Switch Theme:

AoS Balancing Thread  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in us
Clousseau




Only with a competitive mindset.


It only takes that one guy that brings the adepticon list to your campaign to break your campaign.

Social ostracization of players playing to the rules and having to be good at social engineering to convice others to not min max is not a desired game state.

(damn those pesky narrative players !)


I've spent the past 15 odd years doing nothing but narrative gaming. Narrative gamers aren't narrative gamers because they don't min/max. Most of the narrative gamers I've run into also build strong lists.

The adepticon narrative event is a big shining neon sign to that. It is a narrative event that had a lot of strong powerful tournament calibre lists.

So really your choice for the choice God is fine until you get a couple min max players that are going to min max, and then you get to decide to either be ok with being stomped (not a very fun game at least to me) or trying to socially engineer them to not bring a min max list (or have your group boot them).
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Galas wrote:
No, diversity doesn't comes from unbalance.

Diversity comes from asymmetrical 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. That's 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 recognize the difference between an asymmetrically balanced game, that will have unbalances, of course, theres always some grade of unbalance, weaker and more powerful units. But that's a gradient, not an absolute. Is a form of quality in your rules writing. And you can ask for better balance in your asymmetrically 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...)
Well said. I am completely on the same page.

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. 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Savage Minotaur




Baltimore, Maryland

Some quotes from Jervis’s White Dwarf article on point costs/balance:

I think it’s important to address one issue, which is that the variables in a complex game like AoS make it almost impossible to come up with a points value that will be accurate in every single game of Age of Sigmar


He mentions how terrain can ruin a shooty unit in one game, then in the next a lack of terrain can make it wreck face. They strive to get between those extremes.

These (in reference to fan made points systems) proved to be extremely helpful, as I was able to take all of the different systems, feed them into a master spreadsheet, and check them against each other


Goes on to say that house rules in certain points systems and tournament packs would skew some point costs. Ended up going with a system that closely aligned with the Pitched Battle rules he was working on. We know which one and why, if you’ve been paying attention since AoS launch.

I then took this information, and used it to construct a spreadsheet that could be used to work out the points values of new units we wanted to add to AoS


Again says he used community comp systems to compare and average out costs. Expected damage output, survivability, abilities of a unit, is all factored into cost.

Referring to summoning and armies that don’t have the option:
But they’ll often find that they have their own army special rules that benefit them in a different way. Everything’s accounted for in the points


He also mentions how most armies have restrictions on how/where/what they can summon.

Playtesting - Paraphrasing here, as its three rather large paragraphs :
Tries to get as many games as possible in, with internal and external playtesters, still working out the points value. Mentions that they try to make choices difficult, rather than include no brainer choices. Playtesting generally reveals that roughly 20% get points adjustments at this stage.


I really like that they want to make choices difficult. Makes list building and testing them a fun endeavor, in my opinion. Though it usually means I end up buying more gak.

Review and modification after rules publishing:

Army list optimization is something that comes about because- after a battle tome is published- the army is used to play thousands of games, exponentially more that we were able to playtest it with


True enough. Its a small team, even with external playtesters, inevitable that some stuff slips through the cracks.

If left unchecked, this optimization can lead to cookie-cutter armies that are very similar in their composition.


Things like army list optimization and the changing tournament meta are almost impossible to anticipate in advance


However, if left unchecked, they can wreck the balance of a game, and because of this we have a biannual review process to look at points values in AoS and make adjustments that are neccessary.


Review includes feedback sessions with external playtesters, tourney organizers and gathering of various social media info.

Mentions that Errata is published to fix truly egregious imbalances, but I don’t recall that ever happening. Correct me if I’m wrong?

The majority of points fixes are left for the GHBs.

Final paragraph is patented JJ self deprecation, another admission that its not a perfect system and a call to feel free to reach them to continue to improve AoS at AoSFAQ@gwplc.com

All in all, a great article( 4 pages long with sidebars, I got you what I felt were the juiciest quotes) and not nearly as tedious a read as I was expecting it to be. I got the impression that the team takes points value/balance very seriously and that there is a method. All in all, I think they get the majority of it correct, its just that some of the broken stuff steals the show.

Looking forward to GHB3!

Edit: its March 2019 issue, for those that want to scope it out. Lots of good AoS content in that issue, overshadowed by the 40K Assassins thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:


 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.


Their (the Facehammer guys) thoughts could mean change is afoot, but they’ve had other neat ideas that weren’t implemented, for what its worth.

I just thought it was worth a mention because it seems like some posters with a summoning hard-on(spanning like 4 threads it seems) think tourney players just love the summoning rules and don’t want anything to change.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/04/11 05:56:26


"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
 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

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.

I care, but being with AoS for a different reason

Galas wrote: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).

Some people would have a word with you that chess is boring because it is balanced

Sarouan wrote:
Diversity comes from unbalance.

No, just no.


Just some thoughts on that one:

First of all, no one is asking for perfect balance, but for equal chances. No one is intrested in a game were the list decides if you win or lose.
GW tried to solve this over time by adding some strange rules mechanics based on single dice roles to make the outcome unpredictable even with one list being clear better (and players always found a list to break that system even more)

Talking about balance and diversity can mean several things.

Diversity on faction level, unit level, model level or tactic/strategic level
people think a game has most diversity if models/units are different. While there games out there that focus on diversity on an army level so that while units are looking similar, each army playes completly different.

Chess is a good example, as different models have completly different rules, you always play a mirror match so no difference on "army/faction" level but a lot of possibilities on tactic/strategic level based on who goes first and there is no "I win" button

Kings of War is also always mentined as blanced game without diversity and I have to disagree.
It is a good example of something were the diversity is on the faction/army level so that each faction and each list playes different even if they look similar.
It is also much more focused on tactic/strategic balance so taking an all corners list (is this the right english expression?) is the way to go
For me, KoW is more diverse than Warhammer ever was but also better balanced.


If I want AoS to be more balanced, I want 2 things:
- Being able of taking an all corners list and the units I like and have at least a chance to win against everything else
- that all options a faction have are viable options (otherwise they should be removed)

A reason why I stopped playing 40k, 8th edition non-index rules and the victory conditions on events here benift extreme lists that will easy lose against an opposing anti-list but also easy win against anything else (as winning 3 games 20:0 and at least 1 point in a lost game will place you higher than winning 5 games 12:8)


So I don't see sommuning in general as a problem as long as every other list has a chance to beat it (and not just a specific anti-list)
There is also no problem if there is just one playable list for each faction as long as there are no "dead" units in the book that will never be used

And I like the quote from JJ that they don't want to have obvious choices for each faction. Looking at Stormcast and one can get the impression that JJ did not played AoS since 2.0 came out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/11 06:53:24


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in is
Angered Reaver Arena Champion





There is actually one thing that could increase balance without potentially adding too many changes to the game.

I play a skirmish game called Batman Miniature Game or BMG for short. In BMG matches/tourneys they introduce a point spread you need to win/lose. If you are within a certain point spread you can actually get a tie against your opponent so if you really want to win you need to be ahead in points to a greater degree than normal. This is something I would like to see in AoS as I find a low point spread to not be decisive enough for a win.

   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

The Jervis article is interesting but the way they act and what he says seems to sometimes be in conflict. There usually ARE cookie-cutter builds that you see at the competitive level, and only a limited number of factions ever see play in tournaments because they are the only ones that are viable, so it's maybe at best 50% of the game at tournaments and out of that 50% you're seeing at most a couple of viable builds and nothing else; entire swathes of the faction usually don't hit the table at all. There generally are only a handful of difficult choices; in most cases, it's pretty apparent within moments what is good and what is bad. They say that they are trying for balance, but put out armies that are just head and shoulders above the stuff that game before.

So that part, despite what he's saying, doesn't seem to gel with reality because we tend to see the exact opposite.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/11 14:00:12


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Yeah thats the internal balance problem that I have.

When people say the game is in a great place because the external balance is currently about 45-50% of all factions are viable externally, not only do I feel that that number is way too small... they gloss over the internal balance part where only a single build and minor permutations are largely what you see over and over again with some outliers.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Wayniac wrote:
The Jervis article is interesting but the way they act and what he says seems to sometimes be in conflict. There usually ARE cookie-cutter builds that you see at the competitive level, and only a limited number of factions ever see play in tournaments because they are the only ones that are viable, so it's maybe at best 50% of the game at tournaments and out of that 50% you're seeing at most a couple of viable builds and nothing else; entire swathes of the faction usually don't hit the table at all. There generally are only a handful of difficult choices; in most cases, it's pretty apparent within moments what is good and what is bad. They say that they are trying for balance, but put out armies that are just head and shoulders above the stuff that game before.

So that part, despite what he's saying, doesn't seem to gel with reality because we tend to see the exact opposite.
I completely agree. It takes all of 45 seconds for an experienced player to see that the Archregent is broken and why, and there are a ton of examples of that.

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. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




So latest SCGT results:

#1 DOK
#2 DOK
#3 Skaven
#4 skaven
#5 - order something
#6 demons of khorne
#7 - skaven
#8 - FEC
#9 - skaven
#10 - FEC

DOK - top 2
Skaven - 4 of the top 10
FEC - 2 of the top 10

Was told FEC wasn't broken and they are just fine because they still aren't winning tournaments.
   
Made in gb
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols






auticus wrote:
So latest SCGT results:

#1 DOK
#2 DOK
#3 Skaven
#4 skaven
#5 - order something
#6 demons of khorne
#7 - skaven
#8 - FEC
#9 - skaven
#10 - FEC

DOK - top 2
Skaven - 4 of the top 10
FEC - 2 of the top 10

Was told FEC wasn't broken and they are just fine because they still aren't winning tournaments.


Hmmm, anyone else detecting a pattern?
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Rats are supposed to be numerous, it only makes sense they would be such in tourney win brackets as well!

@Auticus, some people believe the world is flat or the average of a d6 is 3.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/29 21:16:10


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. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






And everyone told me skaven wasnt going to be in the top most the time.

   
Made in us
Clousseau




Well for me it was more "the balance is the best its EVER EVER been and everything is viable! there is very little bad balance!"

And the tourney results are still like they were 10 and even 20 years ago, with three armies the bulk of the winner's circle and a smattering of misc armies sometimes grabbing a spot.
   
Made in kr
Stalwart Space Marine






auticus wrote:
Well for me it was more "the balance is the best its EVER EVER been and everything is viable! there is very little bad balance!"

And the tourney results are still like they were 10 and even 20 years ago, with three armies the bulk of the winner's circle and a smattering of misc armies sometimes grabbing a spot.


Yet surprisingly large number of people assume AoS is well balanced, because some of the armies considered to be subpar makes it to top 20 once or twice a year.
Funny how they focus on a rare example of subpar armies making it to top places, while ignoring that rest of top lists is dominated by overpowered factions(DoK, LoN, FEC, Skaven, etc).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/01 12:49:26


 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




The same arguments were had 10-15 years ago. When demons of 7th edition (arguably the most busted work GW has ever done) were running amuk, there were still a lot of people saying balance was fine, and people just needed to learn to play.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

Yet surprisingly large number of people assume AoS is well balanced, because some of the armies considered to be subpar makes it to top 20 once or twice a year.
Funny how they focus on a rare example of subpar armies making it to top places, while ignoring that rest of top lists is dominated by overpowered factions(DoK, LoN, FEC, Skaven, etc).

It's not that people are "ignoring the rest of the top lists". It's that most people understand that an army with a Battletome will be better able to compete than one without any Allegiance abilities or anything of that nature.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Kanluwen wrote:
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

Yet surprisingly large number of people assume AoS is well balanced, because some of the armies considered to be subpar makes it to top 20 once or twice a year.
Funny how they focus on a rare example of subpar armies making it to top places, while ignoring that rest of top lists is dominated by overpowered factions(DoK, LoN, FEC, Skaven, etc).

It's not that people are "ignoring the rest of the top lists". It's that most people understand that an army with a Battletome will be better able to compete than one without any Allegiance abilities or anything of that nature.
This argument has been around too. It used to be "armies without their own allegiance abilities" then "armies without their own allegiance abilities in a battletome" now it is turning into "armies without a 2.0 battletome." It is different shades of "power creep is a thing, so lack of balance is OK."

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/01 18:40:17


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. 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's not that people are "ignoring the rest of the top lists". It's that most people understand that an army with a Battletome will be better able to compete than one without any Allegiance abilities or anything of that nature.


This argument was a thing during the time GW said "we don't make mistakes so we don't need FAQ or Errata" but now GW claims that they care and will adjust balance with the GHB if by mistake one army was stronger than another.
So with GHB18 this should not be a problem as there was the chance to get all armies on the same level for 2.0 and not only those that will get something new during that edition.

And now I doubt GHB19 will address that problem unless it takes another 4 months till release (as the book need to be done ~6 months before its release, everything released after is either already made with the changes of GHS19 in mind or will be broken until GHS20 is out).


I would say GW should stop caring about point costs in printed media (still release those with the GHB) but let the community combs come backe and let them adjust points and rules more often than once per year to help the game

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in is
Angered Reaver Arena Champion





I think ultimately, if everyone wants to get their cake and eat it too, AoS(and 40k) needs to go into Index/Alliance releases. No fluff, no decoration, just pure stats and abilities in several indices covering existing armies as a whole. Because it is quite obvious a staggered release can never really do what everyone wants. Release schedule would be slower, but more complete.

Then they can release fluff books on their own for those who want it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/01 18:23:53


 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




I think they know if they went that route they'd be losing a shed load of money because a ton of people would never buy fluff books, and only ultimately care about the rules when they buy the army books.

But yes staggered release is the primary culprit of why GW games are always this way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is different shades of "power creep is a thing, so lack of balance is OK."


I had this *very* discussion on saturday when talking about AOS campaign. That was the exact thing said... "the game will never be balanced and there will always be armies that dominate other armies, and thats fine, just buy those armies or be ok with losing, lack of balance is not anything anyone really cares about."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/01 18:39:36


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Balance can be done with staggered releases. Look at Gloomspite, BoC, Khorne, Bonesplittaz, etc. Similarly, index releases can be horribly unbalanced, and have been. The reality is that some combination of apathy and incompetence will always hamper the balance of warhammer; changing the means of release will not address that.

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. 
   
Made in is
Angered Reaver Arena Champion





The problem with staggered release is that when they get a new idea to shape the game older books will be inevitably left behind. This is why releasing index/alliance book makes more sense as they can try to keep game mechanics parity between factions. Then, with faction parity, they can use the GHB to balance the points further.

I mean, I know well that it will never happen, but it seems the most prudent method. Especially considering that the version people claim to have balanced the most is the one where most factions had mechanic parity and were released wholesale in Alliance books/free release.

changing the means of release will not address that.


It does if they want to keep the game progressive and evolving. Staggered release where everything is kept to a 4 year old version is a game that does not evolve or progress and will be inherently dead in the water or only appeal to a increasingly niche market.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/01 20:07:18


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






My point being any change they make to how they release things will not improve balance so long as the lack of ability remains. They are not able to evaluate things even within a given paradigm; Gloomspite, perhaps the most balanced tome ever, was followed immediately by two of the worst. Any imbalances resulting from staggered releases pale in comparison to those resulting from their apathy and/or incompetence.

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. 
   
Made in gb
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols






Imagine a world were GW uses an index system (for both AoS and 40k) and said index system is an online subscription service. All rules and points adjusted instantly and together. Could be the future.


   
Made in us
Clousseau




That will never happen because they lose the revenue of books holding the rules that people are forced to buy. Unless that point / index system was subscription based. Say $10 a month subscription based.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Imagine a world were GW uses an index system (for both AoS and 40k) and said index system is an online subscription service. All rules and points adjusted instantly and together. Could be the future.

Pass.

Biggest reason I don't play my Wanderers outside of my home is that I don't want to be running around with my tablet/phone.
   
Made in us
Pious Palatine




 kodos wrote:
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.

I care, but being with AoS for a different reason

Galas wrote: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).

Some people would have a word with you that chess is boring because it is balanced

Sarouan wrote:
Diversity comes from unbalance.

No, just no.


Just some thoughts on that one:

First of all, no one is asking for perfect balance, but for equal chances. No one is intrested in a game were the list decides if you win or lose.
GW tried to solve this over time by adding some strange rules mechanics based on single dice roles to make the outcome unpredictable even with one list being clear better (and players always found a list to break that system even more)

Talking about balance and diversity can mean several things.

Diversity on faction level, unit level, model level or tactic/strategic level
people think a game has most diversity if models/units are different. While there games out there that focus on diversity on an army level so that while units are looking similar, each army playes completly different.

Chess is a good example, as different models have completly different rules, you always play a mirror match so no difference on "army/faction" level but a lot of possibilities on tactic/strategic level based on who goes first and there is no "I win" button

Kings of War is also always mentined as blanced game without diversity and I have to disagree.
It is a good example of something were the diversity is on the faction/army level so that each faction and each list playes different even if they look similar.
It is also much more focused on tactic/strategic balance so taking an all corners list (is this the right english expression?) is the way to go
For me, KoW is more diverse than Warhammer ever was but also better balanced.


If I want AoS to be more balanced, I want 2 things:
- Being able of taking an all corners list and the units I like and have at least a chance to win against everything else
- that all options a faction have are viable options (otherwise they should be removed)

A reason why I stopped playing 40k, 8th edition non-index rules and the victory conditions on events here benift extreme lists that will easy lose against an opposing anti-list but also easy win against anything else (as winning 3 games 20:0 and at least 1 point in a lost game will place you higher than winning 5 games 12:8)


So I don't see sommuning in general as a problem as long as every other list has a chance to beat it (and not just a specific anti-list)
There is also no problem if there is just one playable list for each faction as long as there are no "dead" units in the book that will never be used

And I like the quote from JJ that they don't want to have obvious choices for each faction. Looking at Stormcast and one can get the impression that JJ did not played AoS since 2.0 came out.


If you could take a list of whatever random nonsense you plopped down and have a reasonable chance of victory against someone who actually carefully constructed their strategy...ew. Just ew. At that point I would just use Pogs as markers and save some cash, since it doesn't matter what you brought anyway.

Balance should be better, but you should never be able to beat a carefully constructed army by throwing darts at a GW catalogue. Personally, I'd be happy if what was powerful shifted around more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
auticus wrote:
Well for me it was more "the balance is the best its EVER EVER been and everything is viable! there is very little bad balance!"

And the tourney results are still like they were 10 and even 20 years ago, with three armies the bulk of the winner's circle and a smattering of misc armies sometimes grabbing a spot.


Yet surprisingly large number of people assume AoS is well balanced, because some of the armies considered to be subpar makes it to top 20 once or twice a year.
Funny how they focus on a rare example of subpar armies making it to top places, while ignoring that rest of top lists is dominated by overpowered factions(DoK, LoN, FEC, Skaven, etc).


Most of the people who assume AOS is well balanced are narrative/casual players who have never gotten their face smashed in by a good DoK, or LoN, or 1.0 DoT army. The vast majority of people who play competitively know that it's pretty busted, they just don't bother with the stuff that isn't busted.

I've had people on TGA try to tell me that Kharadron are actually fine or that Tempestors are actually a really great unit they've had a lot of success with. Maybe when you're playing against your 9 year old cousing and his dispossessed army, but playing against adults with real armies, they suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The Jervis article is interesting but the way they act and what he says seems to sometimes be in conflict. There usually ARE cookie-cutter builds that you see at the competitive level, and only a limited number of factions ever see play in tournaments because they are the only ones that are viable, so it's maybe at best 50% of the game at tournaments and out of that 50% you're seeing at most a couple of viable builds and nothing else; entire swathes of the faction usually don't hit the table at all. There generally are only a handful of difficult choices; in most cases, it's pretty apparent within moments what is good and what is bad. They say that they are trying for balance, but put out armies that are just head and shoulders above the stuff that game before.

So that part, despite what he's saying, doesn't seem to gel with reality because we tend to see the exact opposite.
I completely agree. It takes all of 45 seconds for an experienced player to see that the Archregent is broken and why, and there are a ton of examples of that.


I'd like to point out though, that said experienced player's solution to fixing the archregent(especially on dakka) is usually pants on head moronic.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/02 03:07:13



 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






ERJAK wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The Jervis article is interesting but the way they act and what he says seems to sometimes be in conflict. There usually ARE cookie-cutter builds that you see at the competitive level, and only a limited number of factions ever see play in tournaments because they are the only ones that are viable, so it's maybe at best 50% of the game at tournaments and out of that 50% you're seeing at most a couple of viable builds and nothing else; entire swathes of the faction usually don't hit the table at all. There generally are only a handful of difficult choices; in most cases, it's pretty apparent within moments what is good and what is bad. They say that they are trying for balance, but put out armies that are just head and shoulders above the stuff that game before.

So that part, despite what he's saying, doesn't seem to gel with reality because we tend to see the exact opposite.
I completely agree. It takes all of 45 seconds for an experienced player to see that the Archregent is broken and why, and there are a ton of examples of that.


I'd like to point out though, that said experienced player's solution to fixing the archregent(especially on dakka) is usually pants on head moronic.
I'd say that people toss out suggestions for how it could be better balanced at the given cost but only because the assumed default is that overpowered unit X should simply cost more points, which is an entirely reasonable solution.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/02 03:34:58


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. 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

ERJAK wrote:

If you could take a list of whatever random nonsense you plopped down and have a reasonable chance of victory against someone who actually carefully constructed their strategy...ew. Just ew. At that point I would just use Pogs as markers and save some cash, since it doesn't matter what you brought anyway.

Balance should be better, but you should never be able to beat a carefully constructed army by throwing darts at a GW catalogue. Personally, I'd be happy if what was powerful shifted around more.


We are not talking about a random selection of units being more powerful than a specific selection
And if just taking a random selection and one broken unit/spell/model is enough to win games, there is a problem

Thing is, a well constructed generic list should be able to win against a WAAC net-list or something that is spamming one unit

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




At the very least, if I can play kings of war, warlords of erehwon, and saga with a wide variety of list builds in each faction that don't get steam rolled, I'd expect AOS to be able to do the same.

And none of those games let you throw random units onto the table either and do well. But if I want to do a heavy infantry list, there's a way to do it, if I want to do a cavalry list, there's a way to do it, if I want to do a combined arms force, there's a way to do it.

In AOS its simply find the undercosted couple of items in your army book and then spam then infinitum. I haven't seen much thought go into most of the powerhouse AOS lists. There are a few that don't rely on the spam of the obvious put together by someone who is actually pretty good, but most of the lists are very elementary in their design and are spamming the most broken (undercosted for what they do) elements in their book.

Its true though that a lot of people that don't play against the powergamers will say the balance is fine. In my neck of the woods the powergamers are at least honest and will tell you that the game is busted and not try to pee on your leg and tell you that its raining (well most of them. There is one or two that will tell you you just need to l2p). There are a great number of people on the forums though that try to sell that their busted army is not really busted and its just you that needs to learn how to play and that the balance is just fine as well.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/02 11:51:19


 
   
 
Forum Index » Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
Go to: