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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Mokoshkana that works great in very large groups on active evenings/days when you've got a large pool of players to choose from. However most game groups are not that large, they are much smaller so the number of people free to game is also smaller.

The other aspect is attitude of the group, if the group is generally highly competitive and all share a similar mindset then you might find that its even harder because now the number of people willing to adapt their game is even smaller.



You see the same issue when you've low and high skilled players together. In big groups both sides generally find their own skill group to play with. In much smaller groups you do end up with newbs against pros and all the potential issues that can cause (esp when the two don't understand their own power/skill differences).

I get it. Again, I will reiterate because it seems to have been missed. No one is forcing anyone to have a bad time playing the game. If you know you are going to have a bad time, DO NOT PLAY. Do anything else. Don't needlessly subject yourself to stressful situations.

What we have come to is:
-Player voices concern about game balance
-Your response: don't play the game at all

In addition to being extremely toxic and contributing to deterioration of an existing game community, that mentality is anathema to a successful game.

That is neither what I said, nor what I intended. as I previously stated:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I don't think anyone has ever requested or expected perfect balance. Even chess is not perfectly balanced. Thats an unreasonable request for someone to expect perfect balance.

Seriously? They are continually getting better with every GHB/FAQ. Yet you continue to trash talk AoS, while you proudly proclaim you stopped playing the game. I know there are many facets to hobby that is GW games, but I don't think they intended for anyone to get enjoyment out of complaining ad naseum.

My statement of don't play the game is regarding INDIVIDUAL encounters. If one knows they are going to have a bad experience with a particular list or player, then do not play that game. Even if these are tournaments, they are "for fun" events, as stated by Auticus. Even if something were to be on the line, it is okay to walk away from that match. If enjoyable encounters are not available due to the local scene of players, then there are options.
1) Create and run one's own events that actually enforce people playing the narrative way
2) Find a different group of players who are like minded
3) Stop playing the game

What I have gathered from Auticus' posts from the past few months is that his local scene is toxic/abusive from his point of view. If that is truly what he thinks/feels then he needs to find a solution that works for him.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hi, narrative player here.

My narrative has one Exalted Keeper with a court of six regular Keepers (her 'Handmaidens') and I have pages and pages of fluff about them that I'm willing to share.

Would very much dislike to be told I couldn't play at a narrative event because I'm playing multiple Keepers. That's how my fluff has been since before the Slaanesh book came out (I have fluff with multiple keepers in a battle as far back as NOVA 2017).

If GW could balance their game, such a thing wouldn't be a problem. So let's not cast aspersions on players; instead, let's ask GW to balance their game.

Now, that said, I'm not wholly certain triple keepers is that unbalanced after the nerfs. Summoning has been nerfed and the attack-last ability has been slightly nerfed. So GW is making an effort.

As I've noted a few times, this was back last fall, when triple keeper of secrets was an obnoxious broken build. If you were asked not to bring an obnoxious broken build to an event that was designed to be for fun and then brought it anyway, then that would be what I am talking about.

ANY fluff can be written to justify ANY obnoxious build.

Now - yes... the part about if gw could balance their game and lets ask gw to balance their game - yes. That is my goal and my intent. Like if we could transport ourselves back to last fall, and if I brought one keeper and you brought three, and the game was in your favor but not grossly so, that would be what I'm aiming for. It would be hard for me but not worthless to try to play because we already know who is going to win, which is where I see a lot of AOS and 40k games down at the store.

Well, I guess the crucial question is "was it a narrative event?" If so, I would be very upset indeed if I was asked to leave, because I can prove I've had triple-or-more keepers in my Narrative since well before the battletome came out.

That's rather the problem, I think.

It was a narrative for fun event that very explicitly said "please do not bring competitive tournament style power lists to this event".

So what you are describing is the immovable object vs the irresistable force.

"Please don't bring tournament force"

"But my tournament powered force is narrative".

No one can win there. Because either you are angry that you can't play, or your opponent is angry because they brought a for fun list that you are wiping your butt with in turn 1 or 2 because its so grotesquely more powerful.

Which is the entire crux of my complaint levied against AOS (and 40k).

Yes, what I am describing is the problem with an unbalanced game.

That said, I think how "balance" is is subjective, because I think it should still be possible to have bad and good lists.

For example, you could take a list of all Skeleton Warriors with no necromancers or anything and call it the "Mindless Skeleton Horde." That won't be a very good list, necessarily. Nor, really, should it be. So there will always be a dichotomy between "lists that are build to utilize the synergies of their army, and lists that are not." If those synergies are fluffy (e.g. skeletons tending to hang around necromancers), that isn't even a bad thing for narrative, imo.

I think having bad lists is pretty common yes. It is the gulf between the top lists and the B lists that I am more concerned with. I don't consider B lists bad lists (in a tournament maybe sure). B lists are strong but not min max optimal.

In other games, and in past incarnations of WHFB, I could drive a B list and have good games. In AOS... thats not really possible. B list against the "busted" tier is pretty hopeless IMO.

The balance today is fairly binary. it is either you are running an optimal list or you are getting owned. Not much middle ground unless you and your opponent strive to reach that middle ground.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hi, narrative player here.

My narrative has one Exalted Keeper with a court of six regular Keepers (her 'Handmaidens') and I have pages and pages of fluff about them that I'm willing to share.

Would very much dislike to be told I couldn't play at a narrative event because I'm playing multiple Keepers. That's how my fluff has been since before the Slaanesh book came out (I have fluff with multiple keepers in a battle as far back as NOVA 2017).

If GW could balance their game, such a thing wouldn't be a problem. So let's not cast aspersions on players; instead, let's ask GW to balance their game.

Thank you for posting. Seriously, thank you. I have had to explain so many times how imbalances can cross over into narrative turf even without any player intent to exploit.

Now, that said, I'm not wholly certain triple keepers is that unbalanced after the nerfs. Summoning has been nerfed and the attack-last ability has been slightly nerfed. So GW is making an effort.

It is still pretty bad. Not quite as bad, but still massively overpowered. And yes GW is making an effort but there is a lot of frustration about how extremes so painfully obvious are repeatedly allowed to get through (I could write a long list of things that are clearly unbalanced just from the reading, let alone playtesting). Considering how thoroughly some of these things destroy gameplay experiences, I can understand the frustration of players getting hit in the face with them.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Mokoshkana that works great in very large groups on active evenings/days when you've got a large pool of players to choose from. However most game groups are not that large, they are much smaller so the number of people free to game is also smaller.

The other aspect is attitude of the group, if the group is generally highly competitive and all share a similar mindset then you might find that its even harder because now the number of people willing to adapt their game is even smaller.



You see the same issue when you've low and high skilled players together. In big groups both sides generally find their own skill group to play with. In much smaller groups you do end up with newbs against pros and all the potential issues that can cause (esp when the two don't understand their own power/skill differences).

I get it. Again, I will reiterate because it seems to have been missed. No one is forcing anyone to have a bad time playing the game. If you know you are going to have a bad time, DO NOT PLAY. Do anything else. Don't needlessly subject yourself to stressful situations.

What we have come to is:
-Player voices concern about game balance
-Your response: don't play the game at all

In addition to being extremely toxic and contributing to deterioration of an existing game community, that mentality is anathema to a successful game.

That is neither what I said, nor what I intended.

I did simplify and cut out a number of extra steps. Full version:

-Player encounters imbalanced matchup and gets crushed
-Player is setting up game beforehand and sees he is against that matchup again and requests the other player dial it back
-Other player refuses to do so
-Player does not play because it would just be a bad time
-Repeat the above four steps several times, that the player realizes that he will be forced to deal with OP nonsense
-Player voices concern about game balance (note that this player at this point has had multiple bad experiences and is likely quite frustrated)
-Your response: [the alternative to playing an imbalanced matchup in this case is] don't play the game at all.

I do not feel like the overall message is changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
The balance today is fairly binary. it is either you are running an optimal list or you are getting owned. Not much middle ground unless you and your opponent strive to reach that middle ground.

I completely disagree. I think the spread between the strongest lists and merely average ones is so large that, in my experience, a tier 1 list can completely crush a tier 2, which in turn can completely crush a tier 3. Not always, especially as tiers are loosely defined by their nature, but I have seen it happen. (Note: this is setting aside rock-paper-scissors dynamics that obviously mess things around further.) And there is a ton of army builds sitting in the midst of that rather than firmly on the best/average side.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Spoiler:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Mokoshkana that works great in very large groups on active evenings/days when you've got a large pool of players to choose from. However most game groups are not that large, they are much smaller so the number of people free to game is also smaller.

The other aspect is attitude of the group, if the group is generally highly competitive and all share a similar mindset then you might find that its even harder because now the number of people willing to adapt their game is even smaller.



You see the same issue when you've low and high skilled players together. In big groups both sides generally find their own skill group to play with. In much smaller groups you do end up with newbs against pros and all the potential issues that can cause (esp when the two don't understand their own power/skill differences).

I get it. Again, I will reiterate because it seems to have been missed. No one is forcing anyone to have a bad time playing the game. If you know you are going to have a bad time, DO NOT PLAY. Do anything else. Don't needlessly subject yourself to stressful situations.

What we have come to is:
-Player voices concern about game balance
-Your response: don't play the game at all

In addition to being extremely toxic and contributing to deterioration of an existing game community, that mentality is anathema to a successful game.

That is neither what I said, nor what I intended.

I did simplify and cut out a number of extra steps. Full version:

-Player encounters imbalanced matchup and gets crushed
-Player is setting up game beforehand and sees he is against that matchup again and requests the other player dial it back
-Other player refuses to do so
-Player does not play because it would just be a bad time
-Repeat the above four steps several times, that the player realizes that he will be forced to deal with OP nonsense
-Player voices concern about game balance (note that this player at this point has had multiple bad experiences and is likely quite frustrated)
-Your response: [the alternative to playing an imbalanced matchup in this case is] don't play the game at all.

I do not feel like the overall message is changed.

My response is that if you aren't going to have fun playing, then don't play. What is so hard to understand about that? Games are supposed to be fun, and if the game isn't fun, then don't intentionally put yourself through a frustrating experience.

I had a horrible experience with AoS last year at adepticon in the team event, and decided I'd never do that again. The possibility of playing TFG who chases the meta in a game is more than enough for me to avoid that situation altogether. My local community essentially decided the same thing on its own, and AoS all but died locally outside of predetermined games. In an effort to bring back the game and get people excited, I decided to run my own Meeting Engagement event because it does not allow for the stupidity that occurs in a traditional 2k points game. I added a few additional restrictions (i.e. the two warscroll limit is in effect at all times, meaning if two units are on the table, a third unit cannot be summoned). There were a few minor grumblings, but I didn't care. I wasn't going to let the power gamers ruin things for everyone. Guess what? 10 people showed up, many of them longtime tournament veterans of 40k/AoS/WHFB, and everyone loved the format. Is it ideal for everyone's army? No, but I am doing my part to make the game fun for people so it can grow instead of coming on these boards and bashing it ad naseum. You want to talk about something that's toxic? How about Auticus beating the dead horse for months now, and nothing is changing. Per his own admission, he hasn't played the game in months, and yet he continues to come to these forums to complain about a game that only brings him negative experiences.

 auticus wrote:

It doesn't take much skill to decide to pick up whatever one of the top power three lists are at the time and have good games with them. YOu just have to be willing to sell them and buy and paint a new army the following year if you wish to stick around. I don't see how or why that is encouraged.

That seems like a foolish approach. You'd be better off simply putting them in storage. That way? When the rules swing back to their favor? You're ready to go. After a few years of this you're set aside from maybe adding a unit/model every now & then.

You want to talk about something that's toxic? How about Auticus beating the dead horse for months now, and nothing is changing. Per his own admission, he hasn't played the game in months, and yet he continues to come to these forums to complain about a game that only brings him negative experiences.

Yeah I was pulled in by someone saying the game suddenly became successful because GW injected balance into it. For the most part I haven't touched this part of the forum in a long time. But someone saying the game started going great because GW injected balance is just so horrifyingly wrong that I feel compelled to comment. They didn't inject any balance, the balance is just as bad as it was in the 2015-2016 days of take whatever you want. They added structure. Not balance. Thats why I commented in the first place.

That seems like a foolish approach. You'd be better off simply putting them in storage. That way? When the rules swing back to their favor? You're ready to go. After a few years of this you're set aside from maybe adding a unit/model every now & then.

I have 9 GW fantasy armies now. Nine. Fully painted. Of those nine, only the slaanesh army can have good games in AOS. The other eight have not had rules swing back in their favor for many many years. Additionally a lot of them are on square bases still, which is a big no-no here despite it being ok officially (outside of matched play - which... no one around me plays outside of matched play so ... )

I have a couple that if I invested in a few of their power units (for example, my khorne army i only own one blood thirster, so if I bought two more blood thirsters I could run basically one of the few competitive khorne options there is (the triple blood thirster build) which would not be optimal but at least be pretty good games against the other guys that chase the meta. My nurgle army same thing, I'd need to buy two more great unclean ones (see the pattern here?)

My other armies will likely never see any gw action again because their rules are either gone, or they are really bad. Kings of War is the only place they may get repurposed.

Why would I sell them? Because I have nine fantasy armies. Nine armies of 5000 points or more. They occupy two whole closets, one dining room, part of my gaming room, and a full storage room of my house. Besides the nine fantasy armies I also had five 40k armies. Five for the same reason, they got nerfed by rules, and had to get a new army to be able to have good games, and the rules never swung back around to make those old armies strong again.

So I don't its foolish at all. After a while you start to have a hoarder house of plastic models because yes SOMETIMES the rules will swing back in your favor, but often they don't and you're left with pretty models that do little in the game they were meant to be played in.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Spoiler:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Mokoshkana that works great in very large groups on active evenings/days when you've got a large pool of players to choose from. However most game groups are not that large, they are much smaller so the number of people free to game is also smaller.

The other aspect is attitude of the group, if the group is generally highly competitive and all share a similar mindset then you might find that its even harder because now the number of people willing to adapt their game is even smaller.



You see the same issue when you've low and high skilled players together. In big groups both sides generally find their own skill group to play with. In much smaller groups you do end up with newbs against pros and all the potential issues that can cause (esp when the two don't understand their own power/skill differences).

I get it. Again, I will reiterate because it seems to have been missed. No one is forcing anyone to have a bad time playing the game. If you know you are going to have a bad time, DO NOT PLAY. Do anything else. Don't needlessly subject yourself to stressful situations.

What we have come to is:
-Player voices concern about game balance
-Your response: don't play the game at all

In addition to being extremely toxic and contributing to deterioration of an existing game community, that mentality is anathema to a successful game.

That is neither what I said, nor what I intended.

I did simplify and cut out a number of extra steps. Full version:

-Player encounters imbalanced matchup and gets crushed
-Player is setting up game beforehand and sees he is against that matchup again and requests the other player dial it back
-Other player refuses to do so
-Player does not play because it would just be a bad time
-Repeat the above four steps several times, that the player realizes that he will be forced to deal with OP nonsense
-Player voices concern about game balance (note that this player at this point has had multiple bad experiences and is likely quite frustrated)
-Your response: [the alternative to playing an imbalanced matchup in this case is] don't play the game at all.

I do not feel like the overall message is changed.

My response is that if you aren't going to have fun playing, then don't play. What is so hard to understand about that?

The part where you skip over people voicing their criticism about WHY.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mokoshkana wrote:
You want to talk about something that's toxic? How about Auticus beating the dead horse for months now, and nothing is changing. Per his own admission, he hasn't played the game in months, and yet he continues to come to these forums to complain about a game that only brings him negative experiences.

Then just don't respond to him. If you aren't going to enjoy the discussion, don't participate.

We were overdue for another thread to go this route, to be honest.

 auticus wrote:

I have 9 GW fantasy armies now. Nine. Fully painted. Of those nine, only the slaanesh army can have good games in AOS. The other eight have not had rules swing back in their favor for many many years. Additionally a lot of them are on square bases still, which is a big no-no here despite it being ok officially (outside of matched play - which... no one around me plays outside of matched play so ... )

I have a couple that if I invested in a few of their power units (for example, my khorne army i only own one blood thirster, so if I bought two more blood thirsters I could run basically one of the few competitive khorne options there is (the triple blood thirster build) which would not be optimal but at least be pretty good games against the other guys that chase the meta. My nurgle army same thing, I'd need to buy two more great unclean ones (see the pattern here?)

My other armies will likely never see any gw action again because their rules are either gone, or they are really bad. Kings of War is the only place they may get repurposed.

As a veteran gamer you know what the real problem in all of this is It's the people you play(ed) with. Change those out & you can have better games that don't require triple Keepers, massive re-basing projects, etc.

 auticus wrote:
Why would I sell them? Because I have nine fantasy armies. Nine armies of 5000 points or more. They occupy two whole closets, one dining room, part of my gaming room, and a full storage room of my house. Besides the nine fantasy armies I also had five 40k armies. Five for the same reason, they got nerfed by rules, and had to get a new army to be able to have good games, and the rules never swung back around to make those old armies strong again.

So I don't its foolish at all. After a while you start to have a hoarder house of plastic models because yes SOMETIMES the rules will swing back in your favor, but often they don't and you're left with pretty models that do little in the game they were meant to be played in.

Right there with you in the many many armies catagory (3k-5kpt armies of WHFB/AoS x12, 40k x11 forces min (more depending upon how you'd like to subdivide some), plenty of Flames of War, + some misc stuff taking up about 1 case each....). Mines apparently better organized/stored though.
Unlike you? I've never switched armies chasing after power. Actually switched is not the correct word, let's go with added. I'm 100% certain that I can have a good game with anything I own.

The foolishness isn't that'd you'd sell something off. It's the advocating that this is how to play the game. That there's only 1 faction/build that works & that you must switch in order to have a good game.

The foolishness isn't that'd you'd sell something off. It's the advocating that this is how to play the game. That there's only 1 faction/build that works & that you must switch in order to have a good game.

If the game and the game's results are what you care most about, and you really don't want to play one-sided stomp fests... and your community is almost 100% about netlisting and hardcore competitive games, and the gulf between the competitive netlists and the B lists that used to be able to at least hang on hard mode are now no longer even remotely viable either, whats the alternative then? Because when I was breaking out my triple keepers last year, I suddenly went from "you have to git gud" to I didn't lose. (and while I was able to play enjoyable games against the predominant powerlisters that make up my community, a lot of my games were also grossly one-sided in my favor because I was dropping 4000 points on their face over the course ofa 2000 point game and they couldn't really do anything in return)

 nels1031 wrote:
We were overdue for another thread to go this route, to be honest.

Yeah... I'll show myself out before I contribute more to it than I already have.

 auticus wrote:

The foolishness isn't that'd you'd sell something off. It's the advocating that this is how to play the game. That there's only 1 faction/build that works & that you must switch in order to have a good game.

If the game and the game's results are what you care most about, and you really don't want to play one-sided stomp fests... and your community is almost 100% about netlisting and hardcore competitive games, and the gulf between the competitive netlists and the B lists that used to be able to at least hang on hard mode are now no longer even remotely viable either, whats the alternative then? Because when I was breaking out my triple keepers last year, I suddenly went from "you have to git gud" to I didn't lose. (and while I was able to play enjoyable games against the predominant powerlisters that make up my community, a lot of my games were also grossly one-sided in my favor because I was dropping 4000 points on their face over the course ofa 2000 point game and they couldn't really do anything in return)

I think the key in there is almost 100%. So there are others who've not fallen victim to the arms race. Whose style is closer to yours. And you've talked about how people were running lesser armies/builds in your campaigns - until the comp guys came in & pissed all over things. They're still there, right? So set up games with the people you like playing with & just don't invite the others.

But even if your local scene is 100% corrupted beyond what'll make for a good game for you? Don't spread the doom & gloom nonsense that everyone everywhere else must also play in that style & constantly sell/rebuild to have fun games. Because it's not true. There ARE plenty of us out here playing all sorts of B armies/lists & lower and, wait for it..... Having fun.
My own scene for example has very little of what you detest going on in it.