Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2019/04/10 01:02:12
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
Some of those numbers are outdated now tho due to new books, if you look Brayherds are still on there, but you just play BoC now, literally no reason to play Brayherds. ANd for those that are still playing its to be best in faction or painting, etc.. not to win the matches.
When looking at the bottom, you need to take into account that not everyone goes to events to win games, many go for other reasons. Gitmob and Brayherd has 1 player each, so you can discount them as they are not going to compete in winning matches, otherwise they use the new rules.
Looking at popular lower tier armies is good tho, b.c those armies are not balanced.
Look at Sylvaneth, they had 51.9% winrate, where Bonesplitterz had a 53.8%, one summons one doesnt.
When looking at the top 25% tho, its very clear summoning isnt dominating like you are claiming.
Finally armies with 1.0 will not be the same as a 2.0 for sure. When looking at summing vs non-summing, many dont even have real rules yet, the 7? elf armies, free people, Ogres, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 01:07:21
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Amishprn86 wrote:Some of those numbers are outdated now tho due to new books, if you look Brayherds are still on there, but you just play BoC now, literally no reason to play Brayherds. ANd for those that are still playing its to be best in faction or painting, etc.. not to win the matches.
When looking at the bottom, you need to take into account that not everyone goes to events to win games, many go for other reasons. Gitmob and Brayherd has 1 player each, so you can discount them as they are not going to compete in winning matches, otherwise they use the new rules.
Looking at popular lower tier armies is good tho, b.c those armies are not balanced.
Look at Sylvaneth, they had 51.9% winrate, where Bonesplitterz had a 53.8%, one summons one doesnt.
So the "those don't count" argument.
When looking at the top 25% tho, its very clear summoning isnt dominating like you are claiming.
No, that is not how statistics work. Out of the top 10, 5 are summoning armies. So 50%. But out of all armies far less than 50% of them summon, showing a large skew towards summon armies occupying the higher levels.
So with all due respect, do you have any evidence to back your claim?
Edit: And to put this out there beforehand: win % in tournaments is heavily skewed towards 50%. Because a person who loses in the first round gets put against someone else to did, while winners go against winners, and so on. But if you did want to use that as a measure, it would need to be a comparison of the average win rating of summoning armies against the average win rating of non-summoning armies. It would also make phoenix temple the strongest army in the game
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/04/10 01:34:59
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
|
|
2019/04/10 02:21:59
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Clousseau
|
Yeah were talking about the balance of the entire game. Saying that summoning is fine and not overpowered because a lot of people dont care about winning is a non sequitor.
The entire topic is about the power balance of the game and what things make a power list a power list vs lists that will get trashed, illustrating that there is a wide balancing issue and summoning can be one of those factors particularly when faced with obscene summoning ala nagash, seraphon, and fec.
That some people dont play to win or dont care about balance has nothing to do with the game being imbalanced and there needing to be some mechanics in place to help armies like slaves to darkness or kharadron. Armies that have nobe of the powergamer tools available to them and cost too much for what they do to boot.
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 02:36:25
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
NinthMusketeer wrote: Amishprn86 wrote:Some of those numbers are outdated now tho due to new books, if you look Brayherds are still on there, but you just play BoC now, literally no reason to play Brayherds. ANd for those that are still playing its to be best in faction or painting, etc.. not to win the matches.
When looking at the bottom, you need to take into account that not everyone goes to events to win games, many go for other reasons. Gitmob and Brayherd has 1 player each, so you can discount them as they are not going to compete in winning matches, otherwise they use the new rules.
Looking at popular lower tier armies is good tho, b.c those armies are not balanced.
Look at Sylvaneth, they had 51.9% winrate, where Bonesplitterz had a 53.8%, one summons one doesnt.
So the "those don't count" argument.
When looking at the top 25% tho, its very clear summoning isnt dominating like you are claiming.
No, that is not how statistics work. Out of the top 10, 5 are summoning armies. So 50%. But out of all armies far less than 50% of them summon, showing a large skew towards summon armies occupying the higher levels.
So with all due respect, do you have any evidence to back your claim?
Edit: And to put this out there beforehand: win % in tournaments is heavily skewed towards 50%. Because a person who loses in the first round gets put against someone else to did, while winners go against winners, and so on. But if you did want to use that as a measure, it would need to be a comparison of the average win rating of summoning armies against the average win rating of non-summoning armies. It would also make phoenix temple the strongest army in the game
No i didnt say they dont count, i said you need to check the outliers, and gave 2 examples, "some" outliers shouldnt be counted b.c they are rolled into new battletomes now and players still using those old rules are not playing for balance.
How about if i act like you for once? Yes do that..... If you want to discount tournament results b.c "Winners fight winners and losers fight losers" (AKA equal skilled players fighting equal skilled players so the win/lost rate is equal out), then what results are you going off of?
|
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 02:57:49
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
You have provided no data that backs up your claim, I have explained why the data you did provide backs up my claim. You are now changing things into statements I did not make to continue the argument.
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
|
|
2019/04/10 03:24:09
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
NinthMusketeer wrote:You have provided no data that backs up your claim, I have explained why the data you did provide backs up my claim. You are now changing things into statements I did not make to continue the argument.
B.c the top armies are not all summoning, that means you are wrong.
If summoning was op, then the top summoning armies vs non summoning wouldnt be so close in % win rates..... but you seem to want to ignore the best player sin the world, the ones that showed what is the best, only 1 of the top 5 are summoning, but yeah, the average player that makes mistakes in games should outweigh the players that dont make large mistakes. Automatically Appended Next Post: January 2019
CanCon 2019, Australia
1st: Blades of Khorne (Gore Pilgrims)
2nd: Grand Host of Nagash
3rd: Grand Host of Nagash
UK Masters
1st: Beasts of Chaos
February 2019
Las Vegas Open
1st: Flesh-Eater Courts
2nd: Stormcast Eternals
3rd: Stormcast Eternals
London AoS Masters
1st: Bonesplitters (Kunnin Ruk)
2nd: Mixed Order (Tempest Eye)
3rd: Gloomspite Gitz
Sheffield Slaughter, UK
1st: Beasts of Chaos
2nd: Flesh-Eater Courts (Gristlegore)
3rd: Idoneth Deepkin (Fuethan Namarti Corps)
March 2019
Age of Sigmar Grand Tournament, Heat 1, UK
1st: Idoneth Deepkin (Fuethan Namarti Corps)
2nd: Skaven
3rd: Flesh-Eater Courts (Blisterkin)
South Australia Grand Tournament, Australia
1st: Skaven (Skryre)
2nd: Flesh-Eater Courts (Blisterkin)
3rd: Mixed Order
Fall of the Old World V, UK
1st: FEC (Gristlegore)
2nd: Stormcast (Hammers of Sigmar)
3rd: Grand Host of Nagash
Thats 60/40 summing and non-summoning from the past few months, WIth a couple of them honestly with very limited summoning (Gloomspite, and then i would argue Khorne), but i still counted them as summoning, I also say some like BoC dont need summoning to be good, chariots, Spawns, Raiders, small single man units or 1 10man is what is summon mostly, and normally only 2 units a game (You are spending 180pts to summong 180pts, the benefit of this is battalions, they really are equal in points still, so i dont consider them a summoning army, without spending 180pts you only summon 1 50pt unit once a game). Looking at this, its clear Summoning is a mechanic and not an OP fact, Skaven, Sotrmcast, IDK, DoK, Mix Order, etc.. all are out doing summoning time to time. If summoning is such a problem, then why isnt it 80%+ of top players? Automatically Appended Next Post: NinthMusketeer wrote:You have provided no data that backs up your claim, I have explained why the data you did provide backs up my claim. You are now changing things into statements I did not make to continue the argument.
Im showing over and over again that summoning is not OP and is equal to non-summoning. I given you multiple data points from different sources. Its clear that on equal levels of play, summoning is a normal tool, not a problem.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/10 03:54:54
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 05:06:40
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Amishprn86 wrote: NinthMusketeer wrote:You have provided no data that backs up your claim, I have explained why the data you did provide backs up my claim. You are now changing things into statements I did not make to continue the argument.
B.c the top armies are not all summoning, that means you are wrong.
If summoning was op, then the top summoning armies vs non summoning wouldnt be so close in % win rates..... but you seem to want to ignore the best player sin the world, the ones that showed what is the best, only 1 of the top 5 are summoning, but yeah, the average player that makes mistakes in games should outweigh the players that dont make large mistakes.
No, that is not the numbers work. You are literally making things up now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote:Im showing over and over again that summoning is not OP and is equal to non-summoning. I given you multiple data points from different sources. Its clear that on equal levels of play, summoning is a normal tool, not a problem.
No. You are showing over and over again that summoning armies, on average, perform better than non-summoning armies. You have given multiple data points that prove this. It is clear that you have no evidence to back up your claim.
I honestly feel that you do not understand how the numbers work here. I know that sounds harsh, but you are very literally pointing at them and making a statement that is mathematically untrue.
EDIT: You know what, I'm not doing this again. Ignored.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/04/10 05:11:36
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
|
|
2019/04/10 07:39:46
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
Vigo. Spain.
|
The problem with summoning, I think, is that in general is a 0 skill tactic, that punishes people that don't want to buy many more models, and in most cases, an auto use (Instead of Khorne where if you want to summon you basically give out your Allegiance Hability, so is a choice)
Then we can enter in its balance, but as it his now, I don't see a difference betwen this summoning and, for example, w40k 7th's Formations. (I know the direct equivalent of Formations would be Batallions, but I believe Batallions are much better implemented than Formations or Summoning)
Both were free upgrades (In many cases free models and units) if you bought, normally, more or specific models/units, that required 0 skill to play, and offered very unfair advantages to people that had the good ones.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/10 07:40:04
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote:Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 08:06:39
Subject: Re:AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Monstrous Master Moulder
|
Yeah, that's sort of the problem in this thread as well... I'm looking at the win lists, top 10s, win percentages, masters and I'm really not seeing an eye-wateringly obvious sign that the summoning armies are out there out-performing the non-summoning ones in very obnoxious or obvious ways. Guess everybody sees different things in these stats. I mostly look at this keeping in mind what lists actually did well, and allow me to elaborate:
It's also just plain difficult to accurately assess if an army was actually one that ( ab)used summoning or not. For some, you can be pretty sure it was summoning that was a main tool: most LoN lists, with the exception of "Neferatta's double dragon court" (who actually took a full win with virtually no summoning possible in said list), seraphon rely on it heavily, seems Slaanesh can use it heavily. A royal menagerie FEC army really isn't heavy on summoning at all, it will use it for sure, but it's far from the main stick but still performs beastly (if you'll excuse the lame pun) for reasons way beyond just summoning. Some BoC lists (like the swamping in Tzaangors one) don't have an emphasis on summoning either etc... Any Sylvaneth list without Alarielle or branchwraith is not a summoning army either and that list goes on for quite a while actually.
And to muddy the waters even more: don't 40% of the current armies have some sort of summoning potential in them at this point (and most of those are recent books, making the distinction even harder): http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/List_of_Warhammer:_Age_of_Sigmar_books
If you look at that list, it's almost surprising how many can actually do summoning now and how concentrated the summoning is in the newer books. If you take the "newer books" designed with AoS2 in mind, it's actually over 50%. And I think it's fair to say all of these aren't "dogsh*t tier" armies, and quite a few of them are scattered in the top 10 regularly.
MKoN: summoning
LoN: summoning
DoK: non summoning
IDK: non summoning
SCE: non summoning
NH: non summoning
BoC: summoning
GSS: super limited, but summoning
FEC: summoning
Skaven: Super limited, and I actually forgot: Screaming bell can summon in a Vermin lord! Should we consider this a summoning army now as well?
Older battletomes (or armies that don't have an upgrade):
Seraphon: Summoning (one of the factions I previously felt had problematic summoning)
Everchosen: weird book that's usually absorbed into a summoning chaos monogod faction. Hard to make a call on this
Fyreslayers: will be updated, but doesn't look like summoning is included at all. Not performing too hot right now (mostly due to lack of tools that all newer books do have)
Skaven pestilens: obsolete book at this point.
Ironjawz: no summoning (almost laughing stock tier bad right now, but if you says that's because they lack summoning, I would laugh in your face as there's all sorts of things wrong with this army atm).
Sylvaneth: limited summoning, still holding it's own
Bonesplitterz: no summoning, still holding it's own despite it not being very popular.
BCR: no summoning, incredibly poor performance with lots of problems in their army design. In a similar boat as Ironjawz right now.
DoT: summoning, perfect example of getting nerfed from God-tier into middle tier through drastic points cost adjustments.
KO: no summoning, laughing stock tier because of changes to AoS2 shooting mostly. Fell behind in a massive way, despite doing very well in AoS1. Needs a redesign imo.
Factions without a book, but with GHB love:
Freeguild: non-summoning; actually doing surprisingly decent, but not being run a lot.
Wanderers: non-summoning; really poor allegiance abilities.
Slaanesh: summoning, doing really well these days! Summoning appears to play a major roll in this.
If you do want a TL/DR, I'm more siding towards Amishprn86 on this: summoning is a tool/game mechanic that needn't be considered broken all the time. It's an allegiance ability that can give somebody an edge (just like any allegiance ability can) and that can be abused in a few rare cases (just like some allegiance abilities are borderline abused in competitive lists).
|
The boy, I say, the boy is as sharp as a sack of wet mice... |
|
|
|
2019/04/10 09:23:00
Subject: Re:AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Angered Reaver Arena Champion
|
Top 3 from Anzac Cup in Australia.
1st: Nighthaunt
2nd: Ordo Draconis
3rd Gloomspite Gitz
Automatically Appended Next Post: MKoN: summoning
LoN: summoning
DoK: non summoning
IDK: non summoning
SCE: non summoning
NH: non summoning
BoC: summoning
GSS: super limited, but summoning
FEC: summoning
Skaven: Super limited, and I actually forgot: Screaming bell can summon in a Vermin lord! Should we consider this a summoning army now as well?
Three of the non-summoning armies here have for a time been considered top-tier armies that have consistently been winning events.
I have fought a few summoning armies(and I count the reanimating Nagash into that pile) and I admit I find it an annoying mechanic, but it hasn't been the decisive factor whether I lose or not. To be fair I haven't played against FEC so my judgment on that faction remains to be seen.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/10 09:30:50
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 12:57:35
Subject: Re:AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
[DCM]
Savage Minotaur
Baltimore, Maryland
|
Elmir wrote: If you do want a TL/DR, I'm more siding towards Amishprn86 on this: summoning is a tool/game mechanic that needn't be considered broken all the time. It's an allegiance ability that can give somebody an edge (just like any allegiance ability can) and that can be abused in a few rare cases (just like some allegiance abilities are borderline abused in competitive lists).
I tend to agree with the above, in that summoning can be broken at times, but big picture it isn’t.
And I truly feel a significant change is coming to summoning. A few episodes ago on the Facehammer podcasts, they briefly mention their problems with summoning, and just focus on the boring and tedious nature of it. That seemed like a significant admission to me, as those guys are playtesters/friends with GW dudes.
From memory, it went as follows(their statements in bold) :
- Destroying a unit just to have it come right back at the same strength is boring. What if it came back at a lesser strength?
That would make summoning scale to an extent. Isn’t Gloomspite summoning like that? You only get half of what you started with? Is that a test run for future summoning rules, perhaps?
- What if the summoning player had to summon in a completely different model/unit, instead of the same unit That was just destroyed?
Could potentially open its own can of worms, but I like that idea the most. Would immediately dispel one aspect of the “spam summoning” notion, as well as get a more diverse range of models on the table. Armies with a limited roster ( FEC) could dip into their Grand Alliance roster. Like I said, its own can of worms, but some limitations would naturally need to be placed.
I’ll have to find and relisten to the episode tonight and revisit this post to make sure I’m not misremembering. I think they talked a bit more about summoning, but it was only a few moments, and it wasn’t a focus of the episode, just a passing comment one of the hosts made while discussing army lists at a tourney.
Also, did anyone read Jervis’s commentary on balance/points costs in the previous months White Dwarf? I didn’t even know about it until a few nights ago when I was perusing for an unrelated article and made a mental bookmark to return to and read it. Some great quotes and admissions in there, at a glance.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/10 14:19:54
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 13:07:31
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
I wasn't able to get last month's WD before it sold out. I'm really curious what he said because for the longest time people have said they don't use a formula or anything, and Jervis got a lot of flack for being oldschool and thinking points weren't such a huge deal and such.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
|
|
2019/04/10 15:16:25
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Wayniac wrote:I wasn't able to get last month's WD before it sold out. I'm really curious what he said because for the longest time people have said they don't use a formula or anything, and Jervis got a lot of flack for being oldschool and thinking points weren't such a huge deal and such.
Basically, it's a compilation of tournaments results and their own tests/works at GW's studio, with the returns made yearly with army lists optimization and overall metagame balance.
And JJ still has his own point of view. This month, he has written an article about what is clearly intended as base for tournament rules (he said he's working on it for the General Handbook 2019).
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 15:58:51
Subject: Re:AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
nels1031 wrote: Elmir wrote: If you do want a TL/DR, I'm more siding towards Amishprn86 on this: summoning is a tool/game mechanic that needn't be considered broken all the time. It's an allegiance ability that can give somebody an edge (just like any allegiance ability can) and that can be abused in a few rare cases (just like some allegiance abilities are borderline abused in competitive lists).
I tend to agree with the above, in that summoning can be broken at times, but big picture it isn’t.
I think this is summoning in a nutshell, but with the added clarification that while it is not broken in most instances it is still a free advantage some armies get for showing up. And that shows; summoning armies don't dominate the tournaments but do occupy a disproportionate amount of the upper rankings. In some ways that is good (that it is not *broken* overall), but in others it is not. If something is broken one can look at it and (justifiably) say 'well I got tabled by [broken army] round 3, but that's just how that goes' whereas if it is just an advantage the situation is more muddied. Did you lose because you played the worse game? Or did your opponent's free advantage decide the matter? An overall trend can make clear if an advantage is present but in the context of a single game there's rarely a way to reach a concrete answer. That can be frustrating and breed resentment against the system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote:And I truly feel a significant change is coming to summoning. A few episodes ago on the Facehammer podcasts, they briefly mention their problems with summoning, and just focus on the boring and tedious nature of it. That seemed like a significant admission to me, as those guys are playtesters/friends with GW dudes.
I am really happy to hear that, thank you for mentioning it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elmir wrote:Skaven: Super limited, and I actually forgot: Screaming bell can summon in a Vermin lord! Should we consider this a summoning army now as well?
I think when people say "summoning army" the generally accepted meaning is an army that summons new units/re-summons old units in a manner that is intrinsic to the army. I haven't seen Gloomspite referred to as a summoning army (and do not see them as one myself) because while the units do come back they do not do so at full strength, on top of it being an ability that is very limited in its application. Several armies have battalions, warscrolls, or sub-factions that allow units to be brought back but aren't considered summoning armies because these are not part of the base mechanic; something must be done to get them and they tend to also be very limited. An example would be Skaven, where a handful of units can be brought back if slain... but it costs a command point, requires a 5-wound hero still be alive, and only works on a 5+ (potentially 4+ with the right build). While technically able to summon, the restrictions and niche nature make it unfair to call all of Skaven a summoning army. Sylvaneth are similar, with only two warscrolls and a battalion able to summon and not being strong at doing so.
Compare to armies where summoning is something every army gets as part of the allegiance, and/or is ubiquitous to how the army is used (Seraphon/ FEC can technically be run non-summoning but that does not happen in practice). Automatically Appended Next Post: Sarouan wrote:Wayniac wrote:I wasn't able to get last month's WD before it sold out. I'm really curious what he said because for the longest time people have said they don't use a formula or anything, and Jervis got a lot of flack for being oldschool and thinking points weren't such a huge deal and such.
Basically, it's a compilation of tournaments results and their own tests/works at GW's studio, with the returns made yearly with army lists optimization and overall metagame balance.
And JJ still has his own point of view. This month, he has written an article about what is clearly intended as base for tournament rules (he said he's working on it for the General Handbook 2019).
Something to keep in mind that a formula is only a good way to get an initial value for a unit. Back in the day there were fan comps that exclusively used a formula and did not augment that with any subjective evaluation or playtest experience, and they failed hard compared to the ones that did.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/04/10 16:20:04
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
|
|
2019/04/10 17:32:43
Subject: Re:AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Clousseau
|
An image that explains a lot of what i hear.
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 17:59:37
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Funny though that's from narrative players. I thought narrative players wanted balance in some ways?
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
|
|
2019/04/10 18:09:23
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Clousseau
|
I played his gibbering dome event at adepticon. The only thing narrative about it was it wasnt a matched play scenario that has a decent story. Technically that is all a narrative needs though. Balance is not a thing there
The lists present were mostly adepticon tourney style lists.
My takeaway the past year has been balance overall is the last thing most players really care about. At least in the aos fan sphere.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/10 18:32:00
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 18:28:22
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Well if a player cares a lot about balance chances are they aren't a big fan of AoS as those two things are at odds.
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
|
|
2019/04/10 18:31:08
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Clousseau
|
That is very true. Very correct.
Also id like to say the two gentlemen in the tweet are superb event organizers. I posted it because i see that balance is boring phrase quite a bit around the web in regards to aos.
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 19:22:18
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
auticus wrote:
Also id like to say the two gentlemen in the tweet are superb event organizers. I posted it because i see that balance is boring phrase quite a bit around the web in regards to aos.
It is true, though. Perfect balance is boring, because it usually involves perfect symetry. If you want to give both sides the exact same chances, you know that the less differences there are, the closer you'll get to your balance.
Why do you think all battleplans made for tournaments are always giving the same size in territory and same distance for objectives ?
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 19:34:06
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Perfect balance will never happen, nor has anyone ever asked for it. The ideal is each army has 45-55% odds against each other army, and for each option within an army to be reasonably useful. And many people (myself included) would be quite happy with much less than that.
Not once have I seen perfect balance brought up except for use as a straw man
The whole "with balance listbuilding doesn't matter" argument is silly too, because if listbuilding did not matter that would mean a player could pick units completely at random and be just as good as someone who worked things out. Which is obviously ridiculous, since even with all things balanced having the correct balanced of different battlefield roles, soft and hard synergy, body count, etc matters (more so, even). What balance does is make listbuilding harder and a not-insignificant of individuals would rather have easy choices than put proper thought into it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/10 19:39:08
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
|
|
2019/04/10 20:55:33
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
Vigo. Spain.
|
Nah, saying Perfect balance is boring because nobody is asking for the game to become chess (And yes we all know chess isn't perfectly balanced).
But thats a reductio to absurdum. People just wants better balance. Some people has different degrees of what they consider acceptable balance, of course, and thats from where most discussions come.
|
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote:Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 21:31:59
Subject: Re:AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Remove "perfect" and what I wrote still applies. Because that's the easiest way to balance things, and you know it.
If every army has a way to attack twice in a row in the combat phase, then it's a way to balance the fact all of them has this option. It doesn't make it interesting nor innovating. It's just boring, but it's done in the sake of balance.
That's what that they meant in the link to twitter, IMHO.
Diversity comes from unbalance. That's why warhammer games were never fully balanced from a lot of competitive players' point of view : because that goes against the numerous options their games were always giving us so far. And that's why narrative players are annoyed when competitive players keep whining about it, 'cause they remember what happened to AoS when they finally get points back. They know they will never be satisfied and that their quest for balance will never end. What they will do, however, is ruining the fun and destroying options for the future of their game. For the sake of balance.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/04/10 21:39:18
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 21:51:23
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
Vigo. Spain.
|
No, diversity doesn't comes from unbalance.
Diversity comes from asymetrical balance.
When two terran marines era equal to one Protoss Zealot then those both options are balanced but they aren't equal or boring. Unbalance actually hinders diversity because you have less options that are viable.
I'm actually in your camp. I prefer more funky options than super streamlined ones. Thats why I love my fantasy greenskins, with my giant rules, or the fantasy steam tank rules, and I dislike 9th age or Kings of War. Of course those are better competitive games, but for that experience I play computer RTS.
But that doesn't makes me unable to see and recognise the diference between an asimetrically balanced game, that will have unbalances, of course, theres always some grade of unbalance, weaker and more powerful units. But thats a gradient, not an absolute. Is a form of quality in your rules writting. And you can ask for better balance in your asimetrically balanced AoS without asking for it to become Kings of War.
(And to be honest, right now, AoS was streamlined, like, a LOT. In everything. Units have never been more similar in how they function in fantasy than they are right now in AoS, more samey. Statlines are much more similar, with a tons of 3+4 saves, +4 to hit and to wound, -1 rend values, 1-2 damage, etc...)
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/10 21:56:11
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote:Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 22:08:55
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Angered Reaver Arena Champion
|
NinthMusketeer wrote:Well if a player cares a lot about balance chances are they aren't a big fan of AoS as those two things are at odds.
Well, I guess me and a lot of people are unicorns in this case.
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 22:10:54
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
Vigo. Spain.
|
You can care a lot about balance, just not in your tabletop games... or not in this game.
I can be very hardcore with the things I like... but I can also relax. Like most human beings.
Those "No items, Fox Only, Final Destination" kind of guys definetely exist but in a social context they are much less of a problem ,at least speaking generally.
I know the american mentality is very much "Compete for everything all the time". I don't want to generalise of course but at least thats my impresion. In europe, from Spain to Poland, in France or UK, the ambience is just much more relaxed.
|
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote:Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 22:17:27
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Clousseau
|
I think its borderline criminal to sell models for factions that havent seen an update at all in four years now without a warning that playing that faction is not really viable.
Seeing someone drop $600/-$800 on karadron because they look awesome only to find you havent a chance in hell to successfully use them unless you are adept at social engineering to convince your opponents to not min max is wrong.
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 22:22:33
Subject: Re:AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Angered Reaver Arena Champion
|
I think its borderline criminal to sell models for factions that havent seen an update at all in four years now without a warning that playing that faction is not really viable.
Depends on how things are approached. A friend of mine collects KO only to paint and would fit nicely into the old Kirby thinking of "we are a model company first". I know my FLGS and the people who play there will actively help people if asked about the games in question. So far not a lot of people buy KO or Grey Knights unless they are doing it for fun and are aware that they are buying subpar models gamewise.
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 23:01:06
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Clousseau
|
It is a failure of a system to have factions languishing for years.
Here where i am the majority of people dont buy armies with no intent of playing. You have to watch out for those people so they dont waste their money.
This speaks nothing of internal balance. So many factions that CAN be viable must use one certain build.
You are forced to field one of a handful of builds.
|
|
|
|
2019/04/10 23:13:18
Subject: AoS Balancing Thread
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
auticus wrote:
This speaks nothing of internal balance. So many factions that CAN be viable must use one certain build.
You are forced to field one of a handful of builds.
Only with a competitive mindset. See, the trouble with your point here is that it can only be true if we all follow the same mindset. Which isn't the case, obviously (damn those pesky narrative players !).
Fortunately, GW doesn't follow you, so we're safe for now. More choice for the choice God !
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/10 23:13:34
|
|
|
|
|