GW's AOSFB released the new FAQ. And it has a lot of people hot
Of note: no you cannot merge zombie units (EDIT my bad wording) *larger than their starting numbers* in pitched battles. And the ring of immortality costs points to use in reserve.
Q: Can I use the Zombies’ Shambling Horde ability to create
a unit that is larger than the normal maximum unit size for
a Zombie unit in a Pitched Battle? Does it cost reinforcement
points to use the ability?
A: No to both.
Wow. The ring of immortality is junk now. Thanks GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tydrace wrote: Q: Can I use the Zombies’ Shambling Horde ability to create a unit that is larger than the normal maximum unit size for a Zombie unit in a Pitched Battle? Does it cost reinforcement points to use the ability?
A: No to both.
Does it costs points? No.
Sounds like merging for free.
It seems like they just wanted to stop zombie mergers that ended up with a unit size of >60.
man.. I know a few guys that can restart creating an army...
Q: Some of the Compendium warscroll battalions have points
but the units in those battalions have been replaced with new
warscrolls. How does this work in a Pitched Battle?
A: Battalions which include units which no longer have a
warscroll cannot be used in Matched Play.
tydrace wrote: Q: Can I use the Zombies’ Shambling Horde ability to create
a unit that is larger than the normal maximum unit size for
a Zombie unit in a Pitched Battle? Does it cost reinforcement
points to use the ability?
A: No to both.
Does it costs points? No.
Sounds like merging for free.
Yeah merging for free. No to taking min size units of zombies to bypass the core tax and then on turn 1 merging them all into the mega unit. My bad wording sorry.
Also they contradicted that wound/damage thing on the Facebook group:
Q: So... 3 Kurnoth Hunters with bows can infilct max. d3x6dmg or I should roll for the power(d3) of each bow separately?
I'm sorry if it's a stupid question
A: You roll one D3 per attack. So, a weapon that is Damage D3 with 3 Attacks will roll 3D3 Damage and NOT D3x3.
That's exactly the opposite of how they said it worked in the FAQ.
Also they contradicted that wound/damage thing on the Facebook group:
Q: So... 3 Kurnoth Hunters with bows can infilct max. d3x6dmg or I should roll for the power(d3) of each bow separately?
I'm sorry if it's a stupid question
A: You roll one D3 per attack. So, a weapon that is Damage D3 with 3 Attacks will roll 3D3 Damage and NOT D3x3.
That's exactly the opposite of how they said it worked in the FAQ.
They may have just changed their minds. D3x3 does a better job of representing that some hits are stronger than others. 3D3 is loaded towards an average strength hit.
D3x3 has an equal chance of 3, 6 or 9. Sometimes hits are strong, sometimes they're weak and sometimes they're average.
3 damage = 33.3% chance
6 damage = 33.3% chance
9 damage = 33.3% chance
3D3 has more potential results. Sure, you can have a weak hit or a strong hit, but more than 70% of the time, you're doing between 1.67 and 2.33 damage per D3.
3 damage = 3.7% chance
4 damage = 11.1% chance
5 damage = 22.2% chance
6 damage = 25.9% chance
7 damage = 22.2% chance
8 damage = 11.1% chance
9 damage = 3.7% chance
Also they contradicted that wound/damage thing on the Facebook group:
Q: So... 3 Kurnoth Hunters with bows can infilct max. d3x6dmg or I should roll for the power(d3) of each bow separately?
I'm sorry if it's a stupid question
A: You roll one D3 per attack. So, a weapon that is Damage D3 with 3 Attacks will roll 3D3 Damage and NOT D3x3.
That's exactly the opposite of how they said it worked in the FAQ.
They updated themselves on the facebook page almost immediately.
Q: If I set up a Sylvaneth Wyldwood that is made up of three Citadel Woods, does each Citadel Wood need to be within 1" of both of the other Citadel Woods, or can it be set up within 1" of only one of them? In other words, can I set up a Sylvaneth Wyldwood in a row, or must it be set up in a clump? A: Each Citadel Wood must be set up within 1" of both of the other Citadel Woods (i.e. in a clump).
found this interesting. at least now my opponent cant just stake out a huge swath down the center of the table. Now its more like a huge black hole
Yeah that was a stupid rule. I am however continually amazed at some of these questions and how people seem to try and game the system. A little thought/common sense/will this make me TFG would go a long way I think.
Yeah, the Ring of Immortality seems pretty useless now, especially in smaller games... there goes my respawning Necromancer
Also, the Tomb Herald's become a whole lot less useful for all non-Tomb Kings armies, as he can now only catch attacks made on Liche Priests or Mummy Heroes...
Some of the questions are inane. A lot of it is simply people trying to bend the rules as much as possible. But thats not anything new, these FAQs have had a lot of those type of questions since decades ago.
They are pretty much sweeping clean the concept of free points (respawning models effectively being two of that model for the price of one) in matched play - which as you can judge by the reaction on the fb page is pretty much the only method of play a good chunk of people consider.
I'm wondering if 40k summoning will receive the same treatment. I hope so.
auticus wrote: Some of the questions are inane. A lot of it is simply people trying to bend the rules as much as possible. But thats not anything new, these FAQs have had a lot of those type of questions since decades ago.
They are pretty much sweeping clean the concept of free points (respawning models effectively being two of that model for the price of one) in matched play - which as you can judge by the reaction on the fb page is pretty much the only method of play a good chunk of people consider.
I'm wondering if 40k summoning will receive the same treatment. I hope so.
40k has numerous instances of free models and free upgrades that need to be reversed. The concept of a points based balancing system becomes worthless as soon as you give certain factions the ability to have lots of free points. Core AoS was a problem for our group because one player always summoned in MANY free daemons units.
The FAQ also seems to go against the recent video about piling in---specifically the 2nd example in the video where guys in the back don't get to move. The FAQ reinforces what I understood from the 4-page rules about piling in.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate how far we've come from the old days of massive rulebooks and long overdue faqs to basic problems and how some other systems "better than GW" force those similar problems on players?
man.. I know a few guys that can restart creating an army...
Q: Some of the Compendium warscroll battalions have points
but the units in those battalions have been replaced with new
warscrolls. How does this work in a Pitched Battle?
A: Battalions which include units which no longer have a
warscroll cannot be used in Matched Play.
Which models lost their warscrolls? I didn't notice anything gone in the app.
privateer4hire wrote: The FAQ also seems to go against the recent video about piling in---specifically the 2nd example in the video where guys in the back don't get to move. The FAQ reinforces what I understood from the 4-page rules about piling in.
That was just an oversight on the video and I agree it was unclear. Those at the back couldn't get into the combat for that turn (which I think was all Rob wanted to illustrate - not that they couldn't move at all), because they could fully well move 3" towards the closest if they wanted to with the aim of getting in in future turns.
privateer4hire wrote: The FAQ also seems to go against the recent video about piling in---specifically the 2nd example in the video where guys in the back don't get to move. The FAQ reinforces what I understood from the 4-page rules about piling in.
That was just an oversight on the video and I agree it was unclear. Those at the back couldn't get into the combat for that turn (which I think was all Rob wanted to illustrate - not that they couldn't move at all), because they could fully well move 3" towards the closest if they wanted to with the aim of getting in in future turns.
Yeah, I just wish he had at least said he could move them---even if they couldn't get close enough to attack.
Replacement models are pretty clearly supposed to cost points, even though I mostly disagree with that design (the units that have replacement abilities are rarely overpowering) but I still feel that the intent was mostly clear. It is good that they confirmed it since there was some grey area here and there, but then they took it overboard with the ring of immortality. They should have just errata'd the thing to bypass reserve.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Replacement models are pretty clearly supposed to cost points, even though I mostly disagree with that design (the units that have replacement abilities are rarely overpowering) but I still feel that the intent was mostly clear. It is good that they confirmed it since there was some grey area here and there, but then they took it overboard with the ring of immortality. They should have just errata'd the thing to bypass reserve.
The Ring of Immortality definitely went from being overpowered to being mostly useless. Ideally, you'd just charge for the Ring, because it's really just giving you an extra D3 wounds on your Hero. Charging for artefacts would be a major problem though, as you'd no longer be able to have a random chart to roll on. They could also have left it as is, with no reserve point requirement, but Errata it so that it can't be taken by Behemoth models. Fluffwise, it should be bringing back the rider and not the mount. Being able to bring back the mount always felt like abuse.
In regards to the Ring of Immortality I think the change is fine. Previously it was just an overpowered no brainer choice for Death. However, now it is still a viable option. If you play a summoning style list you can put on your general or summoner. If for some reason you have bad luck and the necromancer dies you can automatically bring him back to continue summoning. If it is on your general you can bring back your general so that you can use your command abilites. It is not super powerful but has many situational uses now. I'm just glad you won't see it on any zombie dragon riding characters anymore. The ring will now only be viable on cheaper low wound characters as an insurance policy.
The only thing i do think they should have done is make it so that your character comes back with full health since you will be forced to pay the entire points costs for the model.
tydrace wrote: Q: Can I use the Zombies’ Shambling Horde ability to create
a unit that is larger than the normal maximum unit size for
a Zombie unit in a Pitched Battle? Does it cost reinforcement
points to use the ability?
A: No to both.
Does it costs points? No.
Sounds like merging for free.
Yeah merging for free. No to taking min size units of zombies to bypass the core tax and then on turn 1 merging them all into the mega unit. My bad wording sorry.
No, you can still take 3 min sized units and merge them turn one, the question was "can you merge them during set up?" which you could never do as the zombie merge rule is during the hero phase
broxus wrote: If it is on your general you can bring back your general so that you can use your command abilites.
As it's a new unit (and that's why you needed to pay reinforcement points in the first place) the resummoned unit would not be your general anymore and so you would lose the command abilities.
I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
More than my "anti matched play" thoughts, this makes sense when you think of it in that context and why some of these rules seem so off/screwy for no reason at all. In a tournament sure, it makes sense to limit an item that can bring back a 400ish point (or more?) monster for free. But outside of that, it seems like an unwarranted nerf.
broxus wrote: In regards to the Ring of Immortality I think the change is fine. Previously it was just an overpowered no brainer choice for Death. However, now it is still a viable option. If you play a summoning style list you can put on your general or summoner. If for some reason you have bad luck and the necromancer dies you can automatically bring him back to continue summoning. If it is on your general you can bring back your general so that you can use your command abilites. It is not super powerful but has many situational uses now. I'm just glad you won't see it on any zombie dragon riding characters anymore. The ring will now only be viable on cheaper low wound characters as an insurance policy.
The only thing i do think they should have done is make it so that your character comes back with full health since you will be forced to pay the entire points costs for the model.
broxus wrote: In regards to the Ring of Immortality I think the change is fine. Previously it was just an overpowered no brainer choice for Death. However, now it is still a viable option. If you play a summoning style list you can put on your general or summoner. If for some reason you have bad luck and the necromancer dies you can automatically bring him back to continue summoning. If it is on your general you can bring back your general so that you can use your command abilites. It is not super powerful but has many situational uses now. I'm just glad you won't see it on any zombie dragon riding characters anymore. The ring will now only be viable on cheaper low wound characters as an insurance policy.
The only thing i do think they should have done is make it so that your character comes back with full health since you will be forced to pay the entire points costs for the model.
Replacement models are pretty clearly supposed to cost points
What is that? I dont see where you find this. This would also imply the chaos lord -> daemon prince would cost points.
You're right, I should have said replacement units, not models.
Correct this is coming from someone who has played against death realizing how dumb that that ring was. All the character items were designed to add flavor and make them more interesting. Not give a massive free bonus that it had given before. The ring was simply to good and I am glad to see it toned down to be much more in line with the power of all alliances items.
broxus wrote: Correct this is coming from someone who has played against death realizing how dumb that that ring was. All the character items were designed to add flavor and make them more interesting. Not give a massive free bonus that it had given before. The ring was simply to good and I am glad to see it toned down to be much more in line with the power of all alliances items.
Thought so. Sounds like a classic case of 'this beats me so it must be OP'.
Sidenote: I have played against an opponent using the ring on a Ghould King on Terrorgheist, which as a model that heals and has a death explosion was one of the most powerful options to put the ring on. So I know what the ring can do. I have also used an army with a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon as the general that did NOT bring the ring, at a tournament no less.
lol I used the ring when I first started and you realize how crap it is compared to the cursed book.
A monster coming back with 3 wounds isn't terribly game breaking, its not like its teleporting and charging in the same turn with a 2+ rerollable save and heals itself on a 4+. I mean something like that would be outlandish.
broxus wrote: Correct this is coming from someone who has played against death realizing how dumb that that ring was. All the character items were designed to add flavor and make them more interesting. Not give a massive free bonus that it had given before. The ring was simply to good and I am glad to see it toned down to be much more in line with the power of all alliances items.
Thought so. Sounds like a classic case of 'this beats me so it must be OP'.
Sidenote: I have played against an opponent using the ring on a Ghould King on Terrorgheist, which as a model that heals and has a death explosion was one of the most powerful options to put the ring on. So I know what the ring can do. I have also used an army with a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon as the general that did NOT bring the ring, at a tournament no less.
Dude, it's potentially 400 free points, it can be OP.
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
Dude, it's potentially 400 free points, it can be OP.
A lot of things can be OP.
Am I missing the 1-3 wound model worth 400 points?
A ghoul king on terrogheist is worth 400, if you buy him at full health. Having him come back with 1-3 wounds in a 4-6 turn game is hardly free 400 points. If he wants to heal up in safety then he may not take part for the last turn or 2, if he takes part you have a few extra wounds to do. In many games it is worthless as it only has any affect if the Ghoul king is killed, which may never have happened.
As it stands I doubt anyone will be using the ring now, why pay 400 points to bring back a 1-3 wound model, if it died. When you could just have a full health one to start with. Even the ability to have him teleport in somewhere else is probably not worth it. I can see a possible use on maybe some really awesome unique models, one you can't take 2 of, but they are likely so expensive as to also be a non starter.
If it was a free 400 points then people will still be taking it, as it will be worth the cost.
IMO the book of -1 to hit was (and is even more so now) way better. The ring was nice if you have more than 1 choice. Now it is pretty much auto exclude.
The ring was really good with the VLOZD because you could pop the chalice of blood immediately after and get a further D6 wounds - and if a Mortis Engine was on the board a potential D3 wounds giving you anywhere between 3-12 wounds upon returning.
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
Are you really still on about that?
Why wouldn't I be? Half of these complaints about the FAQ go away when you consider the fact they make sense from a tournament, and don't make sense otherwise. Clearly the solution then is to not treat every game like it was a tournament game.
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
Are you really still on about that?
Why wouldn't I be? Half of these complaints about the FAQ go away when you consider the fact they make sense from a tournament, and don't make sense otherwise. Clearly the solution then is to not treat every game like it was a tournament game.
I'm so sorry we enjoy playing a game in a different way than you do.
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
Are you really still on about that?
Why wouldn't I be? Half of these complaints about the FAQ go away when you consider the fact they make sense from a tournament, and don't make sense otherwise. Clearly the solution then is to not treat every game like it was a tournament game.
I'm so sorry we enjoy playing a game in a different way than you do.
Nobody is saying that's a bad thing (least of all me, I've repeatedly said that I am fine with Matched Play for tournament type things), I'm saying the problems with a lot of these FAQs are only a problem if you play the game in that specific way, and the solution is to NOT do that if you don't like the FAQ changes. If you want to only play Matched Play, then you have to live with the FAQ changes that many people seem upset about; that's the tradeoff for wanting Matched Play to be the main way of playing AOS. There is an alternative, if people want to go that route instead.
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
Are you really still on about that?
Why wouldn't I be? Half of these complaints about the FAQ go away when you consider the fact they make sense from a tournament, and don't make sense otherwise. Clearly the solution then is to not treat every game like it was a tournament game.
That's not what I'm asking of course, namely the whole additional details of "Rather than have people actually talk".
As a matched play player, I hope they don't include all of the battalions. As long as all the models have point costs I think that's fine. I don't trust GW to have balanced values for all of the battalions (especially since they don't even for the ones they have), not to mention we'd have pages taken up by nothing but battalions. Stormcast have 30 battalions. 30.
To all the people who are afraid that matched points will become a monolithic de-facto required way to play the game and remove all possibility of talking to your opponents and sorting things out:
There is a simple solution to this: talk to your opponents. If you'd rather not used matched play rules , you don't have to! And if you can't summon the fortitude to hash it out with your opponents, what makes you think that you could hash it out without matched play? Heck, if your opponent likes matched play and you don't, you can come up with a compromise: used matched play points to make your army lists but use open play rules beyond that. That's totally valid!
If you are playing with a total stranger is it such a bad thing that matched play is a bit of a default? It allows you to get a game in (and hopefully break the ice a bit) without having a lot of overhead discussion ahead of time. Then maybe talk about how the game went and how you might want to play differently next time. Or if your opponent is up for something more complex on the first go through, just do that! Nothing is stopping you.
I put out a poll a bit ago on my community event page asking how we'd feel about a GM'd campaign for this summer instead of using matched play and points.
The results were 29 in favor of points and against GM, and 2 in favor of the GM and no points.
I know where I am... trying to get off of matched play is not viable or realistic.
auticus wrote: I put out a poll a bit ago on my community event page asking how we'd feel about a GM'd campaign for this summer instead of using matched play and points.
The results were 29 in favor of points and against GM, and 2 in favor of the GM and no points.
I know where I am... trying to get off of matched play is not viable or realistic.
Though TBF you couldn't get narrative games going before matched play either (as I recall).
Still, it's an awful situation to be in when people try to shoehorn a game that isn't really intended to be competitive into a competitive focused game. Everyone can play in their style, but it's really odd to see so many people want to "force" Warhammer into a competitive game when it never really was competitive even in the olden days.
Although that said, I find all you need is a handful of like-minded people to start having fun away from the "competitive" crowd. And when new players see the non-competitive group laughing and having fun and doing weird, fun scenarios and the matched play people being more serious and playing standard-looking games, chances are the new players will gravitate to the crowd that looks like they're having more fun. They might branch out or even leave later, but the best way to encourage other styles is to find at least one other person and just do it.
That's my idea, anyways. I know from the handful I've talked to at my GW, they are interested in campaigns and narrative things, not necessarily with points (although maybe just to have something other than "drop what you want). But my goal is to do something like that; find at least one person and start to play narrative style games and hopefully as new people come to the shop they will see us and want to join AOS to join our style of play not the competitive minded players (although many of those play 40k). I know for a fact if I were a new player, I'd be more likely to want to join the two people playing out a crazy scenario that's part of a mini-campaign than join the group using similarly built armies in regular battles to try and win.
auticus wrote: I put out a poll a bit ago on my community event page asking how we'd feel about a GM'd campaign for this summer instead of using matched play and points.
The results were 29 in favor of points and against GM, and 2 in favor of the GM and no points.
I know where I am... trying to get off of matched play is not viable or realistic.
Though TBF you couldn't get narrative games going before matched play either (as I recall).
We used Azyr before. But yeah GM mode has pretty much not been seen in my area publicly at events since 1998 (we had a warmaster ancients run in 2005 that was GM'd but that wasn't a mainstream game nor were the players regulars at the shop because it was primarily historical)
The campaign will run this year as it always has, its just that we have to use competitive mode to facilitate the lists.
EnTyme wrote:I'm so sorry we enjoy playing a game in a different way than you do.
How about respect that he plays differently but others say his way of playing is the wrong way. You answer if perfect example. Why do you feel the need to belittle him in a false apology? That is why he keeps going on a bout it. He doesn't like when people are negative to his way of playing. any time he feels he needs to defend himself, someone like you comes up and re enforces that his idea is wrong.
So instead of belittling him or mocking him, just respect his decision. No where does he ever say his opinion is the correct one, or people must play his way but it's his preferred way but people need to come in and tell him he is wrong. Just like you did.
EnTyme wrote:I'm so sorry we enjoy playing a game in a different way than you do.
How about respect that he plays differently but others say his way of playing is the wrong way. You answer if perfect example. Why do you feel the need to belittle him in a false apology? That is why he keeps going on a bout it. He doesn't like when people are negative to his way of playing. any time he feels he needs to defend himself, someone like you comes up and re enforces that his idea is wrong.
So instead of belittling him or mocking him, just respect his decision. No where does he ever say his opinion is the correct one, or people must play his way but it's his preferred way but people need to come in and tell him he is wrong. Just like you did.
Because the statement he was responding to is this:
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
auticus wrote: I put out a poll a bit ago on my community event page asking how we'd feel about a GM'd campaign for this summer instead of using matched play and points.
The results were 29 in favor of points and against GM, and 2 in favor of the GM and no points.
I know where I am... trying to get off of matched play is not viable or realistic.
Though TBF you couldn't get narrative games going before matched play either (as I recall).
We used Azyr before. But yeah GM mode has pretty much not been seen in my area publicly at events since 1998 (we had a warmaster ancients run in 2005 that was GM'd but that wasn't a mainstream game nor were the players regulars at the shop because it was primarily historical)
The campaign will run this year as it always has, its just that we have to use competitive mode to facilitate the lists.
Holy Hammer/Holy Wars etc etc is just up the road from you. Why don't you go to some of their narrative play events. Make some new gaming buddies and invite them to play down the road at your place?
EnTyme wrote:I'm so sorry we enjoy playing a game in a different way than you do.
How about respect that he plays differently but others say his way of playing is the wrong way. You answer if perfect example. Why do you feel the need to belittle him in a false apology? That is why he keeps going on a bout it. He doesn't like when people are negative to his way of playing. any time he feels he needs to defend himself, someone like you comes up and re enforces that his idea is wrong.
So instead of belittling him or mocking him, just respect his decision. No where does he ever say his opinion is the correct one, or people must play his way but it's his preferred way but people need to come in and tell him he is wrong. Just like you did.
You didn't actually read the statement I was responding to, did you?
I don't know what Holy Hammer or Holy Wars is or where it is located.
EDIT: I see that is an event in Illinois. Bit of a drive. Our campaigns are not weekend events, they last a series of months so my bet is that we're not going to get any guys driving to participate
Still it's like 5 hours drive which isn't far (people in the UK drive further than that for some events). Gives you Narrative events to go to to scratch that itch, and you might have players that live closer to Louisville (equidistant would be 2 1/2 hours away, so scope for people coming to your own weekend events too).
I know in my case I prefer match play because I want some level of fair play. I don't need to win, I just want a chance too. I can't be the only one; that once you have agreed to a narrative game, you find yourself recreating Pickett's charge.
I've had enough of so called fluffy players who's only narrative their interested in is how much of an advantage they can get away with.
broxus wrote: Correct this is coming from someone who has played against death realizing how dumb that that ring was. All the character items were designed to add flavor and make them more interesting. Not give a massive free bonus that it had given before. The ring was simply to good and I am glad to see it toned down to be much more in line with the power of all alliances items.
Thought so. Sounds like a classic case of 'this beats me so it must be OP'.
Sidenote: I have played against an opponent using the ring on a Ghould King on Terrorgheist, which as a model that heals and has a death explosion was one of the most powerful options to put the ring on. So I know what the ring can do. I have also used an army with a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon as the general that did NOT bring the ring, at a tournament no less.
I am starting to wonder if we are even playing the same AOS game. You tell me that the GUO is undercosted at 330 points, the new Exalted GUO should be 500pts, and that the ring of immortality wasn't over the top compared to any of the other grand alliance items? I am all for the Death Alliance getting some GHB love, but between the deathless minions, ruler of the night, the ring of immortatiliy and cursed book the buffs are a little out of hand.
Sure, you can still win games against these things. However, it is greatly skewing the balance that the GHB was intended to accomplish in games.
broxus wrote: Correct this is coming from someone who has played against death realizing how dumb that that ring was. All the character items were designed to add flavor and make them more interesting. Not give a massive free bonus that it had given before. The ring was simply to good and I am glad to see it toned down to be much more in line with the power of all alliances items.
Thought so. Sounds like a classic case of 'this beats me so it must be OP'.
Sidenote: I have played against an opponent using the ring on a Ghould King on Terrorgheist, which as a model that heals and has a death explosion was one of the most powerful options to put the ring on. So I know what the ring can do. I have also used an army with a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon as the general that did NOT bring the ring, at a tournament no less.
I am starting to wonder if we are even playing the same AOS game. You tell me that the GUO is undercosted at 330 points, the new Exalted GUO should be 500pts, and that the ring of immortality wasn't over the top compared to any of the other grand alliance items? I am all for the Death Alliance getting some GHB love, but between the deathless minions, ruler of the night, the ring of immortatiliy and cursed book the buffs are a little out of hand.
Sure, you can still win games against these things. However, it is greatly skewing the balance that the GHB was intended to accomplish in games.
Honestly I just think you have a point of view very biased towards the army you use personally. I think you have not played using the things you say are overpowered, nor played against the things you say are underpowered. And FYI; I said the GUO was undercosted at 240, and that 330 was a more appropriate value.
@NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.
My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.
Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.
broxus wrote: @NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.
My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.
Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.
based on my own experience I would agree with you, the GUO is exceptionally good for 240pts and a no brainer id say, and if something is pretty much an automatic pick, either it needs adjusting, or the units around it need adjusting.
broxus wrote: @NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.
My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.
Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.
based on my own experience I would agree with you, the GUO is exceptionally good for 240pts and a no brainer id say, and if something is pretty much an automatic pick, either it needs adjusting, or the units around it need adjusting.
I might be wrong about this but in the previous thread that this discussion is referring to, broxus was arguing that behemoths in AoS are generally *overcosted* and that the GUO is actually not worth even 240 points.
broxus wrote: @NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.
My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.
Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.
based on my own experience I would agree with you, the GUO is exceptionally good for 240pts and a no brainer id say, and if something is pretty much an automatic pick, either it needs adjusting, or the units around it need adjusting.
I might be wrong about this but in the previous thread that this discussion is referring to, broxus was arguing that behemoths in AoS are generally *overcosted* and that the GUO is actually not worth even 240 points.
Yeah, which is why its ironic that he brings up math and tournaments, since both of those show behemoths being dominant.
I guess all of those players that do well with GUO's are just really really awesome players.
Kind of like the eldar player in 3rd edition that spammed star cannons that told me eldar were for advanced players only.
Also of any of the tournament players I know, exactly all of them take GUOs for the very reason that they are cost much less than they actually should be.
Yes GUO are taken by those playing Nurgle because there are literally zero other Nurgle daemon heroes with any command abilites. Not to mention the GUO is the requirement for the Tallyband Battalion formation which is the only battalion formation available.
Yes, some behemoths are to cheap, but they are the exception not the rule. Since the changes with the rule of one in magic, many characters/behemoths are not worth their points. There needs to be lots of rebalancing in the next edition. As i have said in previous posts; any system where a Herald of Nurgle costs the same as a Lord Castellant, Lord Celestant, and Knight Azyros you know character balance is skewed.
I know many of you debating me on this are those who still play home brew systems or are players prior to GHB that used comp systems that discouraged large models and favored the WHFB massive troop blocks.
I'm coming at it from a purely math modeling point of view. When compared to the game as a whole, they are about 20% too cheap for what they do.
It has nothing to do with discouraging large models and favoring massive troop blocks.
I wouldn't care about large models if they cost what they are supposed to.
www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx shows you exactly the overall math-based scores offensively and defensively of every model in the game, and where they stand.
The Great Unclean One when you pull him up is not grotesquely out of balance (the grid shows you how far from average something is in one of four directions, with the center being the average) but he is undercosted based on the pure math and statistical probabilities.
If you have a different model that you can present that shows how that is wrong, I'd be happy to see it. I put a lot of value in the numbers that I have here because the model was generated by a math genius that has a doctorate in advanced statistics and mathematics. While I myself am not at that level in terms of my degree, if someone else could show me a different model I'd be more than happy to review but until then, it has nothing to do with not wanting people to take a lot of monsters. That is apples to oranges.
broxus wrote: @NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.
My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.
Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.
based on my own experience I would agree with you, the GUO is exceptionally good for 240pts and a no brainer id say, and if something is pretty much an automatic pick, either it needs adjusting, or the units around it need adjusting.
I might be wrong about this but in the previous thread that this discussion is referring to, broxus was arguing that behemoths in AoS are generally *overcosted* and that the GUO is actually not worth even 240 points.
Yeah, which is why its ironic that he brings up math and tournaments, since both of those show behemoths being dominant.
Just to show the math of comparison between 24 plaguebearers and a Greate Unclean One.
Both sets of numbers are when facing a unit that hits on 4+, wounds on a 4+ and has a 4+ save (a likely opponent in AoS)
Great Unclean One (240pts): Deals an average of 5.2 damage every turn (this includes shooting) (not including any spells)
Great Unclean One (240pts): Requires a total of 120 melee attacks to kill (note can't get save bonus from terrain)
10x Liberators (200pts): Deals an average of 5.3 damage every turn (this is more against 5+ monsters)( 2-damage hammers on primes)
10x Liberators (200pts): Requires a total of 173 melee attacks to kill
-Cost 20% less, are 2%+ better in offense and 31% better at defense.
5x Retributors (220pts): Deals an average of 9.5 damage every turn (not using starsouls)
5x Retributors (220pts): Requires a total of 120 melee attacks to kill
-Costs 10% less, are 83% better in offense and the same at defense
Lord Celestant and Lord Castellant (200pts): Deals an average of 5.7 damage (with +1 to hit) (AoE buff)
Lord Celestant and Lord Castellant (200pts): Requires a total of 286 hits to kill both (with +1 save as a unit, 6+ saves heal)(cant be dispelled)
-Costs 20% less are 10% better in offense and 240% better in defense
20x Plaguebearers (200pts): Deals an average of 3.7 damage every turn (done in 2 units of 10)
20x Plaguebearers (200pts): Requires a total of 200 attacks to kill all models. (Does not include -1 to hit)
-Costs 20% less are 40% less offensive and 66% better in defense.
Now after showing all these units that cost 10-20% than the GUO I don't see how it could be undercosted. The only benefit I did not show is his single spell he can cast. I took average for everything and built a typical fight for AoS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: I'm coming at it from a purely math modeling point of view. When compared to the game as a whole, they are about 20% too cheap for what they do.
It has nothing to do with discouraging large models and favoring massive troop blocks.
I wouldn't care about large models if they cost what they are supposed to.
www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx shows you exactly the overall math-based scores offensively and defensively of every model in the game, and where they stand.
The Great Unclean One when you pull him up is not grotesquely out of balance (the grid shows you how far from average something is in one of four directions, with the center being the average) but he is undercosted based on the pure math and statistical probabilities.
If you have a different model that you can present that shows how that is wrong, I'd be happy to see it. I put a lot of value in the numbers that I have here because the model was generated by a math genius that has a doctorate in advanced statistics and mathematics. While I myself am not at that level in terms of my degree, if someone else could show me a different model I'd be more than happy to review but until then, it has nothing to do with not wanting people to take a lot of monsters. That is apples to oranges.
I am not sure what methodology your chart used to reach those values. It doesn't give any details or a way to know which points values are being assessed or what they mean. Is this using the GHB, PPC or Ayzr points values? Does an A mean a unit is overpowered or exactly where it should be in terms of power? Regardless, it does show that Nurgle units in their current state are pretty terrible except for a few options. In contrast, it shows my Stormcast army has many solid options.
You ignored so many variables in your calculation I don't even know where to start. If you want to cherry pick stats you can always find the data you need, but when everything is accounted for behemoths regularly come up as undercosted. This would mean we'd expect to see them be dominant in tournaments which is exactly what we see. Everyone's math except yours disagrees with you, the evidence disagrees with you. There is no debate, only you repeatedly denying a well established trend. It's yet another case of a person refusing to admit they might possibly have been wrong and I think I'll leave you to it at this point.
Also the guy that wrote the thing that the GHB is based on out and out said that he made monsters a little cheaper than they should be to encourage their use on the warhammer org forums last year before it was a GHB system.
The methodology calculates the average damage output per turn against every possible save then averaged out. It then calculates the average defensive utilility (saves, regen, ward save equivalents, etc) and averages them out. It then divides that by the GHB cost to get an efficiency score.
Ex: a great damage output that you pay little for is a must take because its over powered since it does't cost what it should in favor of the taker.. A great damage output that you pay normal price for is lower. A great damage output that you pay too much for is bad.
The lettering is a ranking of the scores. So lay out every unit in the game in a line based on their scores in any given category, and the percentile bands correspond to their grade. Heroes were graded by comparing only other heroes due to the command abilities and what not not being able to be mathematically modeled.
You are right, the nurgle force as a whole is pretty meh while stormcast are indeed pretty solid overall.
I want to say that for me personally - while I'm not a fan of "armies" being composed of nothing but monsters or primarily low model count things - that my main concern with any game like this is that you at least pay what you are supposed to.
Now AOS is a lot more balanced than 40k, which is a true ungodly mess when it comes to balance. However, you can see the bell curve exists as it does and that there is a lot of room for improvement. I don't feel GW will do that improvement though because I think to them its "good enough" and indeed if my community adhered to the ivory tower principles of GWHQ I'd be fine too... but it only takes a couple guys figuring out whjat is undercosted and then spamming those to wreck the entire community (unless you're ok with that, which a lot of people seem to be so YMMV)
NinthMusketeer wrote: You ignored so many variables in your calculation I don't even know where to start. If you want to cherry pick stats you can always find the data you need, but when everything is accounted for behemoths regularly come up as undercosted. This would mean we'd expect to see them be dominant in tournaments which is exactly what we see. Everyone's math except yours disagrees with you, the evidence disagrees with you. There is no debate, only you repeatedly denying a well established trend. It's yet another case of a person refusing to admit they might possibly have been wrong and I think I'll leave you to it at this point.
What variables did I miss? What did I cherry pick? Please show me your math. Who is everyone that agrees with you about that I am wrong? Almost everyone I talk to says the exact opposite of what you are saying. Obviously, regardless of your views there is a debate on the topic. I honestly have never heard anyone with your point of view until I recently decided to post back on these forums. I am not saying that I am absolutely correct, but you are just simply saying that I am wrong and you are correct. However you are not using any facts or ways to support your argument. You are using the Onus probandi and anecdotal logic fallacies to not making any debate. If I am wrong please show me how I am incorrect and back it up with math, tournament results, or something.
Please note I am not saying that there are not heroes/behemoths that need a points increase. I will agree that some units such as Celestial Prime and Bastiladon are likely in need of a points increase. However, I don't think this is an overall trend with AOS. Particularly the belief the GUO should be increased in cost simply because you have seen people play the model and win some games. Particularly since Nurgle players have no other options for their general. I provided you the numbers that backs up the beliefs of some players that feel the GUO is not currently worth the assigned points in the GHB. In other points systems I have seen him costed at 200-220 points (SCGT which is one of the best systems I have every used). I likely think he should be 220-230.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @auticus thanks for the explanation. I would have loved to look behind the curtain to see how he developed the formulas. I agree I don't like to see armies of only a few big models. I also don't like to see a swarm of troops since it takes forever to play against. I prefer the balanced force with solid blocks of troops with a few big monsters/centerpieces backing them up. The trick is however making sure they are appropriately costed so they are a valid option and you are not paying a 'monster tax' just to play something cool.
The best thing in the AoS monster design is that as monsters take damage they also are reduced in capability. I think this is a good balancing mechanic. Also, behemoths no longer getting cover saves in terrain and the reduced role of magic has balanced them out a great deal.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You ignored so many variables in your calculation I don't even know where to start. If you want to cherry pick stats you can always find the data you need, but when everything is accounted for behemoths regularly come up as undercosted. This would mean we'd expect to see them be dominant in tournaments which is exactly what we see. Everyone's math except yours disagrees with you, the evidence disagrees with you. There is no debate, only you repeatedly denying a well established trend. It's yet another case of a person refusing to admit they might possibly have been wrong and I think I'll leave you to it at this point.
What variables did I miss? What did I cherry pick? Please show me your math. Who is everyone that agrees with you about and that I am wrong? Almost everyone I talk to says the exact opposite of what you are saying. Obviously, regardless of your views there is a debate on the topic. I honestly have never heard anyone with your point of view until I recently decided to post back on these forums. I am not saying that I am absolutely correct, but you are just simply saying that I am wrong and you are correct. However you are not using any facts or ways to support your argument. You are using the Onus probandi and anecdotal logic fallacies to not really make your case. If I am wrong please show me how I am incorrect and back it up with math, tournament results, or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @auticus thanks for the explanation. I would have loved to look behind the curtain to see how he developed the formulas. I agree I don't like to see armies of only a few big models. I also don't like to see a swarm of troops since it takes forever to play against. I prefer the balanced force with solid blocks of troops with a few big monsters/centerpieces backing them up. The trick is however making sure they are appropriately costed so they are a valid option and you are not paying a 'monster tax' just to play something cool.
The best thing in the AoS monster design is that as monsters take damage they also are reduced in capability. I think this is a good balancing mechanic. Also, behemoths no longer getting cover saves in terrain and the reduced role of magic has balanced them out a great deal.
So you asked for evidence of monsters being OP and ignored an entire database of evidence in the same post. This is why I'm not going to bother.
[edit] I will, however, apologize for being impolite. I have been very worn down lately and this is reflected in my recent posts despite you being very civil, and I am sorry for that.
@Ninthmuskeeter so is your argument that if any unit in that database is a combined score of 'A' then it is overpowered? Or is it if any unit has any field as an 'A'? I am seeing all kinds of units (even basic troops) that meet that requirement. I guess I just need you to explain what in the database shows things are undercosted. Is the goal to have every unit have a score of 'C' and that is considered the gold standard of points balance?
This is not me trying to be condescending. I just want to know for my own personal understanding of that database and to help me asses others views on balance better.. I have spent some time reviewing the database and am still not sure what it means. I saw some things that just didn't make sense to me and wasn't sure what the average bar is set at.
auticus wrote: Also the guy that wrote the thing that the GHB is based on out and out said that he made monsters a little cheaper than they should be to encourage their use on the warhammer org forums last year before it was a GHB system.
The methodology calculates the average damage output per turn against every possible save then averaged out. It then calculates the average defensive utilility (saves, regen, ward save equivalents, etc) and averages them out. It then divides that by the GHB cost to get an efficiency score.
Ex: a great damage output that you pay little for is a must take because its over powered since it does't cost what it should in favor of the taker.. A great damage output that you pay normal price for is lower. A great damage output that you pay too much for is bad.
The lettering is a ranking of the scores. So lay out every unit in the game in a line based on their scores in any given category, and the percentile bands correspond to their grade. Heroes were graded by comparing only other heroes due to the command abilities and what not not being able to be mathematically modeled.
You are right, the nurgle force as a whole is pretty meh while stormcast are indeed pretty solid overall.
I want to say that for me personally - while I'm not a fan of "armies" being composed of nothing but monsters or primarily low model count things - that my main concern with any game like this is that you at least pay what you are supposed to.
Now AOS is a lot more balanced than 40k, which is a true ungodly mess when it comes to balance. However, you can see the bell curve exists as it does and that there is a lot of room for improvement. I don't feel GW will do that improvement though because I think to them its "good enough" and indeed if my community adhered to the ivory tower principles of GWHQ I'd be fine too... but it only takes a couple guys figuring out whjat is undercosted and then spamming those to wreck the entire community (unless you're ok with that, which a lot of people seem to be so YMMV)
Exactly this. I think part of the reason why GW's balance is so over the place is because to them, as you said, it's "good enough" on the assumption that people are playing in the similar way to them. But, as you also stated, all it takes is one guy min-maxing to the extreme and then it sets off a chain reaction where everybody else will try and do the same to avoid getting steamrolled and then that becomes the norm rather than the exception and everything tends to collapse after that. This sadly tends to happen in any game that uses points because people will always try min-max everything and apply math and statistics to "prove" why X is always a better choice than Y rather than taking X because they like X.
I am going to agree with Broxus that on the whole behemoths aren't under costed and in many cases are over costed.
Since the GHB which tournament has been won by a monster heavy list? None in the UK - it's Stormcast Warrior Brotherhood/Skybourne Slayers and Bonesplitterz Kunnin Ruk that have taken all the top spots. All three lists contain exactly zero behemoths.
And those top tournament players, if you listen to their podcasts you'll hear them comment that behemoths are generally over costed for what they bring. Take Russ Veal, one of the best players in the world - almost won Warlords with Bloodbound + Friends, won Clash with Warrior Brotherhood - takes pure BCR to Blood and Glory and has his worst finish ever.
It is probably going to swing the other way soon. People are now really starting to explore Sylvaneth and it looks like the meta is going to swing with them on top soon - but although the list will be behemoth heavy it's other things like the battalion abilities the wyldwoods and the Kurnoth Hunters that will all contribute it being on top.
So, whilst behemoth heavy lists can be tough - they are not top of pile currently, and there are lots of behemoths widely agreed to be over costed like Goddrak and Nagash.
broxus wrote: @NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.
My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.
Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.
based on my own experience I would agree with you, the GUO is exceptionally good for 240pts and a no brainer id say, and if something is pretty much an automatic pick, either it needs adjusting, or the units around it need adjusting.
I might be wrong about this but in the previous thread that this discussion is referring to, broxus was arguing that behemoths in AoS are generally *overcosted* and that the GUO is actually not worth even 240 points.
Yeah, which is why its ironic that he brings up math and tournaments, since both of those show behemoths being dominant.
Just to show the math of comparison between 24 plaguebearers and a Greate Unclean One.
Both sets of numbers are when facing a unit that hits on 4+, wounds on a 4+ and has a 4+ save (a likely opponent in AoS)
Great Unclean One (240pts): Deals an average of 5.2 damage every turn (this includes shooting) (not including any spells)
Great Unclean One (240pts): Requires a total of 120 melee attacks to kill (note can't get save bonus from terrain)
10x Liberators (200pts): Deals an average of 5.3 damage every turn (this is more against 5+ monsters)( 2-damage hammers on primes)
10x Liberators (200pts): Requires a total of 173 melee attacks to kill
-Cost 20% less, are 2%+ better in offense and 31% better at defense.
5x Retributors (220pts): Deals an average of 9.5 damage every turn (not using starsouls)
5x Retributors (220pts): Requires a total of 120 melee attacks to kill
-Costs 10% less, are 83% better in offense and the same at defense
Lord Celestant and Lord Castellant (200pts): Deals an average of 5.7 damage (with +1 to hit) (AoE buff)
Lord Celestant and Lord Castellant (200pts): Requires a total of 286 hits to kill both (with +1 save as a unit, 6+ saves heal)(cant be dispelled)
-Costs 20% less are 10% better in offense and 240% better in defense
20x Plaguebearers (200pts): Deals an average of 3.7 damage every turn (done in 2 units of 10)
20x Plaguebearers (200pts): Requires a total of 200 attacks to kill all models. (Does not include -1 to hit)
-Costs 20% less are 40% less offensive and 66% better in defense.
Now after showing all these units that cost 10-20% than the GUO I don't see how it could be undercosted. The only benefit I did not show is his single spell he can cast. I took average for everything and built a typical fight for AoS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: I'm coming at it from a purely math modeling point of view. When compared to the game as a whole, they are about 20% too cheap for what they do.
It has nothing to do with discouraging large models and favoring massive troop blocks.
I wouldn't care about large models if they cost what they are supposed to.
www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx shows you exactly the overall math-based scores offensively and defensively of every model in the game, and where they stand.
The Great Unclean One when you pull him up is not grotesquely out of balance (the grid shows you how far from average something is in one of four directions, with the center being the average) but he is undercosted based on the pure math and statistical probabilities.
If you have a different model that you can present that shows how that is wrong, I'd be happy to see it. I put a lot of value in the numbers that I have here because the model was generated by a math genius that has a doctorate in advanced statistics and mathematics. While I myself am not at that level in terms of my degree, if someone else could show me a different model I'd be more than happy to review but until then, it has nothing to do with not wanting people to take a lot of monsters. That is apples to oranges.
I am not sure what methodology your chart used to reach those values. It doesn't give any details or a way to know which points values are being assessed or what they mean. Is this using the GHB, PPC or Ayzr points values? Does an A mean a unit is overpowered or exactly where it should be in terms of power? Regardless, it does show that Nurgle units in their current state are pretty terrible except for a few options. In contrast, it shows my Stormcast army has many solid options.
Just because I'm curious, how does this system calculate for the value of Blubber and Bile (roll when suffering a wound; on a 5, ignore the wound; on a 6, the attacking unit suffers a mortal wound) and Corpulent Mass (heal for D3 every hero phase)?
Ignoring the is it undercosted or not argument, I'll leave you to argue about that, but...
What variables did I miss? What did I cherry pick?
Where to start! I can't hope to cover everything, but some hints as to why I always find such statements amusing.
You have largely only looked at what happens vs a single stat line, not even that, only half a stat line.
Movement. A fairly important stat, especially for objective based games, where getting to them first or getting another unit to one you just lost can be the difference between win and lose.
Liberators and GUO are even but Plaguebearers are slower.
Bravery and battleshock. A hugely important stat at times. As a single model unit the GUO never worries about battleshock. The Liberators should be crapping themselves and the plague bearers are possibly looking forward to it.
E.g GUO has his turn, he casts his spell, shoots, then attacks. Averages 3 or 4 dead Liberators. Liberators attack back, they take another wound from the Bubble and Bile, so assume they have on average lost 4 models at that point. That results in maybe another 4 models gone during battleshock. Average wounds inflicted is something like 11 or 12.
Plaguebearers are possibly highly amusing. With Bravery 10 the Liberators have to kill 5 models to have any chance of causing extra casualties. Between armor and Disgusting resilience, plus possibly fecundity and having way over 10 models for extra bravery that pushed the needed wounds upwards. Based on the average 5.3 wounds you are showing it is unlikely that will happen. However, whether they lose 5 models or not they still get to roll for battleshock if they lost a model. In effect against tbe liberators the plague bearers will often be rolling just to see if they gain extra models, on average they will be gaining half a plague bearer per player turn. The fun with battleshock does end their for plaguebearers, they make the enemy reroll 1's for their battleshock, poor Liberators (but GUO ignores that).
Monster degradation vs model loss.
You have only shown the what full strength units achieve, what about how they look after a round of combat - GUO is weaker on the attack, but the units are down models and attack, and possibly other bonuses (e.g battleshock per 10 models, or hit bonuses etc).
Rend.
You will as you say come up against the 4+ save unit. But that is not even remotely all you will come up against. You will also come up against the 5+ and 6+ or no saves, and special saves, not to mention mystic shield, cover and rerollable saves. Most of which significantly alters how useful rending will or will not be. You will also face rending of various degrees. You simply haven't accounted for any of that. Looking at one simple stat line and then saying maths proves something is under/over costed is simply naive.
Magic.
OK you say you didn't include the magic. Why? The GUO spell is potentially very nice, D3 mortal wounds to potentially multiple enemy units and/or healing friendly units. There are some models I try to take just for the magic they bring, so dismissing magic as not part of your maths is again way too naïve.
Healing.
The GUO heals D3 wounds each of his hero phases, what is not to like about that. Models that heal like that can't be ground down whilst you focus on other stuff, you go for them with enough to deal with it quickly or have to accept that it isn't going to die. Those 10 liberators (or any other unit) who have largely melted away to the GUO first attack and battleshock will not have the numbers to overcome his healing. Things might be different if the Liberators go first, but the point is you haven't accounted for any of that.
Mortal wounds.
You will probably also face mortal wounds, and dealing out mortal wounds is highly useful. The GUO and plague bearers have mitigation to varying degrees against that, the liberators do not. The GUO can deal out mortal wounds where as the others do not.
Missiles.
In a game where missile fire is often regarded as OP the Plague bearers are awesome, -2 to hit in large units.
Synergy.
Looking at any unit in isolation is simply ignoring a lot of how people choose armies. Synergies between units can make a huge difference, and taking a unit that meets some battalions requirements makes them more valuable than they otherwise look due to battalion bonuses the whole battalion then gains.
puree wrote: Ignoring the is it undercosted or not argument, I'll leave you to argue about that, but...
What variables did I miss? What did I cherry pick?
Where to start! I can't hope to cover everything, but some hints as to why I always find such statements amusing.
You have largely only looked at what happens vs a single stat line, not even that, only half a stat line.
Movement. A fairly important stat, especially for objective based games, where getting to them first or getting another unit to one you just lost can be the difference between win and lose.
Liberators and GUO are even but Plaguebearers are slower.
Bravery and battleshock. A hugely important stat at times. As a single model unit the GUO never worries about battleshock. The Liberators should be crapping themselves and the plague bearers are possibly looking forward to it.
E.g GUO has his turn, he casts his spell, shoots, then attacks. Averages 3 or 4 dead Liberators. Liberators attack back, they take another wound from the Bubble and Bile, so assume they have on average lost 4 models at that point. That results in maybe another 4 models gone during battleshock. Average wounds inflicted is something like 11 or 12.
Plaguebearers are possibly highly amusing. With Bravery 10 the Liberators have to kill 5 models to have any chance of causing extra casualties. Between armor and Disgusting resilience, plus possibly fecundity and having way over 10 models for extra bravery that pushed the needed wounds upwards. Based on the average 5.3 wounds you are showing it is unlikely that will happen. However, whether they lose 5 models or not they still get to roll for battleshock if they lost a model. In effect against tbe liberators the plague bearers will often be rolling just to see if they gain extra models, on average they will be gaining half a plague bearer per player turn. The fun with battleshock does end their for plaguebearers, they make the enemy reroll 1's for their battleshock, poor Liberators (but GUO ignores that).
Monster degradation vs model loss.
You have only shown the what full strength units achieve, what about how they look after a round of combat - GUO is weaker on the attack, but the units are down models and attack, and possibly other bonuses (e.g battleshock per 10 models, or hit bonuses etc).
Rend.
You will as you say come up against the 4+ save unit. But that is not even remotely all you will come up against. You will also come up against the 5+ and 6+ or no saves, and special saves, not to mention mystic shield, cover and rerollable saves. Most of which significantly alters how useful rending will or will not be. You will also face rending of various degrees. You simply haven't accounted for any of that. Looking at one simple stat line and then saying maths proves something is under/over costed is simply naive.
Magic.
OK you say you didn't include the magic. Why? The GUO spell is potentially very nice, D3 mortal wounds to potentially multiple enemy units and/or healing friendly units. There are some models I try to take just for the magic they bring, so dismissing magic as not part of your maths is again way too naïve.
Healing.
The GUO heals D3 wounds each of his hero phases, what is not to like about that. Models that heal like that can't be ground down whilst you focus on other stuff, you go for them with enough to deal with it quickly or have to accept that it isn't going to die. Those 10 liberators (or any other unit) who have largely melted away to the GUO first attack and battleshock will not have the numbers to overcome his healing. Things might be different if the Liberators go first, but the point is you haven't accounted for any of that.
Mortal wounds.
You will probably also face mortal wounds, and dealing out mortal wounds is highly useful. The GUO and plague bearers have mitigation to varying degrees against that, the liberators do not. The GUO can deal out mortal wounds where as the others do not.
Missiles.
In a game where missile fire is often regarded as OP the Plague bearers are awesome, -2 to hit in large units.
Synergy.
Looking at any unit in isolation is simply ignoring a lot of how people choose armies. Synergies between units can make a huge difference, and taking a unit that meets some battalions requirements makes them more valuable than they otherwise look due to battalion bonuses the whole battalion then gains.
I would love to respond to your feedback
1) No I didn't focus on a single stat line but instead a total of 7+ stats to give you the numbers below.
2) All the units I provided are either a 4" or 5" movement so they are relatively similar
3) Bravery and battleshock, are really not an issue for either army. Daemons have a leadership 10, Stormcast are multi-wound models so forcing tests is much harder, and are immune with many skills or reroll with GA Order skill.
4)Yes I only show attacks at full strength. However, I only show the GUO at full strength also. Showing a degradation model will likely show very little since they both lose attack power as they are damaged.
5) In terms of rending I would argue that a 4 or 5+ save is the most common in the game. However, the numbers I have provided will mostly stay proportional to each other. The new rule of one that makes save roles of '1' always fail has really helped balance out rending advantages.
6) Yes I said I didn't include magic for obvious reasons. It is only likely to go off half the time, can be dispelled, and depends on how many units are under it.
6) Healing I didn't include healing because frequently it doesn't matter once you are in combat. If any player is smart they will focus their fire on the GUO or any healing target until they are dead. Not to mention if your opponent gets a double turn. Yes this is a nice ability, but it is a situational advantage.
7) Yes, in terms of mortal wounds the daemons win out since they have a save. Remember however, many Order units have double damage against daemons so it is a double edged sword. Also, the majority of wounds in the game are not mortal wounds but instead normal wounds.
8) The missiles +1 to hit for plaguebearers is a very nice skill that makes them even better.
9) Synergy the Stormcast have tons of this. The Daemon units not so much!
I am curious with all the things you brought up how would you point them and assess their value? Would this show them being to expensive/cheap? As you showed all units have small advantages and excel at certain rules and I think for the most part these balance out. So the point of my math was to show that the GUO was appropriately costed if not slightly overcosted. Did any of the things you provide show this to be different?
Bottle wrote: I am going to agree with Broxus that on the whole behemoths aren't under costed and in many cases are over costed.
Since the GHB which tournament has been won by a monster heavy list? None in the UK - it's Stormcast Warrior Brotherhood/Skybourne Slayers and Bonesplitterz Kunnin Ruk that have taken all the top spots. All three lists contain exactly zero behemoths.
And those top tournament players, if you listen to their podcasts you'll hear them comment that behemoths are generally over costed for what they bring. Take Russ Veal, one of the best players in the world - almost won Warlords with Bloodbound + Friends, won Clash with Warrior Brotherhood - takes pure BCR to Blood and Glory and has his worst finish ever.
It is probably going to swing the other way soon. People are now really starting to explore Sylvaneth and it looks like the meta is going to swing with them on top soon - but although the list will be behemoth heavy it's other things like the battalion abilities the wyldwoods and the Kurnoth Hunters that will all contribute it being on top.
So, whilst behemoth heavy lists can be tough - they are not top of pile currently, and there are lots of behemoths widely agreed to be over costed like Goddrak and Nagash.
(PS - Merry Christmas everyone! Ho - ho - ho!)
That's relative too though.
Take a line, number it -10 to positive 10. The value 0 represents balance, or an item that is costed 100% correctly. Positive values indicate that the model performs better than its cost by that severity. Negative values indicate that the model performs worse than its cost by that severity.
The GUO, for example, falls at roughly 2 or 2.5 on that line. It is under costed by roughly 20-25% but when you're looking at that line, that's not THAT much farther over the 0. It is, however, still undercost.
Next look at the tournament mindset. They are looking for the items that rest on the 5 or higher on that line. Those are items that are vastly undercosted for what they can do. From that perspective, monsters that are 2 - 2.5s would be overcosted to them, because compared to the really undercosted units out there, there is still no comparison. I'm speaking from someone that lived and breathed tournament play for the better part of a decade, not someone that just watches arguments and makes decisions without experience.
So when someone says "yeah but tournament players say monsters are overcosted", to me what I know a lot of them mean having been one of them is that their value of "0" (balanced) is skewed far to the right because in the tournament world you aren't looking for balanced forces, you are looking for heavily skewed forces. A GUO that is *only* undercosted by 20% is not often viable in the tournament scene because its not "undercosted enough".
Then the question to ask is "what level of over/undercosted is acceptable". That tolerance value from individual to individual is where most of the disagreements come from as to what defines under or overcosted points. For me, the tolerance value is 0. In a perfect world, to me, everything should be as close to that 0 value as possible on the line. Thats what defines your bell curve. In 40k, that line is so abused and warped its not even funny. In AOS there is a great deal of items that fall between the -2 and +2. The vast majority (which is why I say AOS is much more balanced). For other people, they may be ok with +/- 3, so if I say "the GUO is undercosted (because to me it sitting at 2-2.5 is undercosted) the person with a +/- 3 tolerance would argue "no no its not its fine".
I'm also not disagreeing with the brotherhood stuff and cunnin rukk stuff being OP. Those rules push those forces well past 6 or 7 on the line, but thats where most tournament forces from people playing to win the tournament would place most if not all of their forces. If I was designing the game, those items would have been brought back down closer to 0 in a hurry.
That's all fine in theory and I appreciate your point, but can you point me in the direction of a balance 0 army or balance 0 units? I think the practical application of everything which you've written above relies on placing that 0 somewhere arbitrary - if not, where would that be?
Just wanted to chime in and say how good your post is. I think you pretty much hit the psychology and reality of balance on the nose.
The most broken stuff in the game are almost exclusively battalions (with a couple of exceptions), and nearly all of the most OP builds are based around battalions. These battalions tend to do one of two things:
1. Fundamentally alter the way the game plays (like skybourne slayers and gautfyre scorch)
2. Boosts an already somewhat OP unit multiplicatively (like kunnin' rukk)
I just don't think GW has figured out how to make battalions with these sorts of rules playable while also being balanced. It's really difficult.
Bottle wrote: That's all fine in theory and I appreciate your point, but can you point me in the direction of a balance 0 army or balance 0 units? I think the practical application of everything which you've written above relies on placing that 0 somewhere arbitrary - if not, where would that be?
I think this is the most critical thing. As an example the numbers Auticus used stayed the GUO was 20%-25% overpriced. 20%-25% compared to what? What is the base unit where everything your numbers are based off of? You must have a starting point to compare everything to. For me here is where I would have started in AoS:
Basic unit of measurement:
Troops: Stormcast Liberators (100-pts)
Elite troops: Bloodbound Skullreapers (150-pts)
Ranged troops: Stormcast Judicators (180-pts)
Cavalry: Bloodbound Skullcrushers (150-pets)
General: Mighty Lord of Khorne (130-pts)
Standards: Bloodbound Bloodsecrator (130-pts)
Behemoths: Khorne Bloodthrister of Insensate Rage (350-pts)
Artillery: Order Cannons (210-pts)
Once these points have been finalized you then base all units off them In terms of offense, defense, movement, leadership and abilites. I think this is the best way to help balance out things.
I also agree that Battalions are the thing that becomes the hardest to balance. Most broken lists do come from battalions. However, these will help keep the game interesting and allow you to use units in combination with each other you normally wouldn't. So honestly I am torn with them. I don't think all should be allowed but maybe they should give each faction 2-3 on a rotational basis to keep things fresh.
Just wanted to chime in and say how good your post is. I think you pretty much hit the psychology and reality of balance on the nose.
The most broken stuff in the game are almost exclusively battalions (with a couple of exceptions), and nearly all of the most OP builds are based around battalions. These battalions tend to do one of two things:
1. Fundamentally alter the way the game plays (like skybourne slayers and gautfyre scorch)
2. Boosts an already somewhat OP unit multiplicatively (like kunnin' rukk)
I just don't think GW has figured out how to make battalions with these sorts of rules playable while also being balanced. It's really difficult.
I'm somewhat reminded of Warmachine/Hordes Theme Forces - you trade losing access to several different units, and in return get a series of boosts. Of course, some of those Theme Forces were broken as hell, but that aside...
The Battalions GW put out feel a bit like that, except you lose very little (if anything) in exchange for what you get.
Bottle wrote: That's all fine in theory and I appreciate your point, but can you point me in the direction of a balance 0 army or balance 0 units? I think the practical application of everything which you've written above relies on placing that 0 somewhere arbitrary - if not, where would that be?
Its not arbitrary at all. Point 0 is simply saying that if a unit has X offense and Y defense that it costs "0" (a point value)
And that if a unit costs X + 1 offense and Y defense that it should also cost "0" (a point value adjusted)
And that if a unit costs X for offense and Y + 1 defense that it should also cost "0" (a point value adjusted)
And that if a unit costs X - 1 for offense then its cost is "0" (a point value adjusted)
Those aren't aribtrary. You can take any unit in the game now and average out their offense and defensive values and then divide by how many points you pay for that sum to get a mathematical value of their overall efficiency per point value.
It is most definitely not based off of an arbitrary value or baseline unit
It is based on taking the entire universe of the game and coming up with their overall effective score they garner divided by the points cost that you charge for them. Once you know their effective score by points you can assign them their appropriate or close to appropriate point cost.
Their offensive capability vs their defensive capability averaged out by their point cost and other misc factors like saving throws, movement, etc.
The GUO is 25% too cheap based on taking its numbers against EVERY UNIT IN THE GAME and finding its average score and how much it pays for its abilities by EVERY OTHER UNIT IN THE GAME. Thats math. There is NO subjective or opinion based criteria in this at all. Its taking a unit, stripping its identity away and taking its raw stats and finding its overall base value and then figuring out that base value x points paid = score.
Or to put it thusly
If I have 10 units and 7 of those units all score around a 25 and one of those units scores a 19 and two of those units score a 45, wherein the score is its total abilities based on the sum of its offense and defense, then you know that the 45 scores are really powerful. THATS OK!! What is not ok is if those 45s are scored as if they were 30s. THATS NOT OK.
It seems that people are hung up on these values being arbitrary and that someone just assigned letter grades based on opinon. NO. THATS NOT WHAT THOSE SCORES REPRESENT.
That website I point to are values taking EVERY UNIT and EVERY UNITS STATS and breaking them down to pure numbers and coming up with their scores and then taking those scores and applying how many points they pay. A GUO being 20% or whatever too cheap means simply that when you apply its abilities by THE POINTS THAT IT PAYS, that it DOES NOT PAY ENOUGH POINTS to meet the baseline which is the AVERAGE OF ALL UNITS AND WHAT THEY PAY put together.
Thats how you get Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, Tier 5, etc. This is also a design paradign OPENLY ADMITTED TO by the design team going back to the mid 90s and reinforced again with Blood Bowl on their facebook that they INTENTIONALLY let things be under or over powered because *some people like to play with harder armies and some people like to play with easier teams*. This is a school of design that dates to Magic the Gathering, where they make purposely busted cards because they sell and some people like to play the game in a broken manner, but they leave it up to the players to sort that out themselves.
This is a topic that has been gone over over and over at every games day I have ever been at since the 90s up unitl they stopped doing them where that question is asked to whoever designers are present, with the same answer basically given every year for over a decade and a half. That we purposely (we = GW) let some things be broken because some people like that kind of thing and if you don't like it dont play with those people.
And again the guy that designed the points for GHB before it was GHB openly stated I made the points for monsters purposely a bit lower than they should be to ENCOURAGE THEIR USE.
NOW - the Great Unclean One example being 20% or whatever undercosted does not BY ITSELF BREAK THE GAME. (I'm using caps to emphasize key points). There are vastly worse things running about than a great unclean one. For me, I want things more or less +/- 10%. The GUO irks me being 20% because that is beyond my threshold of acceptability. But that is neither here nor there because we all know Auticus aint getting his way anytime soon.
There are worse offenders in the AOS world right now, such as a few broken formations and letting things like stormfiends be core choices. Those to me are vastly worse from a balance perspective than a great unclean one being 20% too cheap.
This is an exercise any of you can undertake should you desire. You simply key in every unit in the game's stats and use base statistical analysis (the kind of stuff they teach you in university) to get to the end conclusion. There have been a handful of guys, myself included, that set out to make points costs that all arrived at nearly the same conclusion.
It ultimately means nothing of course because a base 0 balanced game also does not sell because people don't want a base 0 balanced game, but also because in the 40 years I've been alive I have learned that despite providing numbers and methods and the like, just as in politics and religion, people will believe what they want. Convincing people that monsters are a tad too cheap, even after showing numbers and even after dude that wrote it said on their forums that yes he made them a tad too cheap, doesn't ultimately mean anything because the game will still go on as it has been and as it will be.
Yes, I understand the theory. But what are some balance 0 units or armies then? Give me some examples.
And if you're just talking about that database thing you made once, I think I expressed my concerns with it enough as it fails to take into account range/movement/abilities/synergies/battalions and scenarios IIRC so I would disagree flat out with using your formula to define balance zero.
Lastly to clarify, SCGT comp was made by 3 people (not 1). One of those people is Russ Veal who I mentioned earlier as the tournament player citing that monsters are generally over costed now. If you compare SCGT monster prices with GHB prices you can spot a general trend for increasing the price.
@Auticus I can't debate or even objectively review your numbers unless you know what your baseline is. I have no idea how these numbers were developed because some of them are mathematical based while others as you stated are completely subjective. There is no method to distinguishing between the two. I am not even sure which points values were used or if it has all the most current GHB points values.
In any scientific or mathematical model you always have a baseline to measure stuff from. That would allow everyone to at least comprehend the basis of the model. I have spent an hour looking at those numbers and to me it shows that every unit in the is undercosted. It even has a Hearld of Nurgle undercosted by 6.9%???? The unit closest to 0 that I could find was a branchwraith at 1.5% undercosted.
IF I understand the math correctly even at 900 points Nagash is 60% undercosted and should cost 1,440 points to be perfectly balanced even with the rule of one?? So with this are you advocating with this data everything get a points increase in relation the % to their overall score? If that is the case is the math even useful anymore?
Well I would *definitely* like to see how either of you would determine a baseline 0 unit in AOS.
Monsters in isolation are most definitely "overcosted" when you compare them to the busted formations that have broken any pretense of balance in the first place. Anything is overcosted in that scenario.
I wouldn't bother trying to find a balance 0 units because there are so many factors in AoS that can't be easily reduced to maths that making a workable formula seems basically impossible to me.
Instead I think that GW should continue doing exactly what began with Clash Comp through to SCGT Comp through to the General's handbook. Have someone with a wealth of tournament and high level play experience set an approximate value for each unit and then continually tweak it as people gain experience with the game and find the imbalances.
auticus wrote: Well I would *definitely* like to see how either of you would determine a baseline 0 unit in AOS.
I did look above. You have to figure out what the baseline units for your points are. Once you finalize the points and ensure those are all balanced with each other you calculate all units from those points values. This would take into account all stats and abilites.
The point being if you don't figure out what zero is first it means nothing. Clear units of measurement are always required in any graph. With the way your numbers are now it is impossible to understand it.
Does offensive/defensive rankings mean its actual ranking in relation to other units?
Are these rankings in relation to points?
Are the offensive rankings in relation to the average wounds caused or potential wounds caused?
What are the subjective values used in these calculation?
Etc..
It would be the same as me making a statement that an apple has a rating of 43.49 while an orange has a rating of 14.32. The first obvious questions are a rating of what and in relation to what. That is what we are asking.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @bottle. I played a lot of games with the SCGT comp system. It was hands down the single best comp system (in any game system) I had ever played. The balance was outstanding, every game was close and it felt like every list had a chance. After the SCGT event I know they made a few tweaks that made it even better. They took tournament players feedback and looked at the tournament results to verify intended results.
I already explained that in disgusting detail what those scores were. I'm not going to repeat myself.
Have someone with a wealth of tournament and high level play experience set an approximate value for each unit and then continually tweak it as people gain experience with the game and find the imbalances.
Which seems just as arbitrary, especially when those values aren't being adjusted (currently nothing has been adjusted and the busted stuff was obviously busted about a week or two after it dropped).
The whole community is dependent on a couple tournament guys adjusting points, and then just taking it up the rear when that arbitrary dart throw is erroneous and waiting (traditionally) years for an adjustment. That may be acceptable if you play in a min/max environment and are also bringing min/max lists, as the discrepancies aren't going to be nearly a quarter of what casuals or narrative players are going to be eating when they are bringing non tournament lists and facing off against TFG that shows up to every event with a competitive min/max list.
I think Matched Play should be balanced for tournaments first because that's what the game mode is designed for. If you are playing casual then ask your opponent to tone it down, or say you don't feel like playing their army as you feel you don't have a chance etc etc.
And I feel it's much better than a formula because those tournament players have a high level of experience with nuances that can't easily be reflected in a formula. The GHB isn't even 6 months old, GW have told us they are working on the second edition already and on the Warlords stream mentioned they might release an update every year. For me that's more than fast enough.
Thats great, but matched play is the default standard that 99% of the community follows whether or not they are playing in a tournament, casual pick up game, or campaigns. As such, the imbalances that are caused by tournament dude throwing a dart at a board and then fixing it a year later hurts those of us not playing in tournament environments much more because tournament dude and people that follow tournament dude are also more likely to be bringing A+ lists where that level of disparity is not nearly as bad as TFG that follows tournament dude showing up to casual campaign night with his Warlords or LVO list "because its legal" against campaign lists that are Bs and Cs.
And I disagree with tournament players having a high level of experience that can't be reflected in a formula. After all, the game revolves around mathematics. Second, those of us that have been involved are also or have had extensive tournament backgrounds as well. I traveled to and participated in multiple grand tournaments a year for about ten years. I'm not blind or ignorant to tournament play.
Once a year updates on some of these really bad items like the formations is not nearly good enough. Quite simply it drives a lot of people away and into the folds of other systems unless they are willing to also break the game too.
'Member a year ago when it was the tournament folk getting upset because the narrative folk had a system and the tournament folk had to pound the square peg into the round hole? (the member berries remember, remember the At At? Oh I member...)
Yeah much like our political systems, here we are in the same situation with the parties reversed.
There has to be a better way.
(and also I know tournament dude also used a math formula, a lot of the point values were similar to the other comp systems. However the pointing of the formations and batallions and other abstract items is ... IMO... very bad and is my main complaint with the GHB's "balance")
www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx shows you exactly the overall math-based scores offensively and defensively of every model in the game, and where they stand.
I can see you guys are having a spectacle over this. I just have one question: Why are bloodreavers with meatripper axes rated so low on offense? They throw out a bunch of attacks at 200 points with 30 models. And they are assumed to have 3 attacks each on average, going as low as 2 on occation, while easy accessable buffs take them to 4+ attacks.
Their defense rating I get with an armour of - (and low bravery).
Because they are rated without buffs and just on their own merits and when you calculate just how much damage they do, their score reflects exactly how many wounds they'd do on average against every possible armor save you can find.
The scores you are looking at are the model's base raw ability.
@Auticus Ill ask this again then: IF I understand the math correctly even at 900 points Nagash has a score of 60ish is he then 60% undercosted and should cost 1,440 points to be perfectly balanced? Does this include the GHB rule of one?? So with this data are you advocating that everything should get a points increase in relation the % to their overall score? Since the GUO has an overall score of 25ish overall score does that mean it is 25% undercosted? Should a Herald of Nurgle (which almost everyone agrees is overpriced) that has an overall rating of 7ish points be increased in cost by 7% and make it around 110pts?
If everything is undercosted as it is that data then is the data even useful anymore?
auticus wrote: Thats great, but matched play is the default standard that 99% of the community follows whether or not they are playing in a tournament, casual pick up game, or campaigns. As such, the imbalances that are caused by tournament dude throwing a dart at a board and then fixing it a year later hurts those of us not playing in tournament environments much more because tournament dude and people that follow tournament dude are also more likely to be bringing A+ lists where that level of disparity is not nearly as bad as TFG that follows tournament dude showing up to casual campaign night with his Warlords or LVO list "because its legal" against campaign lists that are Bs and Cs.
And I disagree with tournament players having a high level of experience that can't be reflected in a formula. After all, the game revolves around mathematics. Second, those of us that have been involved are also or have had extensive tournament backgrounds as well. I traveled to and participated in multiple grand tournaments a year for about ten years. I'm not blind or ignorant to tournament play.
Once a year updates on some of these really bad items like the formations is not nearly good enough. Quite simply it drives a lot of people away and into the folds of other systems unless they are willing to also break the game too.
'Member a year ago when it was the tournament folk getting upset because the narrative folk had a system and the tournament folk had to pound the square peg into the round hole? (the member berries remember, remember the At At? Oh I member...)
Yeah much like our political systems, here we are in the same situation with the parties reversed.
There has to be a better way.
(and also I know tournament dude also used a math formula, a lot of the point values were similar to the other comp systems. However the pointing of the formations and batallions and other abstract items is ... IMO... very bad and is my main complaint with the GHB's "balance")
Wow, you're being pretty snarky and condesending today Auticus. Lighten up, it's Christmas.
As an example of what I mean, how do you reflect Monster Heros being better in Three Places of Power than in Border War as a mathematical number? How do you add in the possibility of Kurnoth Hunters with bows being able to stand next to Damned Terrain? And does your or any formula account for this?
For the original SCGT comp you can listen to the Heelenhammer podcast where they invite Russ and talk about pointing the units. They used a baseline method similar to what Broxus suggested and then tweaked it on instinct in the pursuit of creating a usable system (which they did extremely well in my opinion). Since then they've learned more about the game (for example if you listen to the Facehammer Podcast on the GHB Russ talks about how although SCGT allowed discounted summoning, after playing with those rules for a few months he had since decided the GHB approach to full costings was something he now agreed with from experience and would have incorporated it into SCGT 2.0 if there was one.)
If the yearly updates aren't good enough for you, then what do you suggest instead? For me it's good enough.
auticus wrote: Because they are rated without buffs and just on their own merits and when you calculate just how much damage they do, their score reflects exactly how many wounds they'd do on average against every possible armor save you can find.
The scores you are looking at are the model's base raw ability.
Then I can't use the model for much, besides amusement, as I collect a faction with a great many synergies.
The skullcrusher surprise me, didn't think it was far above the rest. The StD warriors compared to the KBB warriors confuse me. I don't see where the great change in damage and rating stems from.
Anyways I hope you will calculate the slaughterbrute soon, love it's concept.
privateer4hire wrote: I'm personally scratching my head on the goblins versus flyers impossibility to harm each other. That seems like a goofy ruling.
I guess it is just in line with the "measure from model to model" - it's how I've been playing. It might be goofy to you, but it also gives some meaning to certain special rules (my terradon riders for example). Players are, ofcourse, encouraged to play the way they see as the most sensible.
privateer4hire wrote: I'm personally scratching my head on the goblins versus flyers impossibility to harm each other. That seems like a goofy ruling.
I guess it is just in line with the "measure from model to model" - it's how I've been playing. It might be goofy to you, but it also gives some meaning to certain special rules (my terradon riders for example). Players are, ofcourse, encouraged to play the way they see as the most sensible.
You make an excellent point! It's goofy to me because I would have never thought of it (models not being able to interact unless it was a special power/scenario phantom-type thing) as even being an option.
Dai wrote: So is damage determining how many to wound dice you roll now rather than determining how many wounds are taken after the wound dice are rolled now?
It's worked out the same way it always has been, so if you have multiple damage doing weapons you roll the save once for the attack and then apply the amount of damage indicated. If weapons do variable damage (for example D3) you roll a dice to determine damage for each successfull attack that makes it past the save throw.
And then any abilities that offer an additional save against "wounds inflicted" or "damage taken" are rolled for per damage, rather than per attack.
For example a cannon shoots twice into a unit of Fyreslayers and both shots hit and wound. The Fyreslayers make two saving throws and fail both. Each cannon ball does D6 damage so 2D6 is rolled (say, scoring 7). The Fyreslayers then make 7 ability saves against the wounds inflicted.
Dai wrote: So is damage determining how many to wound dice you roll now rather than determining how many wounds are taken after the wound dice are rolled now?
It's worked out the same way it always has been, so if you have multiple damage doing weapons you roll the save once for the attack and then apply the amount of damage indicated. If weapons do variable damage (for example D3) you roll a dice to determine damage for each successfull attack that makes it past the save throw.
And then any abilities that offer an additional save against "wounds inflicted" or "damage taken" are rolled for per damage, rather than per attack.
For example a cannon shoots twice into a unit of Fyreslayers and both shots hit and wound. The Fyreslayers make two saving throws and fail both. Each cannon ball does D6 damage so 2D6 is rolled (say, scoring 7). The Fyreslayers then make 7 ability saves against the wounds inflicted.
Cheers bottle, nicely explained! Yeah it's how I always played it but one of the new FAQ questions threw me off, probably misread it!
auticus wrote: Because they are rated without buffs and just on their own merits and when you calculate just how much damage they do, their score reflects exactly how many wounds they'd do on average against every possible armor save you can find.
The scores you are looking at are the model's base raw ability.
And here is where Mathhammer starts to fall apart. It exists in a vacuum. One that never exists in a real scenario. Indeed, Bloodreavers are weak when looking at just their raw stats, but you are never going to see just Bloodreavers on their own in the middle of an open field. You'll usually see them with at least a Bloodsecrator, so usually +2 attacks, and often in a Goreblade Warband for another potential +1, plus support from an Aspiring Deathbringer bringing them to a total of 5 attacks potentially, and if the player is smart and able, they'll have the unit standing in cover to give them a 6+ save. So how many points would that unit be worth? Suddenly those wimpy little Bloodreavers are making that Vampire Lord on Vampire Dragon very nervous.
I just like the fact that GW specified how much "a few" netters are for Moonclan Grots. it's 3 for every 20. No more fighting against a unit that's almost all netters! (my friend will be sad)
broxus wrote: @EnTyme remember that bloodreavers have a save of '-' meaning they can never have a save even if in cover.
Doesn't a +1 cover to a - become a 6+? Is that just in 40k? Either way, my point remains the same. Calculating points for Khorne Bloodbound without accounting for synergies is like calculating points for Brayherds without factoring in the ability to run and charge if the unit has a banner. You're omitting one of the key characteristics of the faction.
broxus wrote: @EnTyme remember that bloodreavers have a save of '-' meaning they can never have a save even if in cover.
Doesn't a +1 cover to a - become a 6+? Is that just in 40k? Either way, my point remains the same. Calculating points for Khorne Bloodbound without accounting for synergies is like calculating points for Brayherds without factoring in the ability to run and charge if the unit has a banner. You're omitting one of the key characteristics of the faction.
Agreed with this, in 40k you could do it because synergies in AoS are pretty much more vital then 40k, where you will generally stack buffs.
broxus wrote: @EnTyme remember that bloodreavers have a save of '-' meaning they can never have a save even if in cover.
Doesn't a +1 cover to a - become a 6+? Is that just in 40k? Either way, my point remains the same. Calculating points for Khorne Bloodbound without accounting for synergies is like calculating points for Brayherds without factoring in the ability to run and charge if the unit has a banner. You're omitting one of the key characteristics of the faction.
Nope the rules for any battletome specifically address that you can't improve a - save in any way. So even if you put mystic shield and stand in cover you get no save.
In regards to the synergy I tend to agree you must account for it. However, the bigger question is which unit should pay the extra points for synergy? Should the unit that receives the bonuses or the unit that gives the bonuses? I tend to think it is the unit that gives the bonuses that should pay the extra points. This allows you to try different list combinations that otherwise would never work. For example, I think the synergy cost should be added to the Bloodsecrator which IMHO should be around 140pts.
It is important to note that It is very hard to price synergy into units since it is always situational. What happens when turn 1 a cannon kills the bloodsecrator and your army loses all bonuses? I don't disagree that synergy should be priced into certain units, but it is a very difficult process.
On a side note I do love bloodreavers with meatripper axes!!
broxus wrote: @EnTyme remember that bloodreavers have a save of '-' meaning they can never have a save even if in cover.
Doesn't a +1 cover to a - become a 6+? Is that just in 40k?
Cover (and other modifiers) change your dice roll results as opposed to changing character stat lines like in 40k. Cover, specifically, gives a +1 to a unit's save roll but units with a save of "-" do not get a roll at all. So don't waste your Shield spell on them either. This is also mentioned in the main rules.
broxus wrote: @EnTyme remember that bloodreavers have a save of '-' meaning they can never have a save even if in cover.
Doesn't a +1 cover to a - become a 6+? Is that just in 40k?
Cover (and other modifiers) change your dice roll results as opposed to changing character stat lines like in 40k. Cover, specifically, gives a +1 to a unit's save roll but units with a save of "-" do not get a roll at all. So don't waste your Shield spell on them either. This is also mentioned in the main rules.
Okay. That makes sense. So it's more about how cover works in AoS. In 40k, cover grants a Cover Save (generally 5+), but in AoS it give a +1 to the save roll. I'll have to point this out to my gaming group. We've been doing cover all wrong!
Dai wrote: So is damage determining how many to wound dice you roll now rather than determining how many wounds are taken after the wound dice are rolled now?
It's worked out the same way it always has been, so if you have multiple damage doing weapons you roll the save once for the attack and then apply the amount of damage indicated. If weapons do variable damage (for example D3) you roll a dice to determine damage for each successfull attack that makes it past the save throw.
And then any abilities that offer an additional save against "wounds inflicted" or "damage taken" are rolled for per damage, rather than per attack.
For example a cannon shoots twice into a unit of Fyreslayers and both shots hit and wound. The Fyreslayers make two saving throws and fail both. Each cannon ball does D6 damage so 2D6 is rolled (say, scoring 7). The Fyreslayers then make 7 ability saves against the wounds inflicted.
Cheers bottle, nicely explained! Yeah it's how I always played it but one of the new FAQ questions threw me off, probably misread it!
The funny thing is when they released the FAQ at first, they completely changed how the damage was calculated for a unit - so you would only roll one dice for variables for the entire unit and times it by the attack. For example with those cannons above it would be D6 x 2 rather than 2D6. Doesn't seem too much different on the cannon, but imagine a big unit of Kurnoth Hunters with bows, a roll of a 5 or a 6 and you would do max damage for the entire unit! Even crazier would be Kairos Fateweaver changing the damage roll to make sure a big unit of Stormfiends got mad damage when needed.
Luckily they changed it back within about 30mins :-)
So I was getting too wound up and took a break to cool off... I came back to Bottle of all people making the argument that behemoths are OK because something else is more broken than they are, citing tournaments where 3/5 top lists were monster mash. Then a huge discussion where Broxus, who has posted extremely simplified math to prove his point, criticizing the details of Auticus' incredibly thorough math. And Auticus is actually letting his annoyance affect his responses.
I'm going to turn around and head right back out of this discussion because this level of insanity can only be Tzeentch trying to warp my mind
And it's already difficult to resist the urge of starting a Tzeentch army.
One thing I learned from doing the Azyr project is that real balance is not something that is really sought after. You can see that in the AOS facebook page where a LOT of people lament not getting free points for summoning, claiming undead or demons are weak and uncompetitive without being able to have free points. Or in 40k where if you don't get free wargear or whatever that things aren't "worth taking".
The community is so used to underpriced over powered models that if you remove that, there is a disconnect and things are now "broken".
Things aren't worth taking if they aren't underpriced.
I'm doing more Armada and Blood Bowl. In Blood Bowl the players at least acknowledge that unbalance exists as do the designers who explain on the facebook why they want some teams to be overpowered (which is a design ethos GW has followed since I started going to games days 20 years ago when they do public interviews). The new Armada campaign is actually also a ton of fun.
I prefer that over the preference of arbitrary numbers being tossed around and then "tweaked" on an annual basis where I am stuck with bad guesses for an entire year or more because the community norm is to shrug and chase the meta and just buy a new army that is on top of the power curve. (and I still dispute that the GHB system doesn't use math, because i know it does, in fact its math is very similar to the other four or five most used fan comp systems except mainly in how it computed monster points and formation points)
Sometimes you just have to move on and let it go and find other things to do with your time.
Dan Heelan said they had a big spreadsheet that compared all the points costs across the comps and used those as a guide when choosing the GHB points - that could be the reason you are seeing the similarities.
I will say that I have a very *strong* feeling that if any of the other fan comps had been created by just arbitrarily putting a value down, that people would have lost their ****.
Correct me if I am wrong but that is how Clash Comp, SCGT and now the GHB were created.
Obviously you can use math to assist but it shouldn't be the be-all and end-all. That was the failing of SDK later acknowledged by them when they dropped support for the comp.
To me, math should be the foundation, not some guidepost you can ignore.
Thats why there are busted formations and other things running amuk in the game currently.
Which again to reiterate isn't a big deal if one is willing to powergame too since if you have a power list, the other power list isn't going to crush you. And certainly AOS isn't on the same tier of flat out busted that 40k is, but if these points are supposed to be written from a competition stand point where balance is the most important driver, then they've done a poor job in a couple of areas in my opinion, which wouldn't be as bad if they would correct them expediently instead of taking a year or more to correct (and then if they follow normal gw-protocol, simply shift what's busted underpowered to something else)
You can't with AOS use math for everything becasue there are a ton of abstract abilities that are situational. You can however standardize that abstraction and do a better job on the formation points and not let things like stormfiends be core troops.
The monsters being underpointed are not as huge to me as are the busted formations and some of the "core" choices that let you bypass the whole point of having core in the first place.
Its kind of irritating as you can tell in my response when someone says 'nah man the monsters are totally not undercosted at all" when anyone with any statistics background can see that they are though. Not because "omg they are busted underpowered" but because they are kind of a bargain at present which in my area is why they are as prevalent as they are.
If competitive play wouldn't bleed over into casual play I really wouldn't care. Or if the balance factor of competitive play were actually balanced, I also wouldn't say much since if I have to have competitive play bleed into my face I could at least have a more fun game than having to chase the meta in a casual or campaign setting.
Makes it difficult to attract and/or retain players when there are a lot of other games that do that better and are also cheaper, which is frustrating from an event coordinator's perspective. If you're a competitive player, which I would consider you the pinnacle of being a competitive player based on your posts, then this won't bother you since its a natural part of your environment.
But thats the same as the narrative casuals flipping the competitive players the finger when there were no official points.
I can agree with lots of those points, I would just be very wary of making a sweeping statement such as "monsters are undercosted" when there are many examples of them not (such as Godrak, Nagash, Archaon to name a few). In likelihood some monsters are undercosted, just like some other units are too, (and some battalions more importantly).
Even in a perfectly balanced game we would still see a dominance of monsters because:
1. They're cool
2. They're quicker to paint than a blob of infantry
3. Often cheaper money wise too
As Ninth likes to comment, monsters feature in top 5 lists in tournaments - but they feature up and down the tournament lists as well because monsters are popular for many reasons (including the 3 above, and also many players are still taking SCGT armies to events which had cheaper monsters than GHB as you mentioned Auticus). But as no tournament post GHB has been won with a monster mash I would say they are not the biggest problem in fixing the balance right now.
After that, I guess it also falls down to "undercosted" being a subjective point of view. For me, if you can't win a tournament with it it's not undercosted. I think for you and Ninth you're looking more at the whatever a middle ground unit would be and then anything that falls above it in efficiency is undercosted and anything that falls below it is overcosted.
Lastly, I hope you haven't read my comments as "nah man the monsters are totally not undercosted at all", because I have tried to be as polite and constructive as I can be in this whole discussion. :-)
Even in a perfectly balanced game we would still see a dominance of monsters because:
1. They're cool
2. They're quicker to paint than a blob of infantry
3. Often cheaper money wise too
Thats totally not true my friend. At all. Monsters were not seen for nearly 15 years on the table largely because they weren't worth risking the one shot from the cannon taking away the model.
They were just as cool, just as quick to paint than a blob of infantry, and were cheaper money wise, but you never really ever saw them on tables except for rarely.
The last edition monsters were largely a thing was 5th edition whfb which ended in September of 2000. After that monsters were seen a little bit in the tournament scene from 2000 - 2001 before people dropped them largely because they were too many points for the risk of the cannon killing it. I even recall dimly through the passage of time hanging out at the pub at the 2002 GT and that being a discussion from 20 or so of us why no one wanted to take them and how it sucked because monsters were so cool and that was one thing we missed about "hero hammer 5th edition".
Now monsters are undercost (mostly) and can't be one shot, so you see them in spades. Nothing about their cool factor or any of that matters.
For me undercosted is simply this... for the amount of points I pay for this model I am almost guaranteed to make those back and then some. Or in other words... I would I never ever take this?
Are all monsters undercosted? No. Are many to most? Per my math, yes. Some in benign ranges of 50 or so points. Some more grotesquely so.
Then look at Nagash. AWESOME model. Nearly half your army. CHEAP army if you field him. You won't see him though because of the points you pay for him being way too risky.
Then look at Nagash. AWESOME model. Nearly half your army. CHEAP army if you field him. You won't see him though because of the points you pay for him being way too risky.
I am seriously thinking of taking a Nagash-based army for the GT
Cannon spam grated hard because it practically ruined an entire unit type, alongside the overpowered X to die spells.
I'm not exactly going to feel too uncomfortable if the spam is basic troops.
Though I am curious, what would you say are the worst battalions ingame for undercost? I want to start making an army (Destruction) but I'm not wanting to go too nuts with something that could be uncomfortably strong.
Besides the Savage Arrerboyz and t hat one formation.
Even in a perfectly balanced game we would still see a dominance of monsters because:
1. They're cool
2. They're quicker to paint than a blob of infantry
3. Often cheaper money wise too
Thats totally not true my friend. At all. Monsters were not seen for nearly 15 years on the table largely because they weren't worth risking the one shot from the cannon taking away the model.
Which has what to do with what you quoted? Are you are also saying being one shotted was also perfectly balanced for the cost!
If the monsters were overcosted due being cannon fodder and not being taken then that would be of no relevance in countering bottles point, which was in a' perfectly balanced game', Namely if there was no balance issues then monsters would likely dominate in lists for reasons above. Nothing was said about how much they would be taken if they were gimp.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: I agree in general. Cannon spam ... well anything spam... grates on me.
Typically when you see X-Spam thats because X is undercosted for what it does.
Sometimes. Often times though spam is about doing one thing well, specialising. If you want to win tourneys (or come in top X%) like the GW ones then you need to win all your games, given that in a 5 game competition anything over 32 players pretty much guarantees that the winner will have won all theirs, so losing a single game puts you out of contention. Going in with a list that can do something really really well and hope you don't meet a hard counter in only 5 games is a common thing for many players. Jack of all trades lists are often much harder to play really well and win 5 out of 5 games.
Then of course some things are just very good spammed but not so much on their own. That can make costing such stuff hard.
@Auticus I want to make it clear that I agree many formations need increases in points. Especially the Stormcast ones that allow entire armies to be placed wherever they want. I will also agree that there are some monsters, units and heroes that are all undercosted. What started much of this debate is that I stated that the GUO and most of Nurgle is overcosted, which I think you agree with per your previous comments. I also hate cannon spam and think the Order cannons are just stupid good for their points.
In regards to my previous posts I am not knocking your math, but the problem I had with it is that it shows ever warscroll in AoS is undercosted. It also never shows the baseline of what an ideally costed unit is. So much of the math is done behind The Great and Powerful Oz's curtain, that no one can even question it. This even includes the portions of the scores that are purely opinion based and have nothing to do with math. This to me means to me that it is impossible to even to start discussion on balance with it.
@all I am not sure where this evidence showing that monsters are dominating any meta. In the last Warlords GT, first place had no monsters as Stormcast. Second place had a GUO/Karios (but everyone knows it was Sayl/Stormfiends combo that was his game winner). Third place was Beastclaw Raider army that is almost all behemoths so yea it had lots of big guys. Please let me know if I am missing something that is showing this "broken" behemoth problem? Currently, the evidence shows the complete opposite of these claims. Ideally I think we should be happy that we are seeing some big guys in a few of the top lists.
I had something else here originally but I realize I'll never win against the double standard being applied to evidence.
So I concede. Behemoths are not a problem, balance is more or less fine, and tournaments have a wide variety of differing models showing up. There are a few overpowered elements but everything is still viable. Players are not having trouble making any army they want be competitive, and we rarely see people being advised to drop one option for another because things are largely even.
Which has what to do with what you quoted? Are you are also saying being one shotted was also perfectly balanced for the cost!
Because bottle was saying that monsters would be taken regardless if they were undercost, to which I replied with my reply about how monsters were not used for 15+ years regardless of how cool they were because they were not cost effective and now that they ARE cost effective (some of them very cost effective) you see them taken in spades.
No I didn't say being one shot was perfectly balanced, nor do I see how you reached that conclusion. I wasn't talking about how past editions were or were not balanced at all.
If an item is overcosted for what it does, you'll never see it.
If an item is cost appropriately for what it does, its risky to take because it may or may not be cost effective (this is where I'd prefer things)
If an item is really good then its reward is greater than its risk, and thus spammed (what is typically undercosted).
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Cannon spam grated hard because it practically ruined an entire unit type, alongside the overpowered X to die spells.
I'm not exactly going to feel too uncomfortable if the spam is basic troops.
Though I am curious, what would you say are the worst battalions ingame for undercost? I want to start making an army (Destruction) but I'm not wanting to go too nuts with something that could be uncomfortably strong.
Besides the Savage Arrerboyz and t hat one formation.
Off the top of my head Kunnin' Rukk and Ironfist are the only battalions that are a serious problem. Moonclan & Gitmob grot infantry are an issue at 60-man size (even without a battalion) but you shouldn't hit any problems with OP stuff among basic troops otherwise. However, an army composed mainly of basic troops won't be viable outside a casual setting, with Bonesplittaz and Ironjawz being notable exceptions (both are good at countering monsters and/or elite units).
Which has what to do with what you quoted? Are you are also saying being one shotted was also perfectly balanced for the cost!
If an item is overcosted for what it does, you'll never see it.
If an item is cost appropriately for what it does, its risky to take because it may or may not be cost effective (this is where I'd prefer things)
If an item is really good then its reward is greater than its risk, and thus spammed (what is typically undercosted).
I can understand this view and is frequently true. However, often certain units are spammed due to lack of options for armies. A perfect example of this for me is Nurgle plague drones. You will find them spammed in every Nurgle list. The reason isn't because they are undercosted (actually the opposite is true), but because Nurgle has no other options of units that move more than 4"-5". Normally, under/over costed units and armies will quickly show in tournament results. The good thing has been AoS so far has had a good mixture of Grand Alliance armies in the top three at tournaments. The list variation can be improved, but overall is not to bad.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I had something else here originally but I realize I'll never win against the double standard being applied to evidence.
I am not sure who this was directed towards, what double standard you are talking about, or which evidence you are discussing. The only evidence I have seen so far has been three things. First, my math which some people think is to simple, leaves out some abilties, and doesn't account for all scenerios. Second, Auticus' spreadsheet which some people think is to complex, has hidden subjective math, and is hard to understand how it can be used since it shows everything is overcosted. Finally, the 'evidence' of claims made about tournament results showing both GHB points balance and imbalance. So the only conclusion i can make is the following: Most people agree that the largest balance issues are with battalion formations and that there is no consensus in regards to over/under costed units.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Cannon spam grated hard because it practically ruined an entire unit type, alongside the overpowered X to die spells.
I'm not exactly going to feel too uncomfortable if the spam is basic troops.
Though I am curious, what would you say are the worst battalions ingame for undercost? I want to start making an army (Destruction) but I'm not wanting to go too nuts with something that could be uncomfortably strong.
Besides the Savage Arrerboyz and t hat one formation.
Off the top of my head Kunnin' Rukk and Ironfist are the only battalions that are a serious problem. Moonclan & Gitmob grot infantry are an issue at 60-man size (even without a battalion) but you shouldn't hit any problems with OP stuff among basic troops otherwise. However, an army composed mainly of basic troops won't be viable outside a casual setting, with Bonesplittaz and Ironjawz being notable exceptions (both are good at countering monsters and/or elite units).
I'm going to disagree with the ironjaws' batallion being a serious problem. No offense but I still think that 220pts is still overcosted like there's no tomorrow. Sure, 60pts IS undercosted but overall the batallion is nowhere as bad as other formations around the game. 100-120pts would hit the sweet spot.
As for list variety I think we aren't THAT bad. I mean, sure there's monster mash and all but look at 40k. An eldar top list will be scatspam+dualknight. A tau top list 80% of the time is just a triptide with stormsurges at the back. A marine top list is grav-cav, company and superfriends. A DE top list (if it makes it, of course) it's just talos+venomspam. There's very little variety in top lists there. We can and should improve but it's doing better than a few of us fear.
Which has what to do with what you quoted? Are you are also saying being one shotted was also perfectly balanced for the cost!
Because bottle was saying that monsters would be taken regardless if they were undercost, to which I replied with my reply about how monsters were not used for 15+ years regardless of how cool they were because they were not cost effective and now that they ARE cost effective (some of them very cost effective) you see them taken in spades.
Actually I was saying monsters would be the preference in a "perfectly balanced game" for many gamers for the reasons listed above, not that they would be taken if they were overcosted or had unfavourable game mechanics which as we saw in WHFB was bad enough to lead them to not be taken at all.
Because bottle was saying that monsters would be taken regardless if they were undercost, to which I replied with my reply about how monsters were not used for 15+ years regardless of how cool they were because they were not cost effective and now that they ARE cost effective (some of them very cost effective) you see them taken in spades.
No I didn't say being one shot was perfectly balanced, nor do I see how you reached that conclusion. I wasn't talking about how past editions were or were not balanced at all.
If an item is overcosted for what it does, you'll never see it.
If an item is cost appropriately for what it does, its risky to take because it may or may not be cost effective (this is where I'd prefer things)
Bottles point was about 'perfectly balanced', not 'regardless'. You said that was not true then went to 'prove' that by reference to a time when they were costed awfully in most people opinion for the reasons you state (unless you think that was perfectly balanced hence you bringing it up).
The risk thing is an interesting discussion in itself. Balanced points and risk may or may not correlate. Having perfectly balanced points costs (say historicals where both sides have the the same humans with spears for the same cost) is not risky per se, it pushes the game towards the players skill and how good they are and further away from the luck end of the spectrum (of the dice or matchup). The risk is that it makes it clearer whether you are a good or crap player It may of course depend on game mechanics etc. Some games rely more on luck in the mechanics than others. If in such a game you win 50% of the time then you are probably just an average player.
The sort of risk you were talking about with monsters and cannons is a risk created via game mechanics, yes it would exist even if models were costed 'correct' in that case. However, to go back to another post further above, that is where spam often enters the equation. If a monster might be one shotted but is costed correctly, based on the chance of that happening then spamming reduces the risk. If you take one monster but have a 50/50 chance of being one shotted before doing anything then players may well see that as risky and not take it. If they take 20 then they may well not have that same perception, The law of large numbers kicks in. They expect to lose 10 but the model has been costed with that in mind so therefore those that survive should still be pretty good. There is still a chance of losing more, or of losing less, but the more you spam the less the variance. Plus of course at that point you get into the whole 'meta' gaming thing. If it takes 20 cannons to balance out 20 monsters you enter the realms of which is more generally useful (outside that scenario), is taking 20 cannons going to be more useful even when you face no monsters? If it is not then there may well be less chance of facing the 20 cannons and hence your 20 monsters have crossed the threshold of being balanced and into being undercosted, but only when spammed.
@Lord Kragan, if you post your feedback on the Ironfist over in the PPC thread I'd be happy to discuss it over there.
Now as for the balance discussion on behemoths and otherwise, I have no counter arguments because I have conceded the discussion. Behemoths are not undercosted and armies which do not rely on them are broadly viable even without relying on OP elements. This is supported by the winning tournament lists that show a wide diversity of builds. We also see a large monster diversity since people prefer to bring them because they are cool, and do not see a limited subset of behemoths appearing repeatedly. Again, the tournament evidence shows this, and the math which says otherwise doesn't count because it isn't understood by people who disagree with it.
Which has what to do with what you quoted? Are you are also saying being one shotted was also perfectly balanced for the cost!
Because bottle was saying that monsters would be taken regardless if they were undercost, to which I replied with my reply about how monsters were not used for 15+ years regardless of how cool they were because they were not cost effective and now that they ARE cost effective (some of them very cost effective) you see them taken in spades.
Actually I was saying monsters would be the preference in a "perfectly balanced game" for many gamers for the reasons listed above, not that they would be taken if they were overcosted or had unfavourable game mechanics which as we saw in WHFB was bad enough to lead them to not be taken at all.
I wouldn't disagree with you. If they were more balanced, they'd still be taken a lot because they are cheaper and many people are lazy and would rather only have to paint a monster as opposed to 10 guys. (the day gw releases pre-painted models will be a boon for their game systems for this very reason)
But the reasons that our meta talks about taking monsters usually always includes the phrase "but why would you not ever take as many of this as you can?" because our tournament guys figured out that you're getting a pretty sweet discount from taking them.
And those guys also spreadsheet stats down though they are simpler.... and typically boil things down to expected wounds per turn and expected wounds they can absorb per turn and they divided that score up by the points the GHB presents, whereas my score also added in movement and magic and flight and a few other things (and also divdes the points by GHB). Also just as a side note, my system does not state that everything is under/over cost. The graph on the website shows perfect center which is when you list everything the dead center average. There are a lot of items in all four quadrants. Overcosted are items in the bottom left, undercosted are the items in the upper right, and the degree at their overcosting/undercosting depends how low or high in that quadrant they are pushing.
IN other news... the new khorne dragon thing from FW is allegedly 50 wounds and covers two feet of table space...
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Lord Kragan, if you post your feedback on the Ironfist over in the PPC thread I'd be happy to discuss it over there.
Again, the tournament evidence shows this, and the math which says otherwise doesn't count because it isn't understood by people who disagree with it.
I agree the tournament results show balance. In regards to the math I wouldn't say that we don't understand it. It is the people citing it seem to have no idea what it means and thus can't articulate any responses to questions. Citing someone's math that has zero methodology, scaling or explanation makes it almost useless and no one can start any discussions on it. I would appreciate you taking the time to prove the math is viable.
If you want to try to answer these questions in regards to the math I would greatly appreciate it.
1) Who and how were the subjective values assigned to units in regards to abilites? Was this just done on a gut feeling?
2) What is the scale used (it is never really defined) is one point = 1% or actually 1 point in cost?
3) Why are all units showed as undercosted ? (I.e. It shows that a Herald of Nurgle has an overall value of approx 7pts)
4) It was stated that this math accounts for all feasible attacks. However does it weight these damage methods by the likelihood of how often you will face them? (Meaning does it weigh -, -1,-2,-3(rending), mortal wounds, and Skarbrand attack all equally in the math values? Or does it know only 1 of x units have this method of attack to ensure it is proportional?)
5) What is the goal 'band of excellence' where the values are considered balanced?
6) Does his math take into account the missions in the current GHB missions? (Meaning heroes only are useful in 1 out of 6 missions)
To be honest I have many more questions so it may be easier if you just PM the math guys contact details or have him post some footnotes/methodology on the website. There are lots of people here using math and experience that have rebutted your previous assertions that behemoths are undercosted by a significant margin. Maybe the math you have cited can show we are all wrong. However, there needs be some further evidence other than saying a smart guy did this math, he accounted for everything, and it can't be debated. I am not sure if you are using this math in your PPC comp system. This is because the math doesn't seem to be reflected in your points values or account for the heavy monster points tax in that comp system.
Well I'm pretty sure that math doesn't count anyway, so I'm not sure why you are asking me. Though perhaps as a guideline for someone else you could provide answers to those questions in regards to your own math, that which you provided earlier in the thread. Since you were using it in support of your argument previously we know its legitimate, so you should have no trouble answering those questions without changing or adding anything.
Edit: Actually with some re-releading it looks like those questions you asked were already answered by Auticus, many in the post exactly previous to yours even! Clearly some miscommunication, but it would still be great to see how you answer that for your math.
I'm pretty sure we've come to a point where this discussion is pointless. I'm ok that the bulk of players are ok with the random dart at the wall method of pointing units. At this point there are far more interesting things to discuss.
Like if there will be an update to points. And what do we think the random darts will undercost this next round?
Also... new FW khorne dragon. 50 wounds, 2 feet of table space. Interested to see points on that. Will it be Nagash level and go to 2000 points? Or will it be a moderate 800 points?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well I'm pretty sure that math doesn't count anyway, so I'm not sure why you are asking me. Though perhaps as a guideline for someone else you could provide answers to those questions in regards to your own math, that which you provided earlier in the thread. Since you were using it in support of your argument previously we know its legitimate, so you should have no trouble answering those questions without changing or adding anything.
I did put the exact methodology in my math. Please look it over and if you have any questions. I did a comparative analysis to other units to show that when compared to other units the GUO is overcosted at its current value of 240pts. I have even recommended in this thread what I believe should be the baseline units to compare all units for all AoS points costs. I also updated my questions for more specific answers I hope to find.
@Auticus are you serious a 50wound model? Where are the stats for this thing because it seems so stupid and why would anyone ever use it.
I'll have to apologize Broxus, but I wasn't able to determine the answers to the questions you posted in regards to your own math when I re read it. Could you break it down by individual question and answer just to make it clear? Considering you asked it of Auticus despite the answers being previously present I don't think it's an unreasonable request.
1) No subjective values were used in my analysis
2) I never used any scale other than relational percentages to other units to discuss my results for pointed units in the GHB.
3) I never made any claims with my math that any units were under costed other than the GUO when shown in relation to the other units I cited (liberators, retributors, plaguebearers, stormcast heroes)
4) I only accounted for -,-1,-2 rending and this will stay proportional for all the units I used. I did not do damage solely on mortal wounds which I previously stated in my math. All the units were both attacked and defending against a unit that hits on 4+, wounds on a 4+ and has a 4+ save (a likely opponent in AoS). In total I used over 7+ stats to make my analysis
5) Basic unit of measurement considered to be balanced IMHO:
Troops: Stormcast Liberators (100-pts)
Elite troops: Bloodbound Skullreapers (150-pts)
Ranged troops: Stormcast Judicators (180-pts)
Cavalry: Bloodbound Skullcrushers (150-pets)
General: Mighty Lord of Khorne (130-pts)
Standards: Bloodbound Bloodsecrator (130-pts)
Behemoths: Khorne Bloodthrister of Insensate Rage (350-pts)
Artillery: Order Cannons (210-pts)
6) No it didn’t however this only strengthens my point
I would be happy to provide this to your PPC feedback thread. I have some questions about some of the assigned point costs and recommended changes. Could you please provide the link?
Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for.
The PPC thread is in the AoS tactics subforum, I am typing on my phone right now so I unfortunately cannot copy the link but it should be easy to find.
The PPC thread is in the AoS tactics subforum, I am typing on my phone right now so I unfortunately cannot copy the link but it should be easy to find.
If you have a moment could you look at answering those questions also for the other set of data.
For 1, I believe Auticus did not factor in subjective values exactly because they are subjective.
2-5 he already explained before you asked:
Auticus wrote:The methodology calculates the average damage output per turn against every possible save then averaged out. It then calculates the average defensive utilility (saves, regen, ward save equivalents, etc) and averages them out. It then divides that by the GHB cost to get an efficiency score.
Ex: a great damage output that you pay little for is a must take because its over powered since it does't cost what it should in favor of the taker.. A great damage output that you pay normal price for is lower. A great damage output that you pay too much for is bad.
The lettering is a ranking of the scores. So lay out every unit in the game in a line based on their scores in any given category, and the percentile bands correspond to their grade. Heroes were graded by comparing only other heroes due to the command abilities and what not not being able to be mathematically modeled.
Auticus wrote:and typically boil things down to expected wounds per turn and expected wounds they can absorb per turn and they divided that score up by the points the GHB presents, whereas my score also added in movement and magic and flight and a few other things (and also divdes the points by GHB). Also just as a side note, my system does not state that everything is under/over cost. The graph on the website shows perfect center which is when you list everything the dead center average. There are a lot of items in all four quadrants. Overcosted are items in the bottom left, undercosted are the items in the upper right, and the degree at their overcosting/undercosting depends how low or high in that quadrant they are pushing.
auticus wrote:I'm pretty sure we've come to a point where this discussion is pointless. I'm ok that the bulk of players are ok with the random dart at the wall method of pointing units. At this point there are far more interesting things to discuss.
Like if there will be an update to points. And what do we think the random darts will undercost this next round?
NinthMusketeer wrote:Now as for the balance discussion on behemoths and otherwise, I have no counter arguments because I have conceded the discussion. Behemoths are not undercosted and armies which do not rely on them are broadly viable even without relying on OP elements. This is supported by the winning tournament lists that show a wide diversity of builds. We also see a large monster diversity since people prefer to bring them because they are cool, and do not see a limited subset of behemoths appearing repeatedly. Again, the tournament evidence shows this, and the math which says otherwise doesn't count because it isn't understood by people who disagree with it.
Great. More sarcastic and belittling comments from Ninth and Auticus. I have tried to be polite and engage in a good discussion and it seems Broxus has too, and yet I am just met with comments like this from two forum members I respected. After every heated discussion and argument we had to endure on this forum at the launch of AoS, instead this thread has been by far the most souring I have ever encoutered.
I don't wish to discuss further with either of you if the only effort put in is to make cutting and dismissive remarks. At this point I don't feel like posting in the subforum at all.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Lord Kragan, if you post your feedback on the Ironfist over in the PPC thread I'd be happy to discuss it over there.
Now as for the balance discussion on behemoths and otherwise, I have no counter arguments because I have conceded the discussion. Behemoths are not undercosted and armies which do not rely on them are broadly viable even without relying on OP elements. This is supported by the winning tournament lists that show a wide diversity of builds. We also see a large monster diversity since people prefer to bring them because they are cool, and do not see a limited subset of behemoths appearing repeatedly. Again, the tournament evidence shows this, and the math which says otherwise doesn't count because it isn't understood by people who disagree with it.
Holy passive aggressiveness with a sharp side of Sarcasm.
Really, you two are taking this to an annoying level.
Maybe the discussion about point-costs and the math behind them should be continued elsewhere? It has little to do with the AOSFAQ, after all.
Speaking of the FAQ, I still wish they'd just make the Ring of Immortality unusable by Heroes on Monsters/Mounts. That way the worst excesses of the Ring's use get dealt with without also shafting the regular Heroes.
And the change to the Tomb Herald's rules is just stupid, in my humble opinion.
auticus wrote:I'm pretty sure we've come to a point where this discussion is pointless. I'm ok that the bulk of players are ok with the random dart at the wall method of pointing units. At this point there are far more interesting things to discuss.
Like if there will be an update to points. And what do we think the random darts will undercost this next round?
NinthMusketeer wrote:Now as for the balance discussion on behemoths and otherwise, I have no counter arguments because I have conceded the discussion. Behemoths are not undercosted and armies which do not rely on them are broadly viable even without relying on OP elements. This is supported by the winning tournament lists that show a wide diversity of builds. We also see a large monster diversity since people prefer to bring them because they are cool, and do not see a limited subset of behemoths appearing repeatedly. Again, the tournament evidence shows this, and the math which says otherwise doesn't count because it isn't understood by people who disagree with it.
Great. More sarcastic and belittling comments from Ninth and Auticus. I have tried to be polite and engage in a good discussion and it seems Broxus has too, and yet I am just met with comments like this from two forum members I respected. After every heated discussion and argument we had to endure on this forum at the launch of AoS, instead this thread has been by far the most souring I have ever encoutered.
I don't wish to discuss further with either of you if the only effort put in is to make cutting and dismissive remarks. At this point I don't feel like posting in the subforum at all.
Pendulum swings both ways guys. There is nothing more to discuss on the matter. Let's move on to another topic now. Discussing points is a useless avenue anyhow because its all out of our hands.
auticus wrote:I'm pretty sure we've come to a point where this discussion is pointless. I'm ok that the bulk of players are ok with the random dart at the wall method of pointing units. At this point there are far more interesting things to discuss.
Like if there will be an update to points. And what do we think the random darts will undercost this next round?
NinthMusketeer wrote:Now as for the balance discussion on behemoths and otherwise, I have no counter arguments because I have conceded the discussion. Behemoths are not undercosted and armies which do not rely on them are broadly viable even without relying on OP elements. This is supported by the winning tournament lists that show a wide diversity of builds. We also see a large monster diversity since people prefer to bring them because they are cool, and do not see a limited subset of behemoths appearing repeatedly. Again, the tournament evidence shows this, and the math which says otherwise doesn't count because it isn't understood by people who disagree with it.
Great. More sarcastic and belittling comments from Ninth and Auticus. I have tried to be polite and engage in a good discussion and it seems Broxus has too, and yet I am just met with comments like this from two forum members I respected. After every heated discussion and argument we had to endure on this forum at the launch of AoS, instead this thread has been by far the most souring I have ever encoutered.
I don't wish to discuss further with either of you if the only effort put in is to make cutting and dismissive remarks. At this point I don't feel like posting in the subforum at all.
Maybe we got sick of our evidence being blatantly ignored. Have you considered what the argument 'people will run lots of monsters in a balanced setting anyways' looks like to us, especially when it's brought in as a counter after we've already defended our position? It comes across as a cheap way of completely dismissing our concerns, not to mention incredibly belittling. To us it seems like we go through the effort of showing how behemoths are overused, only to have you (a poster we respect) dismiss us out of hand, can you image how frustrating that would be? For Broxus we have him literally saying 'well this tournament had a bunch of behemoth lists but they don't count' and continually requesting more math that is never good enough despite being miles more thorough than his own. At some point we are going to throw up our hands and revert to attitude because we are being treated like our concerns and evidence to support them simply don't matter. There have not been any counter-arguments which successfully explain why we see the tournament results we do (which show an extremely limited subset of options repeatedly appearing), there have been no math databases provided which show that behemoths are fine, and no matter how many times we prove our evidence it is never good enough. Please try to imagine how frustrating that is for us before passing judgement.
It's wasn't a counter, just a tangent - we all know AoS isn't perfectly balanced so it wasn't meant to override any of the previous discussion. It had already wound down in my opinion because we had reached a stalemate of Auticus wanting to use Math to back up his points and me not wanting to use math (because I feel that even with complex math AoS has too many unquantifiable factors that cannot be rendered in math). If you felt belittled by that I am sorry, but you can look through my posts in this thread and in no way did I try to humiliate or mock with sarcasm as you and Auticus have now done repeatedly.
I have said that AoS cannot be reduced to Math and would prefer an experienced group of tournament players to assign points - that apparently deserved mocking from Auticus. I have said that as a general rule monsters aren't undercosted across the board - that apparently deserved mocking from you. I am not trying to pass judgement but just relate my experiences of this thread, and as mentioned before it has been very souring. Especially this past page or two. Like I said, I don't really want to post here now, so we'll all have to agree to disagree and I wish you happy gaming in the future.
auticus wrote:I'm pretty sure we've come to a point where this discussion is pointless. I'm ok that the bulk of players are ok with the random dart at the wall method of pointing units. At this point there are far more interesting things to discuss.
Like if there will be an update to points. And what do we think the random darts will undercost this next round?
NinthMusketeer wrote:Now as for the balance discussion on behemoths and otherwise, I have no counter arguments because I have conceded the discussion. Behemoths are not undercosted and armies which do not rely on them are broadly viable even without relying on OP elements. This is supported by the winning tournament lists that show a wide diversity of builds. We also see a large monster diversity since people prefer to bring them because they are cool, and do not see a limited subset of behemoths appearing repeatedly. Again, the tournament evidence shows this, and the math which says otherwise doesn't count because it isn't understood by people who disagree with it.
Great. More sarcastic and belittling comments from Ninth and Auticus. I have tried to be polite and engage in a good discussion and it seems Broxus has too, and yet I am just met with comments like this from two forum members I respected. After every heated discussion and argument we had to endure on this forum at the launch of AoS, instead this thread has been by far the most souring I have ever encoutered.
I don't wish to discuss further with either of you if the only effort put in is to make cutting and dismissive remarks. At this point I don't feel like posting in the subforum at all.
Maybe we got sick of our evidence being blatantly ignored. Have you considered what the argument 'people will run lots of monsters in a balanced setting anyways' looks like to us, especially when it's brought in as a counter after we've already defended our position? It comes across as a cheap way of completely dismissing our concerns, not to mention incredibly belittling. To us it seems like we go through the effort of showing how behemoths are overused, only to have you (a poster we respect) dismiss us out of hand, can you image how frustrating that would be? For Broxus we have him literally saying 'well this tournament had a bunch of behemoth lists but they don't count' and continually requesting more math that is never good enough despite being miles more thorough than his own. At some point we are going to throw up our hands and revert to attitude because we are being treated like our concerns and evidence to support them simply don't matter. There have not been any counter-arguments which successfully explain why we see the tournament results we do (which show an extremely limited subset of options repeatedly appearing), there have been no math databases provided which show that behemoths are fine, and no matter how many times we prove our evidence it is never good enough. Please try to imagine how frustrating that is for us before passing judgement.
No you haven't had any of your points of view ignored. You never even discussed which tournaments have had the results you stated. I at least gave you the name of the largest recent tournament that showed the opposite of your claims. Your entire argument has been; here is a website with some math, it shows all behemoths are undercosted, and i know of some unnamed tournaments that prove it also, I am right. The problem with this is that you have failed to link the math or tournament results that show any points values that should be adjusted. So please tell me what I should do with the math that shows the Herald of Nurgle with an overall score of 7, a unit of 5 Retributors with no starsouls with an overall score of 30, and a Great Unclean One with an overall score of 25.
-Does this mean the GUO needs a price increase of 25% (300pts)?
-Does it mean the (5) Retributors needs a price increase of 30%? (290pts)
-Does it mean the Herald needs a price increase of 7% (110pts)?
-Does it mean that the GUO needs a price increase of 25pts (265pts)?
-Does it mean ??????? (You tell me)
NONE of these answers match the GUO 330pts cost or the Herald of Nurgle 70pts cost or the Retributors 200pt cost you use in PPC. Please tell me how I am suppose to use this math to create any points balance. Do you even use it in the PPC system or do you use a more subjective method that simply goes on gut feelings? Show me how that behemoths are 20-30% undercosted as has been claimed while other units such as retributors have even higher overall scores. So if you are not using this math in your own comp system why should I blindly accept it?
The tournament you referenced is exactly what I mean:
1st - Lightning Strike Stormcast
2nd - Chaos Monsters & Warpfiends
3rd - Beastclaws and Grots
4th - Alarielle and Kurnoths
5th - Beastclaw and Grots
Three out of the five lists have the majority of points spent in behemoths. You referenced this to say 'well the first was Stormcast, the second doesn't count, and the third doesn't count, so it proves my point'. There's more than one way to belittle someone and making arguments like that is outright insulting.
The discussion of math is also what I am talking about, you are taking it off in some other direction, adding more requirements, and it reads like an endless trail of avoiding Auticus' point, which also reads as very belittling and mocking. Yeah, you didn't say anything snarky or nasty, but that our evidence is perpetually not good enough when your evidence is based entirely on ours being wrong rather than a legitimate body that proves a different point, and that's really dam annoying. Maybe you didn't intend it to come off this way but when you are asking questions that Auticus answered in a post immediately previous it really looks like we aren't being heard.
Something else, and this is unfair to you, is that me, Auticus, and others have been saying the same thing for a long time. The response then wasn't 'well your math doesn't prove it' the response was 'well your math says this but we'll see what the tournament results are' and now that we bring up the tournaments suddenly the math isn't good enough. This is frustrating but we shouldn't be taking it out on you.
You are right that I should specifically reference these tournaments, that was a poor.move on my part. But in my defense, I haven't seen a major tournament which doesn't support the result I am talking about. Straight back to the SCGT winners the top lists have been filled with behemoths, and not a nice even spread of them across factions either.
@Ninth I agree that the 3-5 spots were much heavier behemoths. I wasn't looking top 5 only the top 3. I agree that the Beastclaws are underpriced as an army. I don't think that is reflective of behemoths as a whole but instead a specific list that can basically take all behemoths with mortal wounds and ranged attacks. As I have said some behemoths, battalion formations, and even troop choices need adjustment.
Where I think we will disagree is that if a list has a behemoth that is a bad thing or shows they are to good. I honestly think every list should have a mix of troops, heroes and behemoths to be balanced. What I think would become a problem is if the majority winning lists always had more than 1/3 of its points spent in behemoths, ranged units, heroes, or etc. Of the top 5 lists only 2 would be considered heavy behemoth (Beastclaws and Slyvaneth). Of those 2 lists one was designed by GW to be behemoth heavy and the other Slyvaneth is heavier than I like.
Overall, I don't think this shows any behemoths being under pointed by 20-30%. At worst the only thing that could said of these tournament results is that they don't really prove anything and we need a few more results before we make any claims. As you said this is the only real tournament using GHB that I know of. In regards to SCGT points, it was still a very balanced system that made it feel like everything was viable as an option. Russ, did agree that a few units did need to be adjusted after the tournament results since it was a living points system. However, before these changes became official the GHB was released. Though, I can't speak for Russ, I am pretty confident he and the many people who played his comp would not think behemoths were 20-30% undercosted.
Well I think that's a pretty reasonable viewpoint.
I have gotten too abrasive in this discussion, so I apologize. I'll try to push that back to 2016 where it belongs and be more hospitable going forward.
I tend to consider the maths shows x y or z is OP or UP as pointless. List building in AOS is heavily based around hard to weight abilities and cross unit synergy. A point I argued a long time ago. Auticus accepts he can't or won't incorporate those, so any attempt to say that maths shows what is OP etc is largely plain wrong. The maths may show who has good offence or defence in isolation sure enough, but that is not the same thing.
Killing stuff is secondary to objectives in matched play (or at least the one in the GHB and at tourneys that I've seen so far). You need to provide more weighting in the maths to that before having any hope of persuading me on anything.
Just taking a quick look at a unit I like, chameleon skinks. Rated F according to Auticus. You have to be kidding, they are one of the best units around. Unless I missed to FAQ or something I rate them A+++ overall. I couldn't care what offense or defense they have, the fact they simply turn up where you want when you want with no range limits vs enemy units is game winning in objective based games, and all matched play scenarios, or tourney games I've seen are objective based. No lizard army I have would not have at least one unit of them if I was playing competitive.
Bat swarms rated F? anything that gives a -1 to hit (even if just for shooting) is great in a game where a 6+ often gives boosted killyness, or even just for the -1 to reduce incoming damage. There are not too many sources of -1 to the enemy, making those there are extremely nice. 80 points for 2 bat swarms in summon pool which you can summon in as 2 separate units to doubly annoy the other guy, yes please. Combine it with Nefarata or the vampire with the -1 spell and the undead can be very very tanky.
Both morghasts come out as B for defence? No way, Ebon armor on the Archai is mint, at the very least it is an extremely useful defence that the harbingers do not have.
So those are all subjective, and maybe you don't agree. But given your maths doesn't even start to take into account such things I can't grasp how anyone thinks it shows what is or is not over/undercosted.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Beast claw monster with the mortal wound breath and healing (can't remember which one it is now) is another case IMO of spam making them better. A single one is nothing that much to write home about. However, they are a unit that synergises with more of itself on its healing. A Group of them all heal automatically which is a good lot better than the base 50/50 when on its own. So another unit where even if it was pointed 'correct' based on 'raw' statline it would still get spammed and end up effectively undercosted. Add in the significant auto hit long range mortal wounds they dish out en mass and they really a lot nastier spammed than alone.
Bat swarms rated F? Yes that means their offensive efficiency and defensive efficiencies are at the bottom of the list compared to everything else in the game. The F rating states that offensively and defensively they are very poor.
They may have great utility, but I never got around to putting a utility score on them because it was largely a fruitless endeavor. The utility score is actually in the database just not visible.
Chamelon skinks are rated F based on their offense and defense. I've stated this about 1000x, which is why I get frustrated, because the scores are misrepresented 1000x. Which also does not include their utility score, which is actually in the database just not visible.
Morghasts coming out as B for defense means for their points where they line up they line up in the top 20%-35% of the game, which is actually pretty good.
Those scores are where a unit stands up against every other unit in the game based off of their pure mathematical stats. So no they aren't plain "wrong", its that you are trying to inject more meaning into the rating than is supposed to be. You are trying to treat a B as second class when a B is actually really good (a C is average, a B is above average) and you are trying to assign their entire utility to that score, when I've stated many times that those scores are only the offense and defensive scores based purely on their stats.
The utility scores were not finished and that is why they are not visible. As such the scores purely and 100% only represent offense and defense based on mathematical statistics of average wounds given and average wounds taken by every rend and mortal wound capability in the game averaged out and then lined up against every other unit in the game to give it a percentile ranking which is then given a letter grade to represent where in that percentile ranking it stands.
I've stated this about 1000x over the course of a few months. It keeps devolving into B being a bad score because its not A and then being misrepresented into things it was never meant to be, which is a baseline until the utility scores were completed, which I have given up on working on since its a large project and not one that would be used.
if you read what I said you will realise I am not misrepresenting the results, I am aware from previous discussions what you have and have not included.
I am saying that you are the one who often misrepresents your results and draws wrong conclusions. Your data does not show whether something is under or over costed, it just shows how good or bad the raw stat line at attack and defence in isolation is. That is no where near showing under or over costing, because it does not include a whole raft of stuff that would need to be included for that. Yet you will say your maths modelling shows it is OP/UP. E.g.. you said your modelling shows GUO is ~20% undercosted. How does your modelliing show that when it excludes abilities, synergies and objective taking vs simple killing etc.
I find such maths interesting, I write simulators and other such stuff to try an include every game mechanic (battlechock, move, initiative etc) myself to look at such things. So I don't diss the maths per se, just what it does or does not show.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS I wasn't treating B as second rate or bad etc, however, you are clearly showing A -F system, where F is worse than A. yet stuff you have rated as F I would rate way higher, if I was rating for some overall capability, which your references to showing whether something is over or undercosted must include if such statements are to be true.
the reference to B on morghasts wasn't that B is bad, it was that you have rated both Archai as B for defence yet one is clearly superior to the other, as mortal wound defence is very valuable in a game where you will likely face lists designed to dish it out. It maybe that you lack granularity in your ratings, but I'd expect at least a +/- difference in ratings.
But this may go back to what I think broxus was saying, we don't see (or I haven't seen?) what maths you have used, what weightings etc. I can also use some pure maths to show very different results because I might use very different formula. At that point you would have very different results both claiming to have mathemtically shown X or Y. You should clearly show the formula and weightings etc (assuming I haven't missed them).
Again, could the discussion about the math behind point-costs move elsewhere? It has little to do with the actual purpose of this thread, and it's a bit jarring to come back here every time just to see more endless arguments about whose math does what.
It's not that I don't want you all to discuss these things (as it's certainly interesting), but I believe a separate thread for said discussion would be better than continuing to use this one.
