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.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I'd rather the priority roll goes away instead of free summoning, i have 0 problems with the summoning. Well for ties summoning unit should count as 1/2 points at least or something.

Yeah if I had to pick one to blow up I'd definitely go for the priority roll too. That's never fun for me, at least summoning is fun when it isn't busted. I'd also go for bringing back reserve points and summons cost half.

conspiracy theory on:

GW is doing summoning that way so that everyone gets that points are pointless and people request a change back to first edition "no points" and they can remove those unwanted stuff

 kodos wrote:
conspiracy theory on:

GW is doing summoning that way so that everyone gets that points are pointless and people request a change back to first edition "no points" and they can remove those unwanted stuff

Pointception!

at least summoning is fun when it isn't busted.

There's your kicker. At what point does it stop being fun and turn into busted?

Why is having risk introduced into the game seen as a bad thing? Why would it be bad to introduce a system where the opposing player could pick an easier win condition if you were summoning double your army onto him?

Funny, if you look at the history of top armies it keeps going from Non summoning to Summon, back to non summoning then back to summoning and repeat.

If summoning was that bad only summoning armies would be at the top every, well.. thats not the chase so you thinks it OP but really it only ever have been a few times.

Why are DoK, IDK, FS, Orruks, BCR, CoS, doing anywhere from well to great when they can't summon? And why is it that Khorne that can summon only does so once out of 10 times hmm...


So can we finally stop this back and forth crap, the game has shown its not so out of balance it needs to be fix, but rather some army combos were the problem.

You're basically comparing power gamed min/max lists and saying summoning is fine because at the power gaming min/max level it fluctuates back and forth.

What about the other 90% of the game?

How does a non tournament optimized list have a good game against tournament level summoning? how does a non tournament optimized list have a good game against even moderate summoning? At what point is it unreasonable? At what point do we stop only considering the game at the power gaming level and consider the rest of the game?

 auticus wrote:
You're basically comparing power gamed min/max lists and saying summoning is fine because at the power gaming min/max level it fluctuates back and forth.

What about the other 90% of the game?

How does a non tournament optimized list have a good game against tournament level summoning? how does a non tournament optimized list have a good game against even moderate summoning? At what point is it unreasonable? At what point do we stop only considering the game at the power gaming level and consider the rest of the game?

But thats the point.... if summoning was that good and that broken you would only see summoning in events.

You know what is worst at mid tier? Always fight first double fighting super heroes/units.

I will ask the question again.

If I show up to game day, at a non tournament campaign event and I bring my slaves to darkness list, and I get paired against a triple keeper list, how is that a good game?

At what point do we have a reasonable conversation on what is too good and stop hand waiving that summoning isnt' busted at a certain level and what is that level?

What is and is not dominating Adepticon doesn't mean anything to me if I'm not talking about Adepticon or LVO or whatever grand tournament results we are comparing against. I'm talking about showing up to my local campaign night with a non tournament army at a non tournament event, and being paired against someone who is bringing triple keepers (in this scenario) which is not an uncommon scenario in my locale.

Who around thinks that is a reasonable matchup? Why is it reasonable that the game allows the triple keeper bonus 2000 point build? Because it won't always dominate Adepticon? Is that our community standard? As long as it doesn't dominate Adepticon its fair game?

Can you actually still realistically get 2000 points in summoning in a 3 Keepers list after the Nerf?

The player locally that I match up with doesn't use three keepers, and the most I've seen him summon was another unit of daemonettes or the riders after the Nerf.
And if it's just Slaanesh that still has broken summoning, that means it still needs to be adjusted right?

 auticus wrote:
I will ask the question again.

If I show up to game day, at a non tournament campaign event and I bring my slaves to darkness list, and I get paired against a triple keeper list, how is that a good game?

At what point do we have a reasonable conversation on what is too good and stop hand waiving that summoning isnt' busted at a certain level and what is that level?

What is and is not dominating Adepticon doesn't mean anything to me if I'm not talking about Adepticon or LVO or whatever grand tournament results we are comparing against. I'm talking about showing up to my local campaign night with a non tournament army at a non tournament event, and being paired against someone who is bringing triple keepers (in this scenario) which is not an uncommon scenario in my locale.

Who around thinks that is a reasonable matchup? Why is it reasonable that the game allows the triple keeper bonus 2000 point build? Because it won't always dominate Adepticon? Is that our community standard? As long as it doesn't dominate Adepticon its fair game?

You can ask the question a million times. If your FLGS is full of WAAC and TFGs then you need to find a different location to play AOS. Its picking up significantly in popularity and your whining won't stop people from playing it or enjoying it. If the game has taken such an emotional toll on you its probably time to step away from the game.

Right - so the answer remains - the game is fine - so long as you don't have to socially engineer your group and they all understand what playing nice is.

Why are you all seemingly so afraid to admit that the game is jacked up in balance?

 Carnikang wrote:
Can you actually still realistically get 2000 points in summoning in a 3 Keepers list after the Nerf?

The player locally that I match up with doesn't use three keepers, and the most I've seen him summon was another unit of daemonettes or the riders after the Nerf.
And if it's just Slaanesh that still has broken summoning, that means it still needs to be adjusted right?

Yeah, people use the Syll'Eske subfaction from White Dwarf which doubles depravity generation within 12" of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
Right - so the answer remains - the game is fine - so long as you don't have to socially engineer your group and they all understand what playing nice is.

Why are you all seemingly so afraid to admit that the game is jacked up in balance?

I don't understand their position either, but repeating the same arguments that have failed to convince them in the past isn't productive to anyone. Sometimes we all need to agree to disagree and walk away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
You can ask the question a million times. If your FLGS is full of WAAC and TFGs then you need to find a different location to play AOS. Its picking up significantly in popularity and your whining won't stop people from playing it or enjoying it. If the game has taken such an emotional toll on you its probably time to step away from the game.

And repeating this argument over and over again isn't going to help anyone either. Let's just move on to another subject.

I've got a subject idea/question.

I play OBR, done several matches trying out some different lists, and quite a few Petrifex lists. While playing them, their weaknesses are becoming clearer. 3+ Save Mortek guard are nasty, but they're slow as hell and expensive single-wound models. I've had my ass beat by Khorne Priests bloodboiling them to deal, getting shot to death, or Beastclaw Raiders first-turn charging me, tying me up for at least two turns and losing the game on objectives... Ironjawz with their out-of-order fights and just solid melee profiles have done good work too.

Basically, how are people who have actually played as or against them, feeling about the faction? Interested to get a feel for it on the forum.

How many are you using?

Cronch wrote:
So you suggest to remove the 9" no-drop bubble that is in every summon/deepstrike rule in 2.0?

Absolutely. It should be reduced to being the same 3" bubble everything else has to obey during movement. And anything that somehow enters within that range is simply removed as a casualty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
Y
How does a non tournament optimized list have a good game against tournament level summoning?

Look, if you know that's how your likely opponents play? And you still show up with something that can't compete & you agree to play anyways? Or you don't have some kind of discussion about how you'd like to play a game & reach an agreement? Then that's on you. Afterall, since it's not a tourney, you're not being forced to play a match you won't enjoy.

 auticus wrote:
how does a non tournament optimized list have a good game against even moderate summoning?

Pretty easily in my experience.
In our most recent Path to Glory campaign we had 4 forces that could summon: Seraphron, Nurgle Demons, Khorne Demons, & Tzeentch Demons. As it's PtG nobody could go crazy with the summoning (at least not how they'd built), but summon they did. So I'm going to call it moderate.
As a wizard/squig/endless spell based Gloomspite force? I gave every bit as I good as I got & enjoyed every game. Especially the last one that I played against the Khorne. I was 2 wounds shy of dropping my 3rd Bloodthirster (1 started in play, 2 were summoned via blood points). He beat me, but it wasn't because he'd put free pts on the board. No, it was because I'd made a mistake late game & wasn't in range of an objective with enough models. That loss is on me as I didn't bust out the tape measure, relied upon eyeballing it, & accidentally gave away a few pts.
Nor did I see the Nighthaunt or Skaven player having a bad time. And they are both definitely players who if they aren't enjoying a game will stop playing it.

 auticus wrote:
At what point is it unreasonable?

What's that saying about porn/indecency? It's hard to define, but I'll know it when I see it.... It's alot like that.

Path to Glory, while totally awesome, isn't matched play nor is it particularly comparable. Especially not in balance terms.

 auticus wrote:


Why are you all seemingly so afraid to admit that the game is jacked up in balance?

they aren't, you are misunderstanding their point.

no matter which game you play there will always be a best deck. Right now there are 3 armies that are bending things, and 1 that is outright busted. However that doesn't mean the fluff bunny who spent 2 years collecting X while its was bad suddenly isn't allowed to play because his fluff list can now podium tournaments. It is incumbent on the players to understand what they are getting into when playing their chosen opponent, and bring an army accordingly. If you want to bring bad STD into triple Keepers that is on you, not the game or your opponent.

By the same logic if the person wants to bring triple keeper into bad StD it is on them, not the opponent.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
By the same logic if the person wants to bring triple keeper into bad StD it is on them, not the opponent.

yes, yet auticus doesn't want to accept that who you play matters.

If you want to bring bad STD into triple Keepers that is on you, not the game or your opponent.

When you go into a casual narrative campaign thats public there is:

1) the assumption that it is casual narrative and not adepticon power levels.
2) you don't know who your opponent is going to be match to match. That is set up by the campaign.

I'm definitely not saying if you go into a game with StD knowing that triple keepers are there, and then whine the game is unbalanced that that is reasonable. But thats just it. If you are matched up against that player, you have a choice. Play a bad game or don't play.

Triple keeper of secrets build and what it does should not exist as a thing in any reasonable game.

That triple keeper of secrets build and what it does IS the game.

Many of us don't get to dictate who we play in public events, and public events shouldn't always be about triple keeper of secrets builds.

I have probably said 1000x if you have to socially engineer your group or who you are playing against to have good games, the game is not good.

cwcriner wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
By the same logic if the person wants to bring triple keeper into bad StD it is on them, not the opponent.

yes, yet auticus doesn't want to accept that who you play matters.

but it should not
if it matters who you play with, I don't need AoS as I can play whatever me and my opponent want and like

they only advantage that GW games has over other games is that a lot of people play it and you can easily find someone to play with.
yet if it matters who you play, this advantage is gone and there is no reason to play it at all

 auticus wrote:

If you want to bring bad STD into triple Keepers that is on you, not the game or your opponent.

When you go into a casual narrative campaign thats public there is:

1) the assumption that it is casual narrative and not adepticon power levels.

yeah, no. Unless its like LVO friendlies where the organizer is auditing every list for a power setting this will never happen; because sometimes a fluffy list is also super competitive. see: every Gladius ever.

2) you don't know who your opponent is going to be match to match. That is set up by the campaign.

I'm definitely not saying if you go into a game with StD knowing that triple keepers are there, and then whine the game is unbalanced that that is reasonable. But thats just it. If you are matched up against that player, you have a choice. Play a bad game or don't play.

depends on how the campaign is set up, this is why I recommend having factions not tied to grand alliance for narrative play, because then you have team and teams can work around "I don't want to play against that"

Triple keeper of secrets build and what it does should not exist as a thing in any reasonable game.

So my local fluff bunny who was running triple keeper before the Slannesh book even dropped suddenly isn't allowed to play anymore? hell no.

That triple keeper of secrets build and what it does IS the game.
Many of us don't get to dictate who we play in public events, and public events shouldn't always be about triple keeper of secrets builds.

that was three books and a FAQ ago, keep up.

I have probably said 1000x if you have to socially engineer your group or who you are playing against to have good games, the game is not good.

then go play chess, I guarantee you'll have a balanced game. Again there will always be a best deck/list/army regardless, and you'll eventually have to decide if you want play against it. If you can't accept that maybe this hobby isn't for you.

 kodos wrote:

if it matters who you play with, I don't need AoS as I can play whatever me and my opponent want and like

Then do so. Seriously if you don't want to play AoS go play something else. A game that is not fun for you is not a game, but a chore.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

You can ask the question a million times. If your FLGS is full of WAAC and TFGs then you need to find a different location to play AOS. Its picking up significantly in popularity and your whining won't stop people from playing it or enjoying it. If the game has taken such an emotional toll on you its probably time to step away from the game.

You can accidentally stumble into making a really broken list. Hell, you don't need to be a WAACer to realize how good summoning is and incorporate it into your list, you just need eyes and a working brain. What you're saying is people should do GW's job and "balance" a product themselves.

Somehow I think we need to get the general discussion thread off the balance debate all the time. Of course its important, but its got its own thread and I think the AoS Dakka fanbase needs more than every thread on AoS ending up stuck in the quagmire of circular balance discussions (esp since most of those talking have had the same argument in circles for a while - myself included).

There's so much more than endless discussion on turn priority and summoning that we can engage and enjoy and share in.

There's a whole General Discussion forum now. No need to keep it all in one thread anymore.

How bout let’s talk about this new Wrath of the Everchosen book instead. Like another new Varanguard battalion in it and mixing Daemons again.

I think everyone is sick to death of the “it’s balanced/not balanced, let’s offend each other for 60 pages”. We get it. Some people can’t be happy unless everyone around them adheres to their own personal house rules, and others accept that FotM is a thing in AoS as much as it is in card games. We’re here because we like the models, the lore, the rules, whatever. The amount of trying to convince the other camp that they’re wrong is the very definition of insanity. So yeah. I’m just gonna focus on enjoying the game. I get cool models, I get to throw dice with friends, and that’s good enough for me. I realize I don’t need “the internet” (aka some random guys I won’t ever meet) telling me that my triple Keeper list is offensive or that my Varanguard list with Archaon won’t ever win. I’m playing what I want, because I want to play it. Believe it or not, it’s happened in every edition of Warhammer. So play on or leave, the game is still there for the rest of us who are enjoying ourselves.

I think it's cool Belakor got an Allegiance all his own. Its pretty fluffy.

Time to drop rocks on him again with some Terradons... Just like the good old days.

 Carnikang wrote:
I think it's cool Belakor got an Allegiance all his own. Its pretty fluffy.

Yep. But as much as I love that model, he needs a newer, bigger and more glorious update.

I sculpted my Be’Lakor out of a modern daemon prince with a Juan Diaz prince’s sword, some Bloodcrusher chains and minimal green stuff. I’ll post it at some point soon.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Path to Glory, while totally awesome, isn't matched play nor is it particularly comparable. Especially not in balance terms.

Would it make any difference had I presented the battle as a true matched play game of 1100 pts worth of Grots vrs 1190 pts of Khorne?
Because we tally our forces up each week for fun & all of our armies are fairly comparable pts wise (we're all within about 150 pts of each other).
At full strength my grots are 1004-1100 pts (depends upon how you count the 3/5ths of the Palooza. Full cost = 240. 3 members works out to 144 pts. We count them as the lower value.)
The Khorne player hit 1190.
90 Pt difference? That looks balanced enough to me.
He has at best +190 pts on me & double my model count at the start. And then he summons more. In this case +2 Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirsters (a +640 pts value!). This after the games been going several turns & I'm down several models.

And yet we both had fun. And that summoning is NOT what gave him the game.

But the argument is that even moderate summoning of more units (+xxx pts worth! + x units! Oh NO!) results in unfun games.
So wether I call this a PtG battle or a 1100 vs 1190 matched play, shouldn't that hold true? Overall he put +50% of my army on the table as I was growing ever weaker. So Shouldn't I have lost horribly & gone home sobbing about how unfair things are?