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.

 Bottle wrote:

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.

 Bottle wrote:

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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

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.