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.

Thats great, but matched play is the default standard that 99% of the community follows whether or not they are playing in a tournament, casual pick up game, or campaigns. As such, the imbalances that are caused by tournament dude throwing a dart at a board and then fixing it a year later hurts those of us not playing in tournament environments much more because tournament dude and people that follow tournament dude are also more likely to be bringing A+ lists where that level of disparity is not nearly as bad as TFG that follows tournament dude showing up to casual campaign night with his Warlords or LVO list "because its legal" against campaign lists that are Bs and Cs.

And I disagree with tournament players having a high level of experience that can't be reflected in a formula. After all, the game revolves around mathematics. Second, those of us that have been involved are also or have had extensive tournament backgrounds as well. I traveled to and participated in multiple grand tournaments a year for about ten years. I'm not blind or ignorant to tournament play.

Once a year updates on some of these really bad items like the formations is not nearly good enough. Quite simply it drives a lot of people away and into the folds of other systems unless they are willing to also break the game too.

'Member a year ago when it was the tournament folk getting upset because the narrative folk had a system and the tournament folk had to pound the square peg into the round hole? (the member berries remember, remember the At At? Oh I member...)

Yeah much like our political systems, here we are in the same situation with the parties reversed.

There has to be a better way.

(and also I know tournament dude also used a math formula, a lot of the point values were similar to the other comp systems. However the pointing of the formations and batallions and other abstract items is ... IMO... very bad and is my main complaint with the GHB's "balance")

www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx shows you exactly the overall math-based scores offensively and defensively of every model in the game, and where they stand.

I can see you guys are having a spectacle over this. I just have one question: Why are bloodreavers with meatripper axes rated so low on offense? They throw out a bunch of attacks at 200 points with 30 models. And they are assumed to have 3 attacks each on average, going as low as 2 on occation, while easy accessable buffs take them to 4+ attacks.

Their defense rating I get with an armour of - (and low bravery).

Because they are rated without buffs and just on their own merits and when you calculate just how much damage they do, their score reflects exactly how many wounds they'd do on average against every possible armor save you can find.

The scores you are looking at are the model's base raw ability.

@Auticus Ill ask this again then: IF I understand the math correctly even at 900 points Nagash has a score of 60ish is he then 60% undercosted and should cost 1,440 points to be perfectly balanced? Does this include the GHB rule of one?? So with this data are you advocating that everything should get a points increase in relation the % to their overall score? Since the GUO has an overall score of 25ish overall score does that mean it is 25% undercosted? Should a Herald of Nurgle (which almost everyone agrees is overpriced) that has an overall rating of 7ish points be increased in cost by 7% and make it around 110pts?

If everything is undercosted as it is that data then is the data even useful anymore?

 auticus wrote:
Thats great, but matched play is the default standard that 99% of the community follows whether or not they are playing in a tournament, casual pick up game, or campaigns. As such, the imbalances that are caused by tournament dude throwing a dart at a board and then fixing it a year later hurts those of us not playing in tournament environments much more because tournament dude and people that follow tournament dude are also more likely to be bringing A+ lists where that level of disparity is not nearly as bad as TFG that follows tournament dude showing up to casual campaign night with his Warlords or LVO list "because its legal" against campaign lists that are Bs and Cs.

And I disagree with tournament players having a high level of experience that can't be reflected in a formula. After all, the game revolves around mathematics. Second, those of us that have been involved are also or have had extensive tournament backgrounds as well. I traveled to and participated in multiple grand tournaments a year for about ten years. I'm not blind or ignorant to tournament play.

Once a year updates on some of these really bad items like the formations is not nearly good enough. Quite simply it drives a lot of people away and into the folds of other systems unless they are willing to also break the game too.

'Member a year ago when it was the tournament folk getting upset because the narrative folk had a system and the tournament folk had to pound the square peg into the round hole? (the member berries remember, remember the At At? Oh I member...)

Yeah much like our political systems, here we are in the same situation with the parties reversed.

There has to be a better way.

(and also I know tournament dude also used a math formula, a lot of the point values were similar to the other comp systems. However the pointing of the formations and batallions and other abstract items is ... IMO... very bad and is my main complaint with the GHB's "balance")

Wow, you're being pretty snarky and condesending today Auticus. Lighten up, it's Christmas.

As an example of what I mean, how do you reflect Monster Heros being better in Three Places of Power than in Border War as a mathematical number? How do you add in the possibility of Kurnoth Hunters with bows being able to stand next to Damned Terrain? And does your or any formula account for this?

For the original SCGT comp you can listen to the Heelenhammer podcast where they invite Russ and talk about pointing the units. They used a baseline method similar to what Broxus suggested and then tweaked it on instinct in the pursuit of creating a usable system (which they did extremely well in my opinion). Since then they've learned more about the game (for example if you listen to the Facehammer Podcast on the GHB Russ talks about how although SCGT allowed discounted summoning, after playing with those rules for a few months he had since decided the GHB approach to full costings was something he now agreed with from experience and would have incorporated it into SCGT 2.0 if there was one.)

If the yearly updates aren't good enough for you, then what do you suggest instead? For me it's good enough.

 auticus wrote:
Because they are rated without buffs and just on their own merits and when you calculate just how much damage they do, their score reflects exactly how many wounds they'd do on average against every possible armor save you can find.

The scores you are looking at are the model's base raw ability.

Then I can't use the model for much, besides amusement, as I collect a faction with a great many synergies.

The skullcrusher surprise me, didn't think it was far above the rest. The StD warriors compared to the KBB warriors confuse me. I don't see where the great change in damage and rating stems from.

Anyways I hope you will calculate the slaughterbrute soon, love it's concept.

@Waaargh yea lets be honest Skullcrushers are terrible for their points. I couldn't see why they would be worth a 40pts (25%) increase per the data.

So is damage determining how many to wound dice you roll now rather than determining how many wounds are taken after the wound dice are rolled now?

I'm personally scratching my head on the goblins versus flyers impossibility to harm each other. That seems like a goofy ruling.

 privateer4hire wrote:
I'm personally scratching my head on the goblins versus flyers impossibility to harm each other. That seems like a goofy ruling.

I guess it is just in line with the "measure from model to model" - it's how I've been playing. It might be goofy to you, but it also gives some meaning to certain special rules (my terradon riders for example). Players are, ofcourse, encouraged to play the way they see as the most sensible.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
I'm personally scratching my head on the goblins versus flyers impossibility to harm each other. That seems like a goofy ruling.

I guess it is just in line with the "measure from model to model" - it's how I've been playing. It might be goofy to you, but it also gives some meaning to certain special rules (my terradon riders for example). Players are, ofcourse, encouraged to play the way they see as the most sensible.

You make an excellent point! It's goofy to me because I would have never thought of it (models not being able to interact unless it was a special power/scenario phantom-type thing) as even being an option.

Dai wrote:
So is damage determining how many to wound dice you roll now rather than determining how many wounds are taken after the wound dice are rolled now?

It's worked out the same way it always has been, so if you have multiple damage doing weapons you roll the save once for the attack and then apply the amount of damage indicated. If weapons do variable damage (for example D3) you roll a dice to determine damage for each successfull attack that makes it past the save throw.

And then any abilities that offer an additional save against "wounds inflicted" or "damage taken" are rolled for per damage, rather than per attack.

For example a cannon shoots twice into a unit of Fyreslayers and both shots hit and wound. The Fyreslayers make two saving throws and fail both. Each cannon ball does D6 damage so 2D6 is rolled (say, scoring 7). The Fyreslayers then make 7 ability saves against the wounds inflicted.

 Bottle wrote:

Dai wrote:
So is damage determining how many to wound dice you roll now rather than determining how many wounds are taken after the wound dice are rolled now?

It's worked out the same way it always has been, so if you have multiple damage doing weapons you roll the save once for the attack and then apply the amount of damage indicated. If weapons do variable damage (for example D3) you roll a dice to determine damage for each successfull attack that makes it past the save throw.

And then any abilities that offer an additional save against "wounds inflicted" or "damage taken" are rolled for per damage, rather than per attack.

For example a cannon shoots twice into a unit of Fyreslayers and both shots hit and wound. The Fyreslayers make two saving throws and fail both. Each cannon ball does D6 damage so 2D6 is rolled (say, scoring 7). The Fyreslayers then make 7 ability saves against the wounds inflicted.

Cheers bottle, nicely explained! Yeah it's how I always played it but one of the new FAQ questions threw me off, probably misread it!

 auticus wrote:
Because they are rated without buffs and just on their own merits and when you calculate just how much damage they do, their score reflects exactly how many wounds they'd do on average against every possible armor save you can find.

The scores you are looking at are the model's base raw ability.

And here is where Mathhammer starts to fall apart. It exists in a vacuum. One that never exists in a real scenario. Indeed, Bloodreavers are weak when looking at just their raw stats, but you are never going to see just Bloodreavers on their own in the middle of an open field. You'll usually see them with at least a Bloodsecrator, so usually +2 attacks, and often in a Goreblade Warband for another potential +1, plus support from an Aspiring Deathbringer bringing them to a total of 5 attacks potentially, and if the player is smart and able, they'll have the unit standing in cover to give them a 6+ save. So how many points would that unit be worth? Suddenly those wimpy little Bloodreavers are making that Vampire Lord on Vampire Dragon very nervous.

@EnTyme remember that bloodreavers have a save of '-' meaning they can never have a save even if in cover.

I just like the fact that GW specified how much "a few" netters are for Moonclan Grots. it's 3 for every 20. No more fighting against a unit that's almost all netters! (my friend will be sad)

broxus wrote:
@EnTyme remember that bloodreavers have a save of '-' meaning they can never have a save even if in cover.

Doesn't a +1 cover to a - become a 6+? Is that just in 40k? Either way, my point remains the same. Calculating points for Khorne Bloodbound without accounting for synergies is like calculating points for Brayherds without factoring in the ability to run and charge if the unit has a banner. You're omitting one of the key characteristics of the faction.

 EnTyme wrote:

broxus wrote:
@EnTyme remember that bloodreavers have a save of '-' meaning they can never have a save even if in cover.

Doesn't a +1 cover to a - become a 6+? Is that just in 40k? Either way, my point remains the same. Calculating points for Khorne Bloodbound without accounting for synergies is like calculating points for Brayherds without factoring in the ability to run and charge if the unit has a banner. You're omitting one of the key characteristics of the faction.

Agreed with this, in 40k you could do it because synergies in AoS are pretty much more vital then 40k, where you will generally stack buffs.

 EnTyme wrote:

broxus wrote:
@EnTyme remember that bloodreavers have a save of '-' meaning they can never have a save even if in cover.

Doesn't a +1 cover to a - become a 6+? Is that just in 40k? Either way, my point remains the same. Calculating points for Khorne Bloodbound without accounting for synergies is like calculating points for Brayherds without factoring in the ability to run and charge if the unit has a banner. You're omitting one of the key characteristics of the faction.

Nope the rules for any battletome specifically address that you can't improve a - save in any way. So even if you put mystic shield and stand in cover you get no save.

In regards to the synergy I tend to agree you must account for it. However, the bigger question is which unit should pay the extra points for synergy? Should the unit that receives the bonuses or the unit that gives the bonuses? I tend to think it is the unit that gives the bonuses that should pay the extra points. This allows you to try different list combinations that otherwise would never work. For example, I think the synergy cost should be added to the Bloodsecrator which IMHO should be around 140pts.

It is important to note that It is very hard to price synergy into units since it is always situational. What happens when turn 1 a cannon kills the bloodsecrator and your army loses all bonuses? I don't disagree that synergy should be priced into certain units, but it is a very difficult process.

On a side note I do love bloodreavers with meatripper axes!!

 EnTyme wrote:

broxus wrote:
@EnTyme remember that bloodreavers have a save of '-' meaning they can never have a save even if in cover.

Doesn't a +1 cover to a - become a 6+? Is that just in 40k?

Cover (and other modifiers) change your dice roll results as opposed to changing character stat lines like in 40k. Cover, specifically, gives a +1 to a unit's save roll but units with a save of "-" do not get a roll at all. So don't waste your Shield spell on them either. This is also mentioned in the main rules.

BomBomHotdog wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

broxus wrote:
@EnTyme remember that bloodreavers have a save of '-' meaning they can never have a save even if in cover.

Doesn't a +1 cover to a - become a 6+? Is that just in 40k?

Cover (and other modifiers) change your dice roll results as opposed to changing character stat lines like in 40k. Cover, specifically, gives a +1 to a unit's save roll but units with a save of "-" do not get a roll at all. So don't waste your Shield spell on them either. This is also mentioned in the main rules.

Okay. That makes sense. So it's more about how cover works in AoS. In 40k, cover grants a Cover Save (generally 5+), but in AoS it give a +1 to the save roll. I'll have to point this out to my gaming group. We've been doing cover all wrong!

Dai wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

Dai wrote:
So is damage determining how many to wound dice you roll now rather than determining how many wounds are taken after the wound dice are rolled now?

It's worked out the same way it always has been, so if you have multiple damage doing weapons you roll the save once for the attack and then apply the amount of damage indicated. If weapons do variable damage (for example D3) you roll a dice to determine damage for each successfull attack that makes it past the save throw.

And then any abilities that offer an additional save against "wounds inflicted" or "damage taken" are rolled for per damage, rather than per attack.

For example a cannon shoots twice into a unit of Fyreslayers and both shots hit and wound. The Fyreslayers make two saving throws and fail both. Each cannon ball does D6 damage so 2D6 is rolled (say, scoring 7). The Fyreslayers then make 7 ability saves against the wounds inflicted.

Cheers bottle, nicely explained! Yeah it's how I always played it but one of the new FAQ questions threw me off, probably misread it!

The funny thing is when they released the FAQ at first, they completely changed how the damage was calculated for a unit - so you would only roll one dice for variables for the entire unit and times it by the attack. For example with those cannons above it would be D6 x 2 rather than 2D6. Doesn't seem too much different on the cannon, but imagine a big unit of Kurnoth Hunters with bows, a roll of a 5 or a 6 and you would do max damage for the entire unit! Even crazier would be Kairos Fateweaver changing the damage roll to make sure a big unit of Stormfiends got mad damage when needed.

Luckily they changed it back within about 30mins :-)

CoreCommander wrote:Players are, ofcourse, encouraged to play the way they see as the most sensible.

Dare I say it?

So I was getting too wound up and took a break to cool off... I came back to Bottle of all people making the argument that behemoths are OK because something else is more broken than they are, citing tournaments where 3/5 top lists were monster mash. Then a huge discussion where Broxus, who has posted extremely simplified math to prove his point, criticizing the details of Auticus' incredibly thorough math. And Auticus is actually letting his annoyance affect his responses.

I'm going to turn around and head right back out of this discussion because this level of insanity can only be Tzeentch trying to warp my mind

And it's already difficult to resist the urge of starting a Tzeentch army.

Don't let this thread spoil Christmas for you Ninth :-p

One thing I learned from doing the Azyr project is that real balance is not something that is really sought after. You can see that in the AOS facebook page where a LOT of people lament not getting free points for summoning, claiming undead or demons are weak and uncompetitive without being able to have free points. Or in 40k where if you don't get free wargear or whatever that things aren't "worth taking".

The community is so used to underpriced over powered models that if you remove that, there is a disconnect and things are now "broken".

Things aren't worth taking if they aren't underpriced.

I'm doing more Armada and Blood Bowl. In Blood Bowl the players at least acknowledge that unbalance exists as do the designers who explain on the facebook why they want some teams to be overpowered (which is a design ethos GW has followed since I started going to games days 20 years ago when they do public interviews). The new Armada campaign is actually also a ton of fun.

I prefer that over the preference of arbitrary numbers being tossed around and then "tweaked" on an annual basis where I am stuck with bad guesses for an entire year or more because the community norm is to shrug and chase the meta and just buy a new army that is on top of the power curve. (and I still dispute that the GHB system doesn't use math, because i know it does, in fact its math is very similar to the other four or five most used fan comp systems except mainly in how it computed monster points and formation points)

Sometimes you just have to move on and let it go and find other things to do with your time.

Dan Heelan said they had a big spreadsheet that compared all the points costs across the comps and used those as a guide when choosing the GHB points - that could be the reason you are seeing the similarities.

I will say that I have a very *strong* feeling that if any of the other fan comps had been created by just arbitrarily putting a value down, that people would have lost their ****.

Correct me if I am wrong but that is how Clash Comp, SCGT and now the GHB were created.

Obviously you can use math to assist but it shouldn't be the be-all and end-all. That was the failing of SDK later acknowledged by them when they dropped support for the comp.

To me, math should be the foundation, not some guidepost you can ignore.

Thats why there are busted formations and other things running amuk in the game currently.

Which again to reiterate isn't a big deal if one is willing to powergame too since if you have a power list, the other power list isn't going to crush you. And certainly AOS isn't on the same tier of flat out busted that 40k is, but if these points are supposed to be written from a competition stand point where balance is the most important driver, then they've done a poor job in a couple of areas in my opinion, which wouldn't be as bad if they would correct them expediently instead of taking a year or more to correct (and then if they follow normal gw-protocol, simply shift what's busted underpowered to something else)

You can't with AOS use math for everything becasue there are a ton of abstract abilities that are situational. You can however standardize that abstraction and do a better job on the formation points and not let things like stormfiends be core troops.

The monsters being underpointed are not as huge to me as are the busted formations and some of the "core" choices that let you bypass the whole point of having core in the first place.

Its kind of irritating as you can tell in my response when someone says 'nah man the monsters are totally not undercosted at all" when anyone with any statistics background can see that they are though. Not because "omg they are busted underpowered" but because they are kind of a bargain at present which in my area is why they are as prevalent as they are.

If competitive play wouldn't bleed over into casual play I really wouldn't care. Or if the balance factor of competitive play were actually balanced, I also wouldn't say much since if I have to have competitive play bleed into my face I could at least have a more fun game than having to chase the meta in a casual or campaign setting.

Makes it difficult to attract and/or retain players when there are a lot of other games that do that better and are also cheaper, which is frustrating from an event coordinator's perspective. If you're a competitive player, which I would consider you the pinnacle of being a competitive player based on your posts, then this won't bother you since its a natural part of your environment.

But thats the same as the narrative casuals flipping the competitive players the finger when there were no official points.