. Like the monsters doing 6 mortal wounds.
Barring that ...making the throne one use per turn and hiking up points for the monsters that do off the chart damage for starters.
Removing the free lunch they get by making their feeding frenzy have a cost.
So you see problems in the actual design and very little in the points costs. Wow.
One thing I've noticed about current GW design is that they have really moved away from negative traits. So I don't expect them to add a down side to feeding frenzy.
If you could change no rules and no warscrolls, do you think it's possible to correctly point cost them as is?
frozenwastes wrote: If you could change no rules and no warscrolls, do you think it's possible to correctly point cost them as is?
IMO, no. Points changes cannot address imbalances of grand courts, courtier preferences, or the terry maw trait. Additionally there are a number of other areas that can theoretically be balanced with point costs but should really be done with rule changes. For example, as it stands all the units would need a premium added to their points just to compensate for Feeding Frenzy being so powerful, nothing even to do with the warscrolls themselves. Or flayer shooting varying wildly between totally ineffective and completely overpowered based on the enemy army. But there are other areas where simply adjusting points is more appropriate; it should really be both.
Removing the free lunch they get by making their feeding frenzy have a cost.
To be fair the Feeding Frenzy does cost if you are using Courts. You can only pick a Delusion if you are not running a specific Court. As nice Feast Day is I have found it much better to run a Specific Courts and run with those synergies.
I also think the Charnel Throne should be revised. Having it only make summoning free for two units(regents and non-dragon kings) is a really limited ability considering many other faction terrains. Would just like the throne changed completely.
frozenwastes wrote: So you see problems in the actual design and very little in the points costs. Wow.
One thing I've noticed about current GW design is that they have really moved away from negative traits. So I don't expect them to add a down side to feeding frenzy.
If you could change no rules and no warscrolls, do you think it's possible to correctly point cost them as is?
This is true, they have moved away from negative traits. Or really making any downside at all, essentially giving players all reward with no risk. I also feel that is an intentional design decision, and its one I strongly disagree with.
Thats true in that it can be a negative, but in how I'm seeing it being used (100%) is that the units being used to ferry are large blobs of murder units where losing a model is negligible.
But if you were using it on multi wound models that could be more of a cost. I am just not seeing it be used for that yet. Its being used to transport murder units like witch elves or demonettes or blood letters that have a lot of models over to insta charge turn 1 something so losing a model is meh.
Negative traits tend to be tricky and usually ends up with people just using the stuff that has no negative trait(unless the cheese is strong enough). Also, negative traits tend to fit card games better than miniature games in my opinion.
Now that I remember, 40k has a few negative traits of -1 to hit when using certain weapons. These items are only picked if you can cheese it properly(Smash captains come to mind).
Heavy armor comes to mind. In many games, and even in whfb past, heavy armor gave you a better save at the expense of movement.
It was immersive, made sense, and gave you a trade off.
Thats one example of a negative trait.
Great weapons were another. Increased damage at the expense of speed.
In AOS, great weapons just do more damage, have better rend... and cost nothing. So why would you never take them? No trade offs. You typically get less attacks but when you do the math it always seems more beneficial to have better rend and a damage stat over more attacks with no rend and 1 damage.
auticus wrote: Heavy armor comes to mind. In many games, and even in whfb past, heavy armor gave you a better save at the expense of movement.
It was immersive, made sense, and gave you a trade off.
Thats one example of a negative trait.
Great weapons were another. Increased damage at the expense of speed.
In AOS, great weapons just do more damage, have better rend... and cost nothing. So why would you never take them? No trade offs. You typically get less attacks but when you do the math it always seems more beneficial to have better rend and a damage stat over more attacks with no rend and 1 damage.
The less movement for better armor is now just built into the unit. Good example is Bloodreavers vs. Blood Warriors. With Great Weapons I assume you are talking about a very specific unit because most Great Weapons I think of tend to have limitations and/or their cost baked into the unit. For example you can only have one Great Weapon per 10 blood Warriors(ie. MSU-ing is not an option). There are some outliers that appear to be what you are talking about. One comes to mind such as the Slaugherpriest, but even there they've made it harder to decide which you prefer(barring of course whether you want your slaughterpriest in combat instead of Blood boiling). However, even if one setup has slightly better damage, the total potential damage output is the same(6) so it is more a question of what synergy you are going for.
Now, there are some systems which muddle things a bit. For example Gorefist and Bladed Buckler. Not exactly Great Weapons, but I have found people to favor one over the other(although with DoK it depends on how much boosting you are doing).
This is why I also think that negative traits tend to fit better into card games as there are more ways to apply negative traits(lose cards, reshuffle cards, give cards, lose monster, negative tokens, etc etc) than in AoS which has a very closed system(ie. you don't have much room to manipulate a unit before entering with it into the battlefield).
What I personally like about AoS is how units are in many ways normalized, ie. don't have too many setup options and that all costs are more or less built into that. Makes playing and collecting the game much relaxed for me.
I was just giving an example of options that had a negative consequence to taking them.
If some of the OP things running amuk had a consequence to using them, you could still design things over the top, its just that players would have to weigh the cost with the reward instead of it being all reward.
1 wound model units that can do a fair amount of damage. Primarily as a sniper rifle to kill heroes or other high value monsters/units in the first turn.
I think I've seen the boat used now more than any other endless spell combined lol. It at least has the most utility of any of them. Shackles being the second most common.
The new deployment formations are to basically put your high value stuff clustered together and then encircle them with either your own garbage units or the units that aren't high value enough to put inside the circle to prevent this from happening.
Though we're only on week 2 now of the Boat. We shall see where we are in a month and then two months with it.
Can you describe an example of how such a thing worked? Because I just don't see it being a reliable option unless one is looking to capitalize on an opponent's mistake.
I played 1500 of stormcast on a 6x4 yesterday and I was able to make sure that 9" covered my back table edge and close enough to the sides that you really couldn't put the boat and unit there at all. At 2000 with any even moderately higher model count army you should be able to protect your rear/flank. I think the boat attack will be better turn 2 and on when enough models are removed (or have advanced) to leave a space.
Its used to force your opponent to deploy in a very specific way and if they don't, they will have their head tore off.
You have to employ the same type of deployment against stormcast should they decide to do the teleport half their army trick. Only now everyone gets to do it by spending 80 pts on the spell.
Because you can move after deploying, if there are any gaps at all in the formations, you can charge into pretty much anything you want.
If you had to stop 9" from the enemy like everything else, it wouldn't be as useful.
I know when the entirety of our powergamer community is buying the spell, something is up.
But this was talked about already in the other thread and I don't think it has to do with balance. It is not an unbalanced spell. It is just a spell that enforces point and click gameplay and forcing your opponent to do a specific counter-formation, forcing your will on your opponent's gameplan without needing to exert much effort.
I played 1500 of stormcast on a 6x4 yesterday and I was able to make sure that 9" covered my back table edge and close enough to the sides that you really couldn't put the boat and unit there at all. At 2000 with any even moderately higher model count army you should be able to protect your rear/flank. I think the boat attack will be better turn 2 and on when enough models are removed (or have advanced) to leave a space.
Thats legitimate but it also depends on scenario and deployment areas.
I played 1500 of stormcast on a 6x4 yesterday and I was able to make sure that 9" covered my back table edge and close enough to the sides that you really couldn't put the boat and unit there at all. At 2000 with any even moderately higher model count army you should be able to protect your rear/flank. I think the boat attack will be better turn 2 and on when enough models are removed (or have advanced) to leave a space.
Thats legitimate but it also depends on scenario and deployment areas.
And as well, it forced me to deploy more on the table to cut off avenues of attack, so I had less to deploy in deep strike mode. Modifying how people deploy is a real strength.
And More!
We’re committed to keeping Warhammer Age of Sigmar as awesome as possible, and so, with this year’s General’s Handbook, we’ve gone the extra mile. Usually, books published in the immediate lead-up to the General’s Handbook would not see points changes. However, to make sure your Pitched Battles are as balanced as possible, we’ll be releasing an early (and free) points update to the most recent battletomes – for reference, that’s Skaven, Blades of Khorne, Fyreslayers, Hedonites of Slaanesh, and Flesh-eater Courts. Keep an eye out for this – and the General’s Handbook 2019 FAQ – in early July.
In the meantime, you’ll be able to pre-order your copy of the General’s Handbook tomorrow!
Kind of impressed they are getting out in front of the newest filth. How they handle it will be another matter altogether.
Unfortunately with some of the filth, point increases alone won't stop them from being spammed.
They may help mitigate a little bit but some of the warscrolls are just too OTT compared to the rest of the game to prevent them from being taken short of a drastic point increase that makes them unplayable.
I'll agree with auticus here. Some armies are untouched because of the mechanics, not the points cost. FEC bringing in a free 500 points for no cost can't be rectified easily, same with how much benefits DoK get from witch elves and their hag.
auticus wrote: I was just giving an example of options that had a negative consequence to taking them.
If some of the OP things running amuk had a consequence to using them, you could still design things over the top, its just that players would have to weigh the cost with the reward instead of it being all reward.
They would just not use them. The more you introduce risk, the less viable a unit is, regardless of reward. In a tournament setting you have to win 5 games in a row to have a shot at first place. No one is going to take a unit that tail-spins and butt feths you one out of 5 games, no matter how good it is the other 4.
If the risk cannot be mitigated, the unit will be thrown out the majority of the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Carnith wrote: I'll agree with auticus here. Some armies are untouched because of the mechanics, not the points cost. FEC bringing in a free 500 points for no cost can't be rectified easily, same with how much benefits DoK get from witch elves and their hag.
I imagine that if you raised the remaining 1500pts by 500, that would considerably eb the flow. As for WE and hags, honestly that just tells me you don't really understand how the army works. Losing 90pts (60+30) per unit of witch aelves is MASSIVE even before you consider heartrenders also going up. It means you have to give up capabilities to maintain damage output. Finding a way to squeeze in magic support will be much more difficult for example.
People like to pretend like competitive armies are these unstoppable monoliths of destructive potential, but the truth is they're jenga towers more often than not. Hit the wrong thing the right way and the whole thing falls over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: Its used to force your opponent to deploy in a very specific way and if they don't, they will have their head tore off.
You have to employ the same type of deployment against stormcast should they decide to do the teleport half their army trick. Only now everyone gets to do it by spending 80 pts on the spell.
Because you can move after deploying, if there are any gaps at all in the formations, you can charge into pretty much anything you want.
If you had to stop 9" from the enemy like everything else, it wouldn't be as useful.
I know when the entirety of our powergamer community is buying the spell, something is up.
But this was talked about already in the other thread and I don't think it has to do with balance. It is not an unbalanced spell. It is just a spell that enforces point and click gameplay and forcing your opponent to do a specific counter-formation, forcing your will on your opponent's gameplan without needing to exert much effort.
I played 1500 of stormcast on a 6x4 yesterday and I was able to make sure that 9" covered my back table edge and close enough to the sides that you really couldn't put the boat and unit there at all. At 2000 with any even moderately higher model count army you should be able to protect your rear/flank. I think the boat attack will be better turn 2 and on when enough models are removed (or have advanced) to leave a space.
Thats legitimate but it also depends on scenario and deployment areas.
You do have to stop outside of 9 if you want to get out. You also have to stay wholly within 3 of it. It sounds like your """powergamer community""" is using it wrong.
They would just not use them. The more you introduce risk, the less viable a unit is, regardless of reward.
If everything had this cost tag then that would up the viability.
If some things exist with a cost and some things exist with no cost, then yes of course the no risk item would always be taken.
Which is a problem that I see in GW games pretty much always. There is no thought in this required. Its obvious what to take for the most part and what to leave on the shelf (most of the rest of the game)
Especially when a giant chunk of the GW community seems to only play in tournament-mode.
Only way to design over top units with consequences is to make the consequences explicit. Such as 1 wound using an ability. Any random consequence is bad game design that tends to make the model very unfavorable. Anybody remember how popular plasma was before 8th edition? No? That's because nobody wanted to lose models on an errant roll of 1.
Also, I am sorry to say that even if there were consequences and the unit was somehow viable it would still cause an ire due to the fact that you only need one bad game against one of those units to still think it is OP despite the downsides. It's the nature of a dice game. Often it is the rolls that can make you feel like an army is OP.
That is to say having a random system that a person can interpret. A 1 in 6 chance isn't a high chance whilst a 5 in 6 is and its pretty easy for most people to work out the basic probability for themselves even without any maths understanding.
So you know that 6+ save is going to be pretty much failing most of the time but that 2+ save should be saving a lot more than it loses. You can still have your 6+ save win every time and your 2+ lose every time, but the chances of that happening are very remote (in fact to the point where if you rolled a 6 every time on a lot of saves people would question the accuracy of your dice).
I don't see GW changing that and the biggest change would be if they want D10 or such and increased the range of probabilities.
So, they have a guy reading off changes in the new book. Cogs went up to 80. I expected that, and it does little to change me using them. Still a hugely important Endless Spell.
timetowaste85 wrote: So, they have a guy reading off changes in the new book. Cogs went up to 80. I expected that, and it does little to change me using them. Still a hugely important Endless Spell.
This is kind of my problem with point changes for powerful stuff. Increasing the points cost on something powerful and good doesn't actually "stop" people using it. It just tends to stop them using something less powerful ever again. It's why I wish they were more open to adjusting abilities and stats not just point costs alone. Sometimes I think adjusting an ability or stat might well make something less powerful; but still good; whilst also meaning that you're not cutting down on model variety on the table.
Then again at present AoS is a bit overcosted across the board in my view. If you compare model costs like for like to 40K you can get more variety onto a 40K board for many armies. I think GW has done this because AoS is basically a new product with many of its customers building first and new armies within it. So keeping the model count a little lower isn't a bad idea.
Model count is also lower because theyve made monsters generally more optimal a choice coupled with peoples’ inherent laziness in having to paint along with the desirability of having a smaller collection.
One of whfb failures was that it pushed blocks of troops, and people have stopped wanting army scale games around 2004 in favor of low model count. Warmachine really started that expectation on its release and it snowballed.
