Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:


But on that specifically, I know that on a basic mathematical level its a bad idea, because there is no way to price a unit like skeletons such that a discount on the maximum size will improve things (the best it could be would them being overcosted in all respects save maximum size) because the warscroll already makes the largest size the most efficient. Even that said I am not upset about it more that I am disappointed that GW would impliment such a thing without actually investigating the matter. I could still be wrong (I hope so), but there would have to be a significant factor such as a new rule of one that hurts hordes for it to even out. However, going from an elite-favoring meta to a horde-favoring one is still an improvement because it is more difficult to exploit on a practical level (that is, actually putting all those models on the table).

I'm interested to see what the rule actually is for it. Which units qualify? How much is the discount. AoS has had a modular point system since GHB, so something like a 10% discount would make for some unusual point cost on some units (everything thus far has been a multiple of 5). And I've always said that horde armies had a built in limitation in their cost to purchase, build, and paint so many models, so I agree with your point there.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thought: as opposed to 40k 8th edition, wounds bleed over in AoS. Large units may be more points-efficient, but they quickly fall below the number required to get the warscroll bonus. This doesn't change the Massive Regiments discount, but it illustrates my point about the inherent point efficiency not being quite as high as some may think. There is definitely still a place for MSU in the game.

 Hulksmash wrote:
This is a bit OT but curious Auticus because I wasn't around for the initial launch of AoS since without points no one in my area played and I didn't have the time to launch a group. When you spread sheet it out I'm assuming you were doing stats and basic abilities across the board. Were synergies included in your calculations for points?

The main reason I ask is that while I do see hordes of goblins because they work in a specific build for board control but little seen elsewhere. I simply don't see hordes of models outside of giant rats, brims, savage orc arrow boyz (good even without kunnin rukk), and those goblins in lists with beastclaw raider characters. While I never see hordes of skellies, zombies, or ghouls. That leads me to think that even with similar stats they don't serve the same purpose for their points that other horde units do in other allegiances and that even in other allegiances those types of units are used as exceptions and not the rule. I feel like those types of units (for which there is definitely a place) then do need something extra instead of being simple 10-man minimum choices.

This is why I'm good with the horde bonus. As long as it doesn't make them insanely OP, which I doubt will happen, I think it's fine because maybe we'll see at least SOME of these arch types of units that currently don't really exist.

The comp system that I wrote was based on damage output and how much damage they could take plus a misc modifier for synergy.

I always see hordes of skeletons and zombies from our death players. Because they know they are stupid to not min/max all of those extra attacks.

The only hordes I ever see are the units that gain the free bonuses though. You are right in that AOS unsurprisingly so let people take tiny armies and that given a choice between a horde army and a tiny army that both do relatively the same damage and absorption are going to choose the tiny army because its cheaper in $$$, less time to assemble, less time to paint.

I'm perfectly fine with letting horde units gain bonuses. If they pay the proper points for them. I am beyond frustrated with the free point giveaway that has been GW for the past few years.

I think we're aiming for different types of balance here.

There have been threads on this and yes the type of balance most people seem to want has nothing to do with 2000 points being equal to 2000 points. Thats the type of balance that I want. I am fatigued by having 1000 models in the game but only 25 of them are worth taking if you want a good game.

Other games do a much much better job at this, and I know GW can also do a much much better job at this as well.

My main issue is with the tone I've noticed when you comment about GHB2. I have no illusions that AoS will be perfectly balanced after its release, but I'm willing to withhold judgment until I've seen the adjusted points costs. After release, I'll look over any adjustment made and decide then just how good/bad GW did. I'm not going to just assume a spectacular failure before I've even seen the effort.

It is assumption yes. But we're dealing wiht a company with a 20+ year history on point-failure and amateur-hour when it comes to balancing their systems. 20+ years of failed point system after failed point system, and then on top of that the GHB which also had huge glaring issues on day one that most of the community was able to pick out (and to this day continue to exploit) are why I am assuming that this will be another epic fail for those of us that don't want to have to run around with the right handful of models out of the thousands of builds.

Part of the allure of GW games is the models are great. I could go play Kings of War right now but I hate the models even though the game system is a lot tighter (not perfect) in balance.

But the GW experience is not so great if the models you find so great cannot be used without a one-sided beat down because the points costs are jacked.

And jacked points aren't getting fixed for another year. I'm beyond tired of having to see kunnin rukk and skyfire spam and busted stormcast game after game and having to wait a year for that to change to something else.

Again - the community did better so I know GW can do better. Other games do tons better so I know that GW can do better. I want them to stop amateur-hour and dishing out hot garbage for a point structure. Right now the alarm bells are screaming that we're going to be seeing the next always take for the next year.

No one has been complaining about horde units being a problem so far. The handwringing is silly and premature.

@Hulk, maybe its a local thing regarding hordes, we have tons ghouls running around tables at my flgs.

@Cold, people have mentioned hordes being a problem, note grot and bonesplittta hordes even showing up atop tourney lists. It's also a case where the idea is flawed on a fundamental level that there's no question it will negatively impact balance, only a question of how much. I'm lucky enough to have a less competitive gaming group but for Auticus any potential exploits are something he must deal with all the time. Further, the 'your concerns are premature' line has been mentioned plenty of times before, for concerns that have been broadly validated every time. So I feel his position is a legitimate one.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
@Hulk, maybe its a local thing regarding hordes, we have tons ghouls running around tables at my flgs.

@Cold, people have mentioned hordes being a problem, note grot and bonesplittta hordes even showing up atop tourney lists. It's also a case where the idea is flawed on a fundamental level that there's no question it will negatively impact balance, only a question of how much. I'm lucky enough to have a less competitive gaming group but for Auticus any potential exploits are something he must deal with all the time. Further, the 'your concerns are premature' line has been mentioned plenty of times before, for concerns that have been broadly validated every time. So I feel his position is a legitimate one.

The balance conversation has mostly been around shooting and the initiative roll for the last period. There have been specific builds of armies that have had a lot of models and done well, but hordes haven't been dominating the meta. If anything, I think this move is to counter the larger trend of people taking minimum battleline.

We don't even know the points of horde units in the new book, so I call it premature. Maybe you're completely right. We'll have to see how it shakes out on a worldwide scale in the next several months. AoS has had a lot of dominant builds come and go. It's a constantly changing meta.

I haven't seen a constant change in dominant builds since GHB came out. Its been essentially the same builds though sylvaneth was brief because skyfire came out and did it better.

Death hordes are not as common simply because Death does not have a lot of new models and people want the new models so are holding out. Players that still play death hordes still incite annoyance because skeleton hordes are already nasty with the bucket of attacks they push out, and will now be getting cheaper to boot.

Removing all of that and just looking at the rule change in isolation: they are giving point discounts to hordes to incentivize taking them.

I don't have to know the point costs to know that this is making something cheaper in points to hope people max out on them, same as 8th edition WHFB did with the steadfast rule. This is the opposite of balance to me. This makes points not count for anything. There is really no point in using points if the points aren't there to balance things. Giving models discounts so you take more is not balanced. Its sales. There is no use in saying you can't summon for free, and then on the other hand give out free points in the form of discount vouchers to horde units.

You have in essence given them free models, the same as summoning. The difference is one was made with math, the other is made by rolling 2d6 and hoping to hit a 5+ over and over and over and over again.

Other games have issues but for whatever reason nowhere near the type of skew that resides in GW games. I was holding out hoping that the new GHB would tighten things up but it seems to be headed in the opposite direction - the direction where min/maxing and listbuilding remains dominant.

As such, there is a large kings of war group that meets about 90 minutes south of me that has invited me to use my models in that, and it looks like I better get my car an oil change and get used to driving a lot because this amateur-hour with the balancing mechanism has reached its final breaking point for me. As much as Kings of War is definitely not really what I want to play, it beats this.

One doesn't need to see point values to know that discounts are the same as free points and I'm tired of the listbuilding epeen wagging. Give me a game where player agency and skill is what matters most, not who can figure out the highest power coefficient on their spreadsheet and then who can get double turn first. Yeah - giving hordes a steep discount to make you want to take them is great and will make people take more. Because they will then be undercost and that will fit right in with min/max play since they will be operating at a level higher than what they paid for. I'd rather they FIX THE POINTS IN THE FIRST PLACE instead of busting other parts of the game to compensate for their point failures from last year. People don't take hordes not because they are bad, but because they don't want to pay for and paint a large number of models that are not COST EFFICIENT (broken, undercost) when they have the option of taking a handful of models that are broken and undercost. Make those models NOT UNDERCOST.

You want to see hordes taken? Make goblins 30 points for 10 of them and then give them 2 4+/4+ -1 rend 2 damage bows at 24". You'll see oceans of goblins. Because they would then be super undercost and do a ton of damage. The community has proven over and over again thats what they want. They will flock to what is undercost and busted. Thats how you make people take models in a system where the skew is always so volatile... you break units and make people flock to those for a while. I wonder what would happen if they actually fixed the stuff that was broken instead of breaking other things?

I'll check back for GHB 2018.

There is a vast difference between summoning and discounted large units meant to be used in large units. Reality is that I can do a lot more with MSU in AoS than I can with hordes right now. On the table large units tend to actually play out poorly than the same points in MSU. So finding a way to make hordes more usable works for me.

Sorry it doesn't agree with your view on it but it is the game we have. I recognize you helped grow and build AoS prior to GW realizing they needed it to have structure for army building but it's probably good to take a break from it since they aren't doing it the way you want them to. See ya in late 2018 or never I guess if GW doesn't start doing things the way you prefer..

So long as the game primarily rewards min/max list building over playing the game, yes. It is not the way I want them to design the game.

THere isn't a vast difference between free summoning and free models given via discount. Its identical.

I summon 10 horrors and get a free 80 points or whatever they cost.

I have a unit of 10 skeletons that cost 80 points and they discount them to say 60 points. I'm getting a free 20 points worth of skeletons for every 10 skeletons I buy.

If I buy four units of 40 skeletons I have now received 320 free points. Basically an entire unit for free. That doesn't even begin to touch the fact that they are point costed as if they had a single attack and now have 3 attacks per model and are operating as if they were a 3 attack model at the cost of a 1 attack model.

There is no difference between that and summoning save one way is spreadsheet and math and the other is relying on a wizard to cast the spell four times to get the same benefit.

Why would I never move to an army that is giving me free points? I've just turned a 2000 point game into a 2320-2000 point game. The same as if I summon an 80 point unit four times in a game. The same reason why they said "no more free epoints its not balanced" and made summoning cost reserve points. They have just brought back free points - which makes points a useless structure if you are searching for a "balanced game". If skeletons were really that poor (which I strongly believe they are more than fine) then they could have just adjusted their points to reflect what they should cost.

Out of curiosity, Auticaus, what do you believe a model with a skeleton's stat line in a 30 model unit (so 3 attacks) should cost? I'm just curious what your baseline is.

Do you have the same bone to pick with models that replenish units then, Auticus? What's the difference between summoning 10 skeletons from reserve points, getting a free 10 models for a Massive Regiment discount and replenishing 10 models from your banner?

It's all free models.

What about other models that replenish other units, is the points cost for a Crypt Court Infernal bringing back Crypt Flayers each turn paid for by the Crypt Flayers or the Court Infernal? If taking both gets me access to free models, is it any different from taking 3 units of Skeletons and getting free models?

There are countless things in AoS that you don't pay points for. The stuff mentioned above, every single aspect of the allegiance abilities and all the other synergies and buffs that make a unit more hardy or choppy.

I think GW are trying to balance the game at an alliance level first and then at faction level rather than a unit vs unit level. They look at all the models your points can get you + all the free stuff you get (like the allegiance abilities) and then tweak it from there. Last year they did a fantastic job at alliance level. Major tournaments were constantly being won by any of the four alliances - but then within those alliances there was disparity, so that's the action they are taking now. For example for Death, it was the Tomb King builds that dominated but now GW have repointed them (coming into full effect soon with the trial points being made standard) and they are giving the other death factions a boost with this 'Massive Regiments' rule.

I think this rule among others will be used to give certain units a boost in factions that need it.

These things are baked into the points already.

There will always be imbalances and we know GW doesn't do points perfectly, as that's an impossible task. But so far, hordes (except for very specific builds, like kunnin ruk, which the problem is more a battalion than a horde) have not been dominating the meta, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to immediately assume this move will overpower them. Maybe, in the context of the overall meta GW is aiming for, it will just bring some horde units into contention.

Now if this were a blanket +1 to all shooting, it would be easier to say that's clearly adding power to an already dominant aspect of the game.

It's one thing to think hordes aren't good for the game. Personally, I love the visual aspect, but moving more than 20 models around in AoS is a chore I don't know if I'm up for. But saying they're already undercosted at this point is another thing and premature, IMO.

 EnTyme wrote:
Out of curiosity, Auticaus, what do you believe a model with a skeleton's stat line in a 30 model unit (so 3 attacks) should cost? I'm just curious what your baseline is.

Well per analysis on the site I've posted a bunch of times, 10 skeletons come out in point cost as a "C" in efficiency which means that they are point costed correctly with the majority of the game (in a perfect system, all efficiency scores would be a "C")
30 skeletons come out as an "A" in efficiency right now which means that they operate much higher than their point cost.

So 30 skeletons should cost whatever other units cost that have the same output. I haven't researched that lately so I can't give you an off the cuff answer. If I'm using the old azyr formula that I had, then if 10 skeletons is 80 points, 20 skeletons would be 100 points per and 30 skeletons would be 120 points per to account for the bonus attacks. Now whether that makes them undder or overcost still I don't know since I'd have to plug that all into my data model and analyze it, so thats an off the cuff answer.

These things are baked into the points already

No. They absolutely are not baked into the points already. The designers of said points already said that they point costed the unit at the minimum and let you get free points because its AOS and thats what AOS is about, and that sliding point scales are too complicated to implement. That was from a post on the ghb points from over a year ago when these points were unleashed and the first round of complaining about units that get better not having point increases was discussed. It was one of those "get over it" things.

I think this rule among others will be used to give certain units a boost in factions that need it.

I really don't think deathrattle need any boosts. They are already operating at above capacity with what they shoudl be. They are not as seen as much simply because they haven't gotten a new battletome yet and many people don't want to run something that isn't up to date. I know I hear that daily. The skeleton players we have locally do grossly well, and when I run my tomb kings I rarely lose if I'm using big blobs of skeletons because they just do so many attacks that they are like khorne skeletons.

I think some units could definitely use the boost but I think that goes back to them adjusting points correctly in the first place.

In a game where you have things that are grossly undercost like skyfires etc, then the things that are not as undercost seem overcost and the things costed correclty seem brokenly overcost. Thats where I think the bulk of the issue is.

There are countless things in AoS that you don't pay points for. The stuff mentioned above, every single aspect of the allegiance abilities and all the other synergies and buffs that make a unit more hardy or choppy.

This discount will be providing a power gamer with what is essentially a free unit.

So if we're going to be ok with this lets do a few things:
1) lets stop pretending points are needed to "balance" because... there is no balance in this system at that point when points mean nothing. Points are kind of like paper money. They only mean something because we put an emotional value into them.
2) lets remove the restriction on summoning needing reserve points. Its not fair or right to say that you can't have free ssummons when we can give discounted units free models.

As to units that replenish, I have always been of the opinion you should pay more for those units. In Azyr, you did pay more for the banners that raised skeletons. For the most part that was seen as ok.

If you're of the opinion that units should pay more for replenishing don't you think that when that replenishing doesn't scale with the unit size and is instead fixed that units should receive a discount when adding extra models?

For example a unit of 10 skeletons can return D6 models every turn. 2 units of 10 skeletons can return 2D6 models every turn. And yet a unit of 20 can only return D6 the same as a unit of 10.

I'm playing devil's advocate here a little, because I don't think anything such should be introduced. I am only pointing out that increasing unit sizes in AoS has some abilities that scale with them and some that don't. You seem to argue that increasing abilities should always be accounted for in a scalable points system, but as units both have advantages and drawbacks in increasing in size I don't think it is needed or feasible.

As for free summoning, only you so far seem to think uncapped AoS summoning is the same as receiving free models from anywhere else. To me they are very different because uncapped summoning is limitless on how many free models you can receive (bar space on the board to deploy) whereas the amount of free models a discount gives has a very tangible fixed limit.

Lastly, the idea that Skeletons are fine as they are because they rest on the centre of the bell-curve, you might want to consider that not everyone sees the meta this way. For others they might see a plateau of acceptable unit strength (perhaps falling into an A or B category on your database), and then everything else is either weak or grossly weak. For people that view the meta with this sort of lens, pushing Skeletons up to A grade is seen as a push to where they should be.

To be honest I think this is where 90% of the arguments you have with people on forums about what is under costed and what isn't falls down to. Remember the time we all had a merry old soul destroying debate on if "all monsters are overpowered or not"? You said it so yourself in the post above, you would like everything to be a C grade which is why you call many things over costed that most wouldn't consider to be so. For other people they would rather have everything pushed up to A grade. In the end it has a similar effect.

THere isn't a vast difference between free summoning and free models given via discount. Its identical.

Given what you replied to was discounts for large units (rather than discount generally) I tend to disagree.

Summoning what you want where you want it is pretty significantly good. A discount for a large unit can't really compare on that point.

Maybe more my own experience so far, but as a rough generalisation the unwieldy nature of large units (pinning spread out units by attacking at one end), or large numbers not able to make contact due to attack range etc, plus the increased chance of large battleshock failures makes the same number of models in a large unit less valuable than the same number of models in multiple units.

Auticus, fundamentally, I don't put much stock in your math about points in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, as it's a very cool thing to come up with your own campaigns, systems, etc., and I'm all for that. But in discussing what points should be, your idea is one of thousands.

On the other hand, we have a much larger meta of anecdotal experiences and many podcasters involved in the top tournament scenes. Your opinions are unique, and as valuable as anyone's, but I don't take your approach as gospel.

For example, you talk about Khorne being bad, when people like Russ Veal have shown how they can work. Hordes have not been dominating the meta currently. It's not just that people don't want to paint up the models.

There may well be truth to what you say and time will show that if so. But the general social media meta is much more indicative of the state of balance than one person's math, in my opinion.

Again, your commentary is valuable and appreciated. We should all get news and opinions from a variety of sources, our own included.

It's one thing if GW, say, reduces the points on an overcosted unit and overdoes it. That happens, balance won't ever be perfect. But this is different. Units with scaling benefits based on size are most point efficient at maximum size, we know this. So the best way to take skeletons right now, the way in which they are strongest, is at maximum size. Giving a discount to that (and only that) is completely nonsensical; there is no points value in which that is a positive change.

And again, concerns Auticus has raised based on his numbers have previously been proven right. He talked about mono-Khorne being bad before the Blades battletome and he was right, mono-Khorne did not win any tournaments. He's talked about how grot and bonesplittta units are too strong at max size, and they show up in winning tournament lists. He's talked about how kurnoth hunters, dracoth cavalry, and others are an issue. He keeps being right so telling him to wait and see isn't a very good argument, and will probably come off as rather disrespectful to him given the track record.

Auticus has to deal with a very competitive gaming group that exploit any potential weakness in AoS balance. For a lot of us that sort of thing we only need to deal with at tournaments or from TFG, but for him that is the vast majority of the games he gets. Viewed through that light, one can see why balance issues like this are a very big deal to him.

Yes, skeletons seem the most points efficient in their max size now - but it's still not a no brainer for the Death player to take 120 for Battleline. Say the 25% discount Auticus mentioned is true, it's still 960 points for those skeletons which is half your tournament army.

I still say we should be looking at this at an Alliance and Faction level, not unit vs unit. We know that since the Tomb Kings got repointed Death have struggled at the top - I see this as a boost to make Death overall a more competitive alliance again. We've already seen Deathlords have had across the board points reductions too. We need to see the whole picture though. They'll be some point increases in there too and changes to the allegiance abilities, but to me it seems GW are trying to boost the faction to compete with what is currently out there.

And I think that is a better approach. Reigning in everything to be a "C" grade as Auticus wants would mean across the board nerfs for every single army with a power build. No-one likes to be nerfed. Everyone likes to be boosted. So I like this approach (or my interpretation of it) that GW are for the most going to boost other factions up to the top power level.

Well my math has proven to be mostly correct so I'll continue to follow it. If you can find a place where my math is not correct, please let me know so it can be examined.

If it proved to be flawed I'd definitely have went down a different route.

I'll take math over anecdote anyday when we're discussing a game that revolves around statistical probability and mathematic models.

Khorne isn't bad now. They are about middle of the road. Certainly they can be fun unless they are up against tournament stuff, and khorne can be competitive because of a couple of formations, but before they got their new book with the tithe system and the pilgrim formations they were hot garbage.

Based off of my own modeling, calcualting power coefficients on the model that I built (which was assisted by a phd mathematician specializing in probability and statistics that also lends his expertise to our local casinos) the system has been right about 9 times out of 10 in every game it has been used in terms of predicating a winner based solely on the list.

We had around 1,100 test games before I folded Azyr because GHB official points was never going to be deviated from. For the most part GHB offiical points were close enough to not be that big a deal barring a few edge cases that are what is ruining the game for me right now (because the edge cases are what 3/4 of my local meta focus on fielding because they play almost exclusively in tournaments), and have about 500 additional campaign games using the model.

You can't prove a system with a mathematical model because most of the people invested in AOS are coming from an emotional angle where it doesn't matter what system is presented them, they will want to be positive about it and embrace it regardless of the math or where the holes seem to be.

I've been told about a dozen times now this week alone to just deal with it, git gud, and be like everyone else and buy a new army to chase the meta... because that seems to be what the overall answer is to GW games.

I think thats crap and I expect better from a company that I know can do better if smaller less wealthy companies are able to do so on a shoe string budget in terms of getting their faction balances tighter.

Lastly, the idea that Skeletons are fine as they are because they rest on the centre of the bell-curve, you might want to consider that not everyone sees the meta this way. For others they might see a plateau of acceptable unit strength (perhaps falling into an A or B category on your database), and then everything else is either weak or grossly weak. For people that view the meta with this sort of lens, pushing Skeletons up to A grade is seen as a push to where they should be.

This is absolutely the case. The giant chunk of the community views 15% or so of the aos model collection as usable and the rest hot garbage. So moving skeletons from balanced to over powered is to them moving a unit into acceptability again.

Which to me is... hot garbage lol. That is inded where most of my issues arise with the overall community. If it aint busted it should never be taken.

Thats not balance. Thats not even a pretense into balance.

I have a tomb kings skeleton swarm all ready to exploit the upcoming holes you can drive a truck through.

For other people they would rather have everything pushed up to A grade. In the end it has a similar effect.

Sam... with respect... if everything was pushed up to "A" grade thats the same thing as it all being a "C".

From my perspective we have 1000 units, 100 of which are worth taking. And now with the hordes getting ready to get their undercosted busting we'll have... 125 units worth taking or thereabouts. (numbers are rounded because I don't have an exact figure, the scale of my inflation is still clear)

This is seen vastly as a giant positive thing because 25 more units have entered the "viable to play" category.

It should be appalling that we're cheering for 25 more units entering the viable to play category while the other 875 units remain garbage, when instead the 100 viable units should be toned down to meet the other 900 units in the first place.

From my perspective.

From my perspective, the game would flourish if people could collect armies that connected with them emotionally rather than them having to go out and either find out via negative play experience that GW games are 1 army out of 10 is viable... or have to put to the side an army they connect with emotionally to purchase, assemble, and paint on a yearly basis a new git gud army just so that they can have good games. I realize that a lot of tournament players accept this as part of the game. In fact they enjoy this. I hate this and its why my community is rather dried up when it comes to AOS players. Because very very few people in the wargaming community as a whole view that as a positive thing and they have shown that for the most part by making AOS in most places a rare bird to find. I know there are places where its hot. I'm not disputing that. But overall I don't think thats true and I point to the imbalance as one of the things I hear daily from people telling me that AOS is crap. I have a lot invested in my GW models and games. This is frustrating for me.

Git gud only goes so far. I've gittin gud for many years. I've a box of trophies and plaques and high GT placings from gittin gud. I expect more from the game system that is supposed to be the pinnacle of fantasy wargaming. It is also frustrating for me when people assume that if one is complaining about bad balance that that means they are bad players. Thats a lazy accusation (i'm speaking in general not at anyone). I've lost with my undead army in AOS about four or five times right now in two years because my skeleton horde is already that good. I've gotten a few high places with my undead army because they are already pretty good. Thats why when I saw skeletons getting this boost even more that I already see the alarm bells clanging. So gittin gud and learning to win is not my problem. I can do just fine at the game. I want more diversity in the game and I want more viable builds.

There's a reason why most people report that AOS has a tiny player base if any at all.

There's a handful of us moving over to Kings of War, which makes me vomit a little in my mouth because Kings of War is not a system I really enjoy, but the trade off is that the min/max players I have to deal with on a weekly basis don't have as much skew to git gud with and the number of viable builds is a lot larger.

Trade offs and all.

Sam... with respect... if everything was pushed up to "A" grade thats the same thing as it all being a "C".

Not quite the same because one requires across the board boosts, the other nerfs. I said it has a similar effect overall.

So you would be content for everything being pushed up to "A". Then what is it about these changes that have soured you so quickly? We've seen points reductions for Deathlords and a boost to Skeletons and Zombies. I understand it makes MSU skeletons a bit useless. Is that really enough to turn you off the whole game because you can't make a competitive MSU skeleton army? Otherwise we're seeing an effort by GW to boost a faction that outside of old Tomb Kings was lacking. If they do this for many other factions that were lacking surely the game will be in a healthier spot from your perspective?

Lastly, I find it odd that you fully understand you have a different point of reference for balance than the majority of the community (who want to see everything pushed up to A rather than stuff toned down to C), but instead of explaining it to people you instead lock horns with them and get nowhere in the discourse.

Its that a multitude of units he still uses are stuck on C grade while skeletons (and presumably other hordes) get bumped to A grade. I understand that people dont like to be nerfed but the reality is that only a very small minority of units actually need it (which is good, better than then a ton of them). In theoretical number-speak it would be a huge amount easier to nerf that 10% of units than buff the other 90%. But that's not even what's happening, instead it's like nerfing half of the OP units while buffing 10% of the UP ones. So now we have 15% A grade and 85% C grade, which is actually worse.

Of course thats a theory and I personally think we'll be left in a better balance spot overall due to a variety of factors, but hopefully you can see the validity of Auticus' concerns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for why he locks horns, think of it from his perspective. He raises a concern based on math that has previously been proved quite accurate, only to have people repeatedly tell him that his concerns are not valid, or to wait and see. But he's heard that before, and after waiting and seeing his concerns validated on the tabletop (constantly) its not like people come back and apologise, they just turn around and say the same thing next time. Given how incredibly frustrating that is, I think Auticus has been admirably civil.

And we've seen less than 10% of the new points costs, so we don't really know where we are from a balance perspective.

Not quite the same because one requires across the board boosts, the other nerfs. I said it has a similar effect overall.

One is boosting 25 or so units out of 1000 and making them busted leaving the other 875 units garbage. The other would be making the entire game on the same footing. Thats what I want - the entire game on the same footing.

Lastly, I find it odd that you fully understand you have a different point of reference for balance than the majority of the community (who want to see everything pushed up to A rather than stuff toned down to C), but instead of explaining it to people you instead lock horns with them and get nowhere in the discourse.

I already explained - if everything is an "A" that is the same thing as everything being a "C". There is no difference to me in that case. If everything is busted then nothing is busted. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with 125 units being busted and 875 units getting teabagged by those 125 units under the git gud mantra.

If the announcement was that all of the 900 other units in the game were getting busted too, then I'd probably wait and see.

Instead what I see is that 25 units are getting busted too now yayyyyyy and people celebrating regardless of the other 875 units still sitting as garbage.

I don't really care if I'm in the minority. I mean we can go a step further out. AOS is in the minority in terms of people enjoying the game. The vast swathe of wargamers I know hate AOS and mock it daily. I'd like to see AOS succeed and be as powerful as whfb ever was.

I might be a minority - in the camp that still tries to play the game, but outside of that to the wargaming community in general, I don't think i'm the minority at all. I'm just an idiot that punishes himself with waiting to see the latest incarnation of rules that turn out to just open up other holes for min max players to drive through.

And Ninth pretty much nails my frustration. I went out of my way to remove emotion from my argument and insert math, and the result is "yeah thats nice but we don't care about math. Yeah you were right before but... meh. We don't care about that." or "I don't think your math is right. I'm not going to explain why I don't think its right, I just don't think its right. Your argument is flawed because I don't think your math is right." despite the fact that the predictive model has pretty much rolled exactly as we have said it would since day 1. As to arguing with the math - it was set up by a game theory math doctorate that specializes in this field. So listening to people say that the math is flawed is ... well... special I guess. I do put a lot of stock in a doctorate that specializes in this area, and the results have spoken for themselves.

I honestly at this stage don't believe people really want balance. They don't. You can't have list building be as potent a thing in a balanced game. I think that the community really enjoys bending and breaking the game via list building. It makes people feel clever. The problem is that a giant number of people want to play a game where 2000 pts vs 2000 pts really means 2000 pts vs 2000 pts. You can't do that with listbuilding skew being so powerful as it is in AOS (or 40k). I play kings of war, saga, runewars, battletech, none of these games are perfect... but none of them have the level of skew as aos or 40k.

And thats why I believe AOS will never have a shadow of the success whfb ever did and why the majority of our hobbyists will continue to avoid AOS. Which to me is a shame. I want AOS to be dominant. And it certainly could be but won't be while it continues this power skew thing that GW seems to intentionally put into its games (i assume to boost sales of certain items then rotate to other items. Assumption yes, but its the only thing that makes sense to me why they'd keep doing this because I know they employ smart people that could actually do a balanced game if they were allowed)

I've spent the past couple weeks in Kings of War land, feeling like Glass Joe hung up on the ropes, because I really dont' like that system but at the same time my games have all been about player agency as opposed to the list winning the game from the get go. (yeah the lists mean something there too but not as much as in AOS)

I haven't had that happen in years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And we've seen less than 10% of the new points costs, so we don't really know where we are from a balance perspective.

This is valid. We haven't seen those point costs yet. Most of my frustration is aimed at them giving discounts (free points) which regardless of point values would be against balanced game design. Based on what they said anyway about how they are going to be giving discounts (free points) to large horde units.

Interesting. I saw quite a few games that were decided from the get go in KoW when I tried it briefly between the birth of AoS and when it got the first GHB.

Either way I'm excited for this. My experience runs counter to Auticus regarding hordes of units. I think they might be pointed individually well before bonuses as he states but unit size is a huge detriment as the vast majority of models aren't going to be able to take advantage of those rules and you've got morale problems too. I think the original bonuses helped with that issue but that it wasn't enough, hence the boost to the hordes in general.

Well yeah. In a system where its players like to only take the undercosted units, you need those horde units to be grossly undercosted before people start to seriously consider taking them.

I keep reading about how the "vast majority of models" aren't going to benefit from those rules. I'd like some visual examples please, because my very last game was full of demon hordes where a good 15 of the 20 models in the unit were contacting and fighting. And those were on 32mm bases.

Skeletons still on older 25mm bases are going to have an easier time.

A "vast majority" to me would be 10 of 30 contacting and thats it, all the time... and thats not what I'm seeing hardly ever.

I think people argue against your math because it goes against everything anacedotally they experience from the game. But in the end your Maths is probably fine, it's just the conclusions drawn from it by you but that is because you use the same terminology ("overcosted"/"undercosted" ) as everyone else but use a completely different set of parameters. I.e. As explained before most people consider balanced to be tournament competitive (your A grade) whereas you think of middle of the pack as balanced (C grade).

I've seen so many threads that are essentially:

Person: The Mawkrusha is overcosted!
Auticus: According to my math is isn't. In fact it's undercosted.
Person: Well, your math must be wrong then because it's not winning any tournaments.

And then instead of pointing out that to the person A>= undercosted but to you C<=overcosted, and that the Mawkrusha is a B unit so from your different stances it is both overcosted and undercosted you instead just plough forward happy to keep the debate going around in circles with no one benefiting from it.

You are currently arguing with the entirety of TGA on one of these assumptions. It just baffles me that you don't overtly tell people you are arguing balance from a different central point.

As for if its better to boost C units to A or nerf the other way round, again I think it needs to be done on a Faction level rather than a unit by unit level and that is the approach GW is taking. In my opinion there is nothing but to be positive about with he changes we have seen so far. Deathlords getting point reductions, Death getting a boost with Skeletons and Zombies becoming more potent in large numbers - we also know from Heelanhammer some extreme examples of OP units or crutch units are getting nerfed. For example Kurnoth Hunters and the Hurricanum were both hinted to go up.

It could be the case that there are some changes coming that will make balance worse, but we've not seen any examples of that so far. The opposite, we've seen some really encouraging changes and I can't wait to see what's next.

Auticus, your opinions are valid. It's good to have lots of sources of information.

Just as valid as you are the thousands of other people giving opinions, many of whom are involved in the public/podcasting/tournament scene.

I believe the overall social media narrative is the best indicator of what's going on, not any one person's opinion, though everyone's opinion is valuable.

Ultimately, I think the doom and glooming is just too premature. AoS has had a constantly changing meta, and it's something I like about the game. It doesn't get stale.

Hordes might be a big thing for a few months. Then a new army with a new mechanic or unit will come out. Then GHB 2018 will drop and change the game again. And so on. Community feedback plays a major role in GW's moves these days, so I'm confident they will adapt to outcries about anything being too out of line.

It took less than a month for GW to nerf flyers after 8th edition dropped. You can't really say GW is ignore the tournament scene and the imbalances it reveals. Sure, be skeptical. Be critical, but optimism is no longer futile when it comes to GW games.

Fwiw, a unit on 25mm bases with a 2" melee range (skeletons with spears, grots with spears, etc) will get three ranks attacking if properly ranked up. I often run a 60-man unit of grots and more often than not I am getting the majority of the models attacking. It also means that my enemy needs to put 15+ wounds on the unit before the attack power starts dropping at all. That unit has slaughtered its way through even ironjawz and stormcast with little trouble. If I'm not playing against an experienced opponent I won't even bring it because it's too strong.

 auticus wrote:
Well yeah. In a system where its players like to only take the undercosted units, you need those horde units to be grossly undercosted before people start to seriously consider taking them.

I keep reading about how the "vast majority of models" aren't going to benefit from those rules. I'd like some visual examples please, because my very last game was full of demon hordes where a good 15 of the 20 models in the unit were contacting and fighting. And those were on 32mm bases.

Skeletons still on older 25mm bases are going to have an easier time.

A "vast majority" to me would be 10 of 30 contacting and thats it, all the time... and thats not what I'm seeing hardly ever.

I'm considering that most units are faster than skellies. So unless they are super clumped you can normally ensure a decent portion of the unit isn't fighting. Add in that moral plays a much larger part of in the game against large squads and it makes the points worse. MSU skellies are actually great for their points because you have to kill them all or they just come back. Horde skellies aren't good because the same damage to remove a unit of 10 skellies normally removes more than 10 regular skellies and in units of 30 drops you below your bonus threshhold. Honestly I think it's a bit of a mix of to much faith in math that leaves out intagibles, your local scene, and some "it's not how I'd do it" that causes you to have fairly extreme negativity about the state of the game.

Bravey 10 and -1 to battleshock per 10 models in the unit means that killing ten skeletons off a unit will at most remove 3 models from battleshock. On a 1-3 they wouldn't lose any at all.