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.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Or instead of trying to wake up the genie, listen to people who've made batreps for White Dwarf. I mean, I was there too

Hey Kragan, which one were you involved in? Mine was a match up against Andy Chambers, Black Templars vs. Orks after Ghazghkull ran from Aramgeddon...

I got one against matt ward. T'was fun and we got some laughs, though I may say he went a bit overboard with his list. When was it? Around 2010-2011 but I don't recall well. I know it involved his ultramarines.

In WD 241 they actually say they repeated the battle report several times to get the conclusion they wanted (Colonel Schaeffer's Last Chances winning vs a Chaos Space Marine combat patrol).

I'd quote it but it's a long paragraph explaining the 2 battles before hand where Chaos won. The first game only 1 Last Chancer remained and failed to win the mission because of a single bad dice roll. They called that an anti-climatic finish and so played the game again and again until on the third try the Last Chancers won.

 Peregrine wrote:
My point is only that "it worked in a WD battle report" is not a very convincing argument that no-points AoS can work because GW is never going to publish a battle report where no-points AoS leads to a one-sided massacre.

Then how about a blog that has 40-odd AoS battle reports which did not use points, and where none were replayed?

(see sig)

It might not work for you, Peregrine, and that is just fine. But it plainly works for others.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
In WD 241 they actually say they repeated the battle report several times to get the conclusion they wanted (Colonel Schaeffer's Last Chances winning vs a Chaos Space Marine combat patrol).

I'd quote it but it's a long paragraph explaining the 2 battles before hand where Chaos won. The first game only 1 Last Chancer remained and failed to win the mission because of a single bad dice roll. They called that an anti-climatic finish and so played the game again and again until on the third try the Last Chancers won.

And here's the thing: they said it, as in they admit it. That means it wasn't faked as they affirm it.

Also, there is a huge difference between this one game we played ended anti-climactically and we refought it because we felt it was boring, and saying they do that all the time.

MongooseMatt wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Employ a little sceptical thinking to everything.

I was there. I have actually done one of these things,

That's not evidence though is it, I don't know you, I don't know if your making it up or telling the truth so believing you mearly on your say so is illogical.

That's not a personal issue I treat everyone and everything to the same level of sceptical inspection.

I take nothing on faith.

{Quote] Mine was a match up against Andy Chambers, Black Templars vs. Orks after Ghazghkull ran from Aramgeddon...

 warhead01 wrote:
The one with the Airfield and the Dreadnought Drop pod?

That's the one!

I'm with Peregrine. I've also worked for GW and went through their sales/marketing training. We were instructed to fudge numbers, add and inch or two to movement, get the armor save wrong, etc, etc to make sure each demo game had a properly dramatic finish. I'd be absolutely shocked if modern day White Dwarf battle reports didn't have a component of this. It seems irresponsible not to fudge the battle a little to make things more appealing to a reader. Is it happening? Sometimes, sure. They've admitted it (WD 241 as posted above). Is it happening all the time? Probably not. The players they're picking are probably trying for a cinematic game, so getting one without fudging things is probably relatively easy.

Not sure what this has to do with points in Age of Sigmar though.

Also, can the casual players stop referring to optimized lists as "filth" lists? It's incredibly demeaning to competitive players. Alternately, we can start referring to casual lists as "baby" lists.

Cool!
That ant the 3rd war for Armageddon battle reports were a blast to read!
I still have those WD's some where.

 Kriswall wrote:
Also, can the casual players stop referring to optimized lists as "filth" lists? It's incredibly demeaning to competitive players. Alternately, we can start referring to casual lists as "baby" lists.

Sorry but no, it's not demeaning compettives but people who bring optimized lists on all occassions even when they aren't needed, unless you feel you fit in the second cathegory.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Also, can the casual players stop referring to optimized lists as "filth" lists? It's incredibly demeaning to competitive players. Alternately, we can start referring to casual lists as "baby" lists.

Sorry but no, it's not demeaning compettives but people who bring optimized lists on all occassions even when they aren't needed, unless you feel you fit in the second cathegory.

Understood. From now on casual lists will be referred to as "baby" lists. It's not demeaning casuals but people who bring casual lists even when they aren't appropriate.

I also want you to clearly define what is appropriate to bring for a casual list. Let's say that I'm a generally competitive player. I've been invited to a casual event. I'm told to bring a casual list. What does that mean? What specific things am I not allowed to bring. I know I can't bring what I normally bring, but it's unclear how far I need to go to handicap myself. You're putting a restriction on the army building process, but it's this nebulous "you should know what I mean" restriction. Competitive players are used to clearly defined army list restrictions/requirements. I think this is also part of the frustration. Competitive list building is generally well defined. Casual list building is generally poorly defined. Most competitive players get frustrated by this lack of definition.

"Filth" is a specific type of list, not just any competitive list. It's the same thing that was once "beardy" and "cheesy", and has always meant a list that is built ONLY to win without any care for the army background or flavor.

I admit I don't like the term "filth" because it DOES sound more insulting; I still say it should be "cheesy" which doesn't sound so rude.

Thats up to the event organizer to either screen lists in advance or put out a comp restriction.

Wayniac wrote:
"Filth" is a specific type of list, not just any competitive list. It's the same thing that was once "beardy" and "cheesy", and has always meant a list that is built ONLY to win without any care for the army background or flavor.

I admit I don't like the term "filth" because it DOES sound more insulting; I still say it should be "cheesy" which doesn't sound so rude.

So, given your definition, the "Skaven Skyrefyre" list is not remotely a "filth" list? It matches the army's fluff and is, in fact, made up of a single Clan Skyre Battalion. You can't get much more fluffy than that.

I think you need to modify your definition. You also need to choose a new word. "Filth" is insulting. You're implying that caring about army background or flavor is a virtue to be pursued. Not everyone feels that way. Just because you value fluff, doesn't mean everyone has to. Not matching army background doesn't automatically make an army somehow dirty or immoral.

 auticus wrote:
Thats up to the event organizer to either screen lists in advance or put out a comp restriction.

At which point I once again ask "why didn't GW do that already?" Yes, the WHFB and 40k army construction rules and points did leave room for some abuse, but that could've been patched if only GW hadn't closed the door on customer communications.

And on the general topic of GW "faking" their battle reports - well, duh. It's the same reason you don't read about turn 1 'caster Assassinations in No Quarter Magazine: because it's incredibly short, and not terribly exciting. Impressive (from a technical standpoint), certainly, but it's not exactly what I'd consider a good use of page space.

The GHB is a direct work of the SCGT which seemed to be ok with stormfiends being battleline for whatever god awful reason.

Remove some of the grotesque battleline entries like stormfiends... or rework their points so they aren't so nasty cheap and I think the GHB overall would be pretty good.

 auticus wrote:
The GHB is a direct work of the SCGT which seemed to be ok with stormfiends being battleline for whatever god awful reason.

Remove some of the grotesque battleline entries like stormfiends... or rework their points so they aren't so nasty cheap and I think the GHB overall would be pretty good.

To be fair I think a lot of that is because some of the little subfactions are very small, but are meant to be able to be played as their own subfaction. But yeah Stormfiend shouldn't be Battleline since they seem like an elite unit.

They are one of the most powerful units in the entire game. They are more than elite lol.

 auticus wrote:
They are one of the most powerful units in the entire game. They are more than elite lol.

So, I don't remember, but were the Stormfiends a Rare unit in WHFB, or just a Special unit?

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The GHB is a direct work of the SCGT which seemed to be ok with stormfiends being battleline for whatever god awful reason.

Remove some of the grotesque battleline entries like stormfiends... or rework their points so they aren't so nasty cheap and I think the GHB overall would be pretty good.

To be fair I think a lot of that is because some of the little subfactions are very small, but are meant to be able to be played as their own subfaction. But yeah Stormfiend shouldn't be Battleline since they seem like an elite unit.

They're only Batteline if you severely restrict your unit options and stick with Clan Skyre ONLY. The fact that they have synergies with other Skyre units/Battalions that put them exactly where they need to be exactly when they need to be there is what makes them feel so powerful. On their own, deployed on the table and slowly walking forward... they're strong, but not game breaking at all. I also wouldn't characterize 100 points per model as 'nasty cheap'. I think the real issue is that the Clan Skyre Battalion is insanely good for 200 points. I don't really hear people complain about Stormfiends outside that Battalion. Restrict the Battalion to one of each Enginecoven type max and the Skyrefyre list breaks (enough to not auto-dominate), but Clan Skyre still keeps a pretty fluffy Battalion.

Sure its fluffy but its also insanely broken. 100 points per model is nasty cheap when you consider you can put them wherever you want on the table knowing they cannot be targeted, knowing that they will always get to shoot at whatever they want first before they can be targeted, and knowing that each one is dishing out mortal wounds on top of crazy good durability.

They are an "A" unit amongst "A" units.

Either the battalion needs to be raised up a lot more in points, or the storm fiends need to be raised up a lot more in points.

Alas -> we are stuck dealing with them how they are. Per normal GW games that usually always have a handful of broken things like this.

 auticus wrote:
Sure its fluffy but its also insanely broken. 100 points per model is nasty cheap when you consider you can put them wherever you want on the table knowing they cannot be targeted, knowing that they will always get to shoot at whatever they want first before they can be targeted, and knowing that each one is dishing out mortal wounds on top of crazy good durability.

They are an "A" unit amongst "A" units.

Either the battalion needs to be raised up a lot more in points, or the storm fiends need to be raised up a lot more in points.

Alas -> we are stuck dealing with them how they are. Per normal GW games that usually always have a handful of broken things like this.

Well, at 100 points a model, you CAN'T put them wherever you want on the table. In fact, at 100 points per model, you have to roll to see if they can come out (1/3 chance they don't), you can't put them within 9" of an enemy model and their mortal wound shooting attack can't be used that turn as its range is only 8" (and you're at least 9" away from the closest enemy model), not to mention the fact that you have to give up one of their shooting attacks to be able to pop up on the field in the first place.

Now, they definitely get better when you spend 860 points on the mandatory Clan Skyre Battalion, Arch-Warlock, 2x Warlock Engineers, 2x Warp Grinder Weapons Teams and 2x Warpfire Thrower Weapons Teams that will allow your Stormfiends to deploy anywhere. Also, you'll need 3x 3-man units of Stormfiends, so your MINIMUM build size for this list is 1760 points. That means you pretty much have to play 2000+ point games. My local area solves this issue by setting all beginner tournaments at 1500 points or less.

I don't think the Stormfiends are TOO strong. I think the Clan Skyre Battalion is too strong for 200 points. It should either cost much more or cut down the number of Stormfiends/Warpfire Thrower Teams you can place anywhere.

 auticus wrote:
In response to why not use a weaker list to prove your skill:

Its about maximizing return while putting in little effort. If my primary goal is to win, then fielding a weaker list makes the odds of that happening smaller. I am farther away from my goal.

It isn't really about proving overall skill as much as it is proving high score. High score is what one is after.

Yes absolutely a person that gets high score with a "C" or "B" list is definitely more skilled than a person that gets high score with an "A+" list that takes advantage of bad points balance.

However at the end of the day, much like in professional sports, a "W" in the result column is really all that matters, and in an event winning the trophy with a "C" list is for all intents and purposes seen as the same as winning the trophy with an "A" list.

Its boiled down to just plain old winning period. You do everything you can to maximize wins which maximizes the cost of money and time you put into the event.

The game and everything else is second in priority.

Thats why you see people fold early on in games when they don't think they can win any longer. To them there's no point in continuing since the game is secondary to the end result, so to maximize return on cost, they'd rather reset a new game instead of play out what would be to them a loss.

To a competitive player, the "W" is the end result and the thing that matters most. (so long as you follow the rules, we're not talking WAAC cheating or anything like that)

This is an unfortunate attitude i'm glad I've never actually encountered anywhere in reality.

 auticus wrote:
In response to why not use a weaker list to prove your skill:

Its about maximizing return while putting in little effort. If my primary goal is to win, then fielding a weaker list makes the odds of that happening smaller. I am farther away from my goal.

It isn't really about proving overall skill as much as it is proving high score. High score is what one is after.

Yes absolutely a person that gets high score with a "C" or "B" list is definitely more skilled than a person that gets high score with an "A+" list that takes advantage of bad points balance.

However at the end of the day, much like in professional sports, a "W" in the result column is really all that matters, and in an event winning the trophy with a "C" list is for all intents and purposes seen as the same as winning the trophy with an "A" list.

Its boiled down to just plain old winning period. You do everything you can to maximize wins which maximizes the cost of money and time you put into the event.

The game and everything else is second in priority.

Thats why you see people fold early on in games when they don't think they can win any longer. To them there's no point in continuing since the game is secondary to the end result, so to maximize return on cost, they'd rather reset a new game instead of play out what would be to them a loss.

To a competitive player, the "W" is the end result and the thing that matters most. (so long as you follow the rules, we're not talking WAAC cheating or anything like that)

I think (and sorry if this is a bad analogy, I just woke up) that listbuilding can be compared to "promotion" in chess. You're not gonna pick a Rook or a Bishop when you could pick up a second Queen - unless you're in a very specific situation, picking up a new Queen is the better choice. Sure, you might pick up a Knight for its different movement style, but otherwise, 97% of the time, people will pick a Queen.

Listbuilding essentially just lets you "promote your pieces" before the match has even begun. At which point the fluffy list that refuses to pick more than one Queen because "bigamy" (while the best argument ever, and I would totally buy you a beer for it after the game) is an example of crippling yourself needlessly.

Although, this might just as well be used as an argument for why listbuilding needs to be restrictive, otherwise you end up with ridiculous lists like the hypothetical 10 Nagash's list.

Yes, but the difference is during a chess match you have to work to get those pawns promoted to queens.

In listbuilding, you get to show up to the table with a side where every piece you own save the king is a queen.

 auticus wrote:
Yes, but the difference is during a chess match you have to work to get those pawns promoted to queens.

In listbuilding, you get to show up to the table with a side where every piece you own save the king is a queen.

You're implying that the choice is between 1 King/15 Queens and the normal assortment of 16 models. In reality, the choice is usually between 1 King/3 Queens and 1 King/1 Queen/2 Bishops/2 Knights/2 Rooks/8 Pawns. The balance issue in list building is when the the extra 2 Queens more than makes up for the 14 models you're giving up. The fix is to make Queens more expensive OR to make the other models cheaper. Or maybe to hamstring the Queen so she's not as strong. Would everyone take 3 Queens if they could only move 3 squares? Probably not. GW isn't good at making these changes (FAQs/Erratas) on a regular basis. Compare to a company like FFG who updates X-Wings FAQs very frequently.

So, sure, in list building you can show up to the table with a King and all the rest Queens... you just won't have nearly as many models. For comparison, let's take a Skaven Warlord and 9 Stormfiends. That's 1000 points. Alternately, another player could take a Skaven Warlord and 150 Clanrats. Same 1000 points. That's 10 models versus 151. As Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all its own".

Now add in Battalions and the balance issue becomes worse. You now have Queens you can deploy anywhere on the chess board, or even keep to the side and wait until you see a checkmate potential to deploy them. Much like with 40k Formations, Battalions in AoS can be game breaking. Without the Clan Skyre Battalion acting as a buff, Stormfiends are good, but not an auto-take. The Battalion costs 200 points and requires at least 3x units of Stormfiends (9 models) in a 2000 point list. Add in the 6x Warfire Thrower Weapons Teams and you have 15 key models that pop out of nowhere and deal automatic wounds with no real downside or random chance of failure. Spread the 200 points around and it's like those key models are costing ~13 points extra per model. That's nothing for the benefit. The Clan Skyre Battalion is under costed for the abilities it grants. Even though I love the Skyre models and like the general idea, that Battalion needs to be nerfed or reworked.

The illustration being that if you had the ability to take as many queens as you could in chess to start the game off, you would. Thats how listbuilding is.

If queens could only move 3 squares, they wouldn't be queens as we know them.

List building is about identifying your "queens" and getting as many as you can.

In normal chess, the sides are mirrors of each other so are in perfect balance at game's beginning, with the minor advantage going to white because they move first.

Listbuilding philosophy is to have as big an advantage before the game begins and to force a one-sided match up in your favor.

Absolutely correct in that if the pieces GW employed were not so grotesquely out of balance, list building would be a bit more restrictive.

But GW games have never been really restrictive in that there have always been pieces much more powerful than their cost, and thus a bargain.

Or in the financial market analogy: stocks that are really worth $100 a share but are selling for $10 a share. You buy as many of those as you can.

Which is why I was so against the GHB coming out because they always let that stuff slip by and don't ever correct it.

It took me a couple weeks to employ a software algorithm to calculate statistic efficiency of every model (based only on their stats). This could have been examined model by model and the efficiency curve brought down to normal levels (by raising costs as needed).

I know if I can do that in less than a month, GW with their resources could have done that if they had wanted.

 Kriswall wrote:

Now add in Battalions and the balance issue becomes worse. You now have Queens you can deploy anywhere on the chess board, or even keep to the side and wait until you see a checkmate potential to deploy them. Much like with 40k Formations, Battalions in AoS can be game breaking. Without the Clan Skyre Battalion acting as a buff, Stormfiends are good, but not an auto-take. The Battalion costs 200 points and requires at least 3x units of Stormfiends (9 models) in a 2000 point list. Add in the 6x Warfire Thrower Weapons Teams and you have 15 key models that pop out of nowhere and deal automatic wounds with no real downside or random chance of failure. Spread the 200 points around and it's like those key models are costing ~13 points extra per model. That's nothing for the benefit. The Clan Skyre Battalion is under costed for the abilities it grants. Even though I love the Skyre models and like the general idea, that Battalion needs to be nerfed or reworked.

I actually think that the points cost for the battalion is about right, it's just that there is no limit to how many of each internal formation can be taken (which I believe you mentioned in an earlier post). Other than the Stormfiend formation, is there really anything gamebreaking in the Clan Skyre battalion? Not really. Limit the battalion to 0-2 of each formation and now you have to pay another 200 points to add in more (and take another Arch-warlock as a tax). That seems more balanced to me.

 auticus wrote:
The illustration being that if you had the ability to take as many queens as you could in chess to start the game off, you would. Thats how listbuilding is.

If queens could only move 3 squares, they wouldn't be queens as we know them.

List building is about identifying your "queens" and getting as many as you can.

In normal chess, the sides are mirrors of each other so are in perfect balance at game's beginning, with the minor advantage going to white because they move first.

Listbuilding philosophy is to have as big an advantage before the game begins and to force a one-sided match up in your favor.

Absolutely correct in that if the pieces GW employed were not so grotesquely out of balance, list building would be a bit more restrictive.

But GW games have never been really restrictive in that there have always been pieces much more powerful than their cost, and thus a bargain.

Or in the financial market analogy: stocks that are really worth $100 a share but are selling for $10 a share. You buy as many of those as you can.

Which is why I was so against the GHB coming out because they always let that stuff slip by and don't ever correct it.

It took me a couple weeks to employ a software algorithm to calculate statistic efficiency of every model (based only on their stats). This could have been examined model by model and the efficiency curve brought down to normal levels (by raising costs as needed).

I know if I can do that in less than a month, GW with their resources could have done that if they had wanted.

I can see being not looking forward to something like the GHB because you think GW is going to get it wrong (based on track record), but bad points provide more balance than no points. I looked forward to the GHB because I knew it was a step in the right direction. No points can be balanced using player negotiation. Bad points can also be balanced using player negotiation... but MUCH quicker because most of the work is already done. We can spend our time talking about how Stormfiends seem to strong and maybe we need some house rules. We don't need to have the same conversation about how many Clanrats are appropriate to bring. That work has already been done by GW and I haven't heard anyone complain about them being unbalanced at 10 for 60 points.

Also... "based only on their stats". AoS is a game of synergies and force multipliers. Calculating a points value only on stats creates balance in a vacuum where units don't interact. I've read your points. They might be more balanced for certain units, but you can still make game breaking lists. What really needs to happen is exhaustive play testing and rules tweaking. On paper, Stormfiends are very good, but not game breaking. They become game breaking when buffed by the Clan Skyre Battalion. Without the Battalion, I don't think anyone would be talking about them other than to say... yeah, they seem good, but it takes at least one full round of them sitting in the open in chargeable range before you can shoot with them. Any decent shooting/assault can wipe half of them out before they get to deal damage. Their Bravery is low enough that there's a decent chance killing two would cause the last to flee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Now add in Battalions and the balance issue becomes worse. You now have Queens you can deploy anywhere on the chess board, or even keep to the side and wait until you see a checkmate potential to deploy them. Much like with 40k Formations, Battalions in AoS can be game breaking. Without the Clan Skyre Battalion acting as a buff, Stormfiends are good, but not an auto-take. The Battalion costs 200 points and requires at least 3x units of Stormfiends (9 models) in a 2000 point list. Add in the 6x Warfire Thrower Weapons Teams and you have 15 key models that pop out of nowhere and deal automatic wounds with no real downside or random chance of failure. Spread the 200 points around and it's like those key models are costing ~13 points extra per model. That's nothing for the benefit. The Clan Skyre Battalion is under costed for the abilities it grants. Even though I love the Skyre models and like the general idea, that Battalion needs to be nerfed or reworked.

I actually think that the points cost for the battalion is about right, it's just that there is no limit to how many of each internal formation can be taken (which I believe you mentioned in an earlier post). Other than the Stormfiend formation, is there really anything gamebreaking in the Clan Skyre battalion? Not really. Limit the battalion to 0-2 of each formation and now you have to pay another 200 points to add in more (and take another Arch-warlock as a tax). That seems more balanced to me.

The standard Skyrefyre list is the Arch-Warlock and 2 of the Goutfyre Enginecovens. You'd need to limit the Battalion to 1 of each Enginecoven and 2+ Enginecovens total. That might fix the issue. You can't allow 2 of the same Enginecoven. Or just make the Enginecovens separate Battalions and up the cost. Most of the other Enginecovens are pretty mediocre. It's only the one that's an issue.