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.

I can agree with lots of those points, I would just be very wary of making a sweeping statement such as "monsters are undercosted" when there are many examples of them not (such as Godrak, Nagash, Archaon to name a few). In likelihood some monsters are undercosted, just like some other units are too, (and some battalions more importantly).

Even in a perfectly balanced game we would still see a dominance of monsters because:
1. They're cool
2. They're quicker to paint than a blob of infantry
3. Often cheaper money wise too

As Ninth likes to comment, monsters feature in top 5 lists in tournaments - but they feature up and down the tournament lists as well because monsters are popular for many reasons (including the 3 above, and also many players are still taking SCGT armies to events which had cheaper monsters than GHB as you mentioned Auticus). But as no tournament post GHB has been won with a monster mash I would say they are not the biggest problem in fixing the balance right now.

After that, I guess it also falls down to "undercosted" being a subjective point of view. For me, if you can't win a tournament with it it's not undercosted. I think for you and Ninth you're looking more at the whatever a middle ground unit would be and then anything that falls above it in efficiency is undercosted and anything that falls below it is overcosted.

Lastly, I hope you haven't read my comments as "nah man the monsters are totally not undercosted at all", because I have tried to be as polite and constructive as I can be in this whole discussion. :-)

Even in a perfectly balanced game we would still see a dominance of monsters because:
1. They're cool
2. They're quicker to paint than a blob of infantry
3. Often cheaper money wise too

Thats totally not true my friend. At all. Monsters were not seen for nearly 15 years on the table largely because they weren't worth risking the one shot from the cannon taking away the model.

They were just as cool, just as quick to paint than a blob of infantry, and were cheaper money wise, but you never really ever saw them on tables except for rarely.

The last edition monsters were largely a thing was 5th edition whfb which ended in September of 2000. After that monsters were seen a little bit in the tournament scene from 2000 - 2001 before people dropped them largely because they were too many points for the risk of the cannon killing it. I even recall dimly through the passage of time hanging out at the pub at the 2002 GT and that being a discussion from 20 or so of us why no one wanted to take them and how it sucked because monsters were so cool and that was one thing we missed about "hero hammer 5th edition".

Now monsters are undercost (mostly) and can't be one shot, so you see them in spades. Nothing about their cool factor or any of that matters.

For me undercosted is simply this... for the amount of points I pay for this model I am almost guaranteed to make those back and then some. Or in other words... I would I never ever take this?

Are all monsters undercosted? No. Are many to most? Per my math, yes. Some in benign ranges of 50 or so points. Some more grotesquely so.

Then look at Nagash. AWESOME model. Nearly half your army. CHEAP army if you field him. You won't see him though because of the points you pay for him being way too risky.

 auticus wrote:

Then look at Nagash. AWESOME model. Nearly half your army. CHEAP army if you field him. You won't see him though because of the points you pay for him being way too risky.

I am seriously thinking of taking a Nagash-based army for the GT

Yes Matt but you are also one of those rare birds that play things no one else does.

Let us know how that goes. I'm genuinely interested.

Honestly one of the things I love about AoS is that Cannon/Warmachine spam isn't the defacto list now.

I agree in general. Cannon spam ... well anything spam... grates on me.

Typically when you see X-Spam thats because X is undercosted for what it does.

Cannon spam grated hard because it practically ruined an entire unit type, alongside the overpowered X to die spells.

I'm not exactly going to feel too uncomfortable if the spam is basic troops.

Though I am curious, what would you say are the worst battalions ingame for undercost? I want to start making an army (Destruction) but I'm not wanting to go too nuts with something that could be uncomfortably strong.

Besides the Savage Arrerboyz and t hat one formation.

 auticus wrote:

Even in a perfectly balanced game we would still see a dominance of monsters because:
1. They're cool
2. They're quicker to paint than a blob of infantry
3. Often cheaper money wise too

Thats totally not true my friend. At all. Monsters were not seen for nearly 15 years on the table largely because they weren't worth risking the one shot from the cannon taking away the model.

Which has what to do with what you quoted? Are you are also saying being one shotted was also perfectly balanced for the cost!

If the monsters were overcosted due being cannon fodder and not being taken then that would be of no relevance in countering bottles point, which was in a' perfectly balanced game', Namely if there was no balance issues then monsters would likely dominate in lists for reasons above. Nothing was said about how much they would be taken if they were gimp.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
I agree in general. Cannon spam ... well anything spam... grates on me.

Typically when you see X-Spam thats because X is undercosted for what it does.

Sometimes. Often times though spam is about doing one thing well, specialising. If you want to win tourneys (or come in top X%) like the GW ones then you need to win all your games, given that in a 5 game competition anything over 32 players pretty much guarantees that the winner will have won all theirs, so losing a single game puts you out of contention. Going in with a list that can do something really really well and hope you don't meet a hard counter in only 5 games is a common thing for many players. Jack of all trades lists are often much harder to play really well and win 5 out of 5 games.

Then of course some things are just very good spammed but not so much on their own. That can make costing such stuff hard.

@Auticus I want to make it clear that I agree many formations need increases in points. Especially the Stormcast ones that allow entire armies to be placed wherever they want. I will also agree that there are some monsters, units and heroes that are all undercosted. What started much of this debate is that I stated that the GUO and most of Nurgle is overcosted, which I think you agree with per your previous comments. I also hate cannon spam and think the Order cannons are just stupid good for their points.

In regards to my previous posts I am not knocking your math, but the problem I had with it is that it shows ever warscroll in AoS is undercosted. It also never shows the baseline of what an ideally costed unit is. So much of the math is done behind The Great and Powerful Oz's curtain, that no one can even question it. This even includes the portions of the scores that are purely opinion based and have nothing to do with math. This to me means to me that it is impossible to even to start discussion on balance with it.

@all I am not sure where this evidence showing that monsters are dominating any meta. In the last Warlords GT, first place had no monsters as Stormcast. Second place had a GUO/Karios (but everyone knows it was Sayl/Stormfiends combo that was his game winner). Third place was Beastclaw Raider army that is almost all behemoths so yea it had lots of big guys. Please let me know if I am missing something that is showing this "broken" behemoth problem? Currently, the evidence shows the complete opposite of these claims. Ideally I think we should be happy that we are seeing some big guys in a few of the top lists.

I had something else here originally but I realize I'll never win against the double standard being applied to evidence.

So I concede. Behemoths are not a problem, balance is more or less fine, and tournaments have a wide variety of differing models showing up. There are a few overpowered elements but everything is still viable. Players are not having trouble making any army they want be competitive, and we rarely see people being advised to drop one option for another because things are largely even.

Which has what to do with what you quoted? Are you are also saying being one shotted was also perfectly balanced for the cost!

Because bottle was saying that monsters would be taken regardless if they were undercost, to which I replied with my reply about how monsters were not used for 15+ years regardless of how cool they were because they were not cost effective and now that they ARE cost effective (some of them very cost effective) you see them taken in spades.

No I didn't say being one shot was perfectly balanced, nor do I see how you reached that conclusion. I wasn't talking about how past editions were or were not balanced at all.

If an item is overcosted for what it does, you'll never see it.

If an item is cost appropriately for what it does, its risky to take because it may or may not be cost effective (this is where I'd prefer things)

If an item is really good then its reward is greater than its risk, and thus spammed (what is typically undercosted).

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Cannon spam grated hard because it practically ruined an entire unit type, alongside the overpowered X to die spells.

I'm not exactly going to feel too uncomfortable if the spam is basic troops.

Though I am curious, what would you say are the worst battalions ingame for undercost? I want to start making an army (Destruction) but I'm not wanting to go too nuts with something that could be uncomfortably strong.

Besides the Savage Arrerboyz and t hat one formation.

Off the top of my head Kunnin' Rukk and Ironfist are the only battalions that are a serious problem. Moonclan & Gitmob grot infantry are an issue at 60-man size (even without a battalion) but you shouldn't hit any problems with OP stuff among basic troops otherwise. However, an army composed mainly of basic troops won't be viable outside a casual setting, with Bonesplittaz and Ironjawz being notable exceptions (both are good at countering monsters and/or elite units).

 auticus wrote:

Which has what to do with what you quoted? Are you are also saying being one shotted was also perfectly balanced for the cost!

If an item is overcosted for what it does, you'll never see it.

If an item is cost appropriately for what it does, its risky to take because it may or may not be cost effective (this is where I'd prefer things)

If an item is really good then its reward is greater than its risk, and thus spammed (what is typically undercosted).

I can understand this view and is frequently true. However, often certain units are spammed due to lack of options for armies. A perfect example of this for me is Nurgle plague drones. You will find them spammed in every Nurgle list. The reason isn't because they are undercosted (actually the opposite is true), but because Nurgle has no other options of units that move more than 4"-5". Normally, under/over costed units and armies will quickly show in tournament results. The good thing has been AoS so far has had a good mixture of Grand Alliance armies in the top three at tournaments. The list variation can be improved, but overall is not to bad.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I had something else here originally but I realize I'll never win against the double standard being applied to evidence.

I am not sure who this was directed towards, what double standard you are talking about, or which evidence you are discussing. The only evidence I have seen so far has been three things. First, my math which some people think is to simple, leaves out some abilties, and doesn't account for all scenerios. Second, Auticus' spreadsheet which some people think is to complex, has hidden subjective math, and is hard to understand how it can be used since it shows everything is overcosted. Finally, the 'evidence' of claims made about tournament results showing both GHB points balance and imbalance. So the only conclusion i can make is the following: Most people agree that the largest balance issues are with battalion formations and that there is no consensus in regards to over/under costed units.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Cannon spam grated hard because it practically ruined an entire unit type, alongside the overpowered X to die spells.

I'm not exactly going to feel too uncomfortable if the spam is basic troops.

Though I am curious, what would you say are the worst battalions ingame for undercost? I want to start making an army (Destruction) but I'm not wanting to go too nuts with something that could be uncomfortably strong.

Besides the Savage Arrerboyz and t hat one formation.

Off the top of my head Kunnin' Rukk and Ironfist are the only battalions that are a serious problem. Moonclan & Gitmob grot infantry are an issue at 60-man size (even without a battalion) but you shouldn't hit any problems with OP stuff among basic troops otherwise. However, an army composed mainly of basic troops won't be viable outside a casual setting, with Bonesplittaz and Ironjawz being notable exceptions (both are good at countering monsters and/or elite units).

I'm going to disagree with the ironjaws' batallion being a serious problem. No offense but I still think that 220pts is still overcosted like there's no tomorrow. Sure, 60pts IS undercosted but overall the batallion is nowhere as bad as other formations around the game. 100-120pts would hit the sweet spot.

As for list variety I think we aren't THAT bad. I mean, sure there's monster mash and all but look at 40k. An eldar top list will be scatspam+dualknight. A tau top list 80% of the time is just a triptide with stormsurges at the back. A marine top list is grav-cav, company and superfriends. A DE top list (if it makes it, of course) it's just talos+venomspam. There's very little variety in top lists there. We can and should improve but it's doing better than a few of us fear.

 auticus wrote:

Which has what to do with what you quoted? Are you are also saying being one shotted was also perfectly balanced for the cost!

Because bottle was saying that monsters would be taken regardless if they were undercost, to which I replied with my reply about how monsters were not used for 15+ years regardless of how cool they were because they were not cost effective and now that they ARE cost effective (some of them very cost effective) you see them taken in spades.

Actually I was saying monsters would be the preference in a "perfectly balanced game" for many gamers for the reasons listed above, not that they would be taken if they were overcosted or had unfavourable game mechanics which as we saw in WHFB was bad enough to lead them to not be taken at all.

Because bottle was saying that monsters would be taken regardless if they were undercost, to which I replied with my reply about how monsters were not used for 15+ years regardless of how cool they were because they were not cost effective and now that they ARE cost effective (some of them very cost effective) you see them taken in spades.

No I didn't say being one shot was perfectly balanced, nor do I see how you reached that conclusion. I wasn't talking about how past editions were or were not balanced at all.

If an item is overcosted for what it does, you'll never see it.

If an item is cost appropriately for what it does, its risky to take because it may or may not be cost effective (this is where I'd prefer things)

Bottles point was about 'perfectly balanced', not 'regardless'. You said that was not true then went to 'prove' that by reference to a time when they were costed awfully in most people opinion for the reasons you state (unless you think that was perfectly balanced hence you bringing it up).


The risk thing is an interesting discussion in itself. Balanced points and risk may or may not correlate. Having perfectly balanced points costs (say historicals where both sides have the the same humans with spears for the same cost) is not risky per se, it pushes the game towards the players skill and how good they are and further away from the luck end of the spectrum (of the dice or matchup). The risk is that it makes it clearer whether you are a good or crap player It may of course depend on game mechanics etc. Some games rely more on luck in the mechanics than others. If in such a game you win 50% of the time then you are probably just an average player.

The sort of risk you were talking about with monsters and cannons is a risk created via game mechanics, yes it would exist even if models were costed 'correct' in that case. However, to go back to another post further above, that is where spam often enters the equation. If a monster might be one shotted but is costed correctly, based on the chance of that happening then spamming reduces the risk. If you take one monster but have a 50/50 chance of being one shotted before doing anything then players may well see that as risky and not take it. If they take 20 then they may well not have that same perception, The law of large numbers kicks in. They expect to lose 10 but the model has been costed with that in mind so therefore those that survive should still be pretty good. There is still a chance of losing more, or of losing less, but the more you spam the less the variance. Plus of course at that point you get into the whole 'meta' gaming thing. If it takes 20 cannons to balance out 20 monsters you enter the realms of which is more generally useful (outside that scenario), is taking 20 cannons going to be more useful even when you face no monsters? If it is not then there may well be less chance of facing the 20 cannons and hence your 20 monsters have crossed the threshold of being balanced and into being undercosted, but only when spammed.

@Lord Kragan, if you post your feedback on the Ironfist over in the PPC thread I'd be happy to discuss it over there.

Now as for the balance discussion on behemoths and otherwise, I have no counter arguments because I have conceded the discussion. Behemoths are not undercosted and armies which do not rely on them are broadly viable even without relying on OP elements. This is supported by the winning tournament lists that show a wide diversity of builds. We also see a large monster diversity since people prefer to bring them because they are cool, and do not see a limited subset of behemoths appearing repeatedly. Again, the tournament evidence shows this, and the math which says otherwise doesn't count because it isn't understood by people who disagree with it.

 Bottle wrote:

 auticus wrote:

Which has what to do with what you quoted? Are you are also saying being one shotted was also perfectly balanced for the cost!

Because bottle was saying that monsters would be taken regardless if they were undercost, to which I replied with my reply about how monsters were not used for 15+ years regardless of how cool they were because they were not cost effective and now that they ARE cost effective (some of them very cost effective) you see them taken in spades.

Actually I was saying monsters would be the preference in a "perfectly balanced game" for many gamers for the reasons listed above, not that they would be taken if they were overcosted or had unfavourable game mechanics which as we saw in WHFB was bad enough to lead them to not be taken at all.

I wouldn't disagree with you. If they were more balanced, they'd still be taken a lot because they are cheaper and many people are lazy and would rather only have to paint a monster as opposed to 10 guys. (the day gw releases pre-painted models will be a boon for their game systems for this very reason)

But the reasons that our meta talks about taking monsters usually always includes the phrase "but why would you not ever take as many of this as you can?" because our tournament guys figured out that you're getting a pretty sweet discount from taking them.

And those guys also spreadsheet stats down though they are simpler.... and typically boil things down to expected wounds per turn and expected wounds they can absorb per turn and they divided that score up by the points the GHB presents, whereas my score also added in movement and magic and flight and a few other things (and also divdes the points by GHB). Also just as a side note, my system does not state that everything is under/over cost. The graph on the website shows perfect center which is when you list everything the dead center average. There are a lot of items in all four quadrants. Overcosted are items in the bottom left, undercosted are the items in the upper right, and the degree at their overcosting/undercosting depends how low or high in that quadrant they are pushing.

IN other news... the new khorne dragon thing from FW is allegedly 50 wounds and covers two feet of table space...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
@Lord Kragan, if you post your feedback on the Ironfist over in the PPC thread I'd be happy to discuss it over there.
Again, the tournament evidence shows this, and the math which says otherwise doesn't count because it isn't understood by people who disagree with it.

I agree the tournament results show balance. In regards to the math I wouldn't say that we don't understand it. It is the people citing it seem to have no idea what it means and thus can't articulate any responses to questions. Citing someone's math that has zero methodology, scaling or explanation makes it almost useless and no one can start any discussions on it. I would appreciate you taking the time to prove the math is viable.

If you want to try to answer these questions in regards to the math I would greatly appreciate it.
1) Who and how were the subjective values assigned to units in regards to abilites? Was this just done on a gut feeling?
2) What is the scale used (it is never really defined) is one point = 1% or actually 1 point in cost?
3) Why are all units showed as undercosted ? (I.e. It shows that a Herald of Nurgle has an overall value of approx 7pts)
4) It was stated that this math accounts for all feasible attacks. However does it weight these damage methods by the likelihood of how often you will face them? (Meaning does it weigh -, -1,-2,-3(rending), mortal wounds, and Skarbrand attack all equally in the math values? Or does it know only 1 of x units have this method of attack to ensure it is proportional?)
5) What is the goal 'band of excellence' where the values are considered balanced?
6) Does his math take into account the missions in the current GHB missions? (Meaning heroes only are useful in 1 out of 6 missions)

To be honest I have many more questions so it may be easier if you just PM the math guys contact details or have him post some footnotes/methodology on the website. There are lots of people here using math and experience that have rebutted your previous assertions that behemoths are undercosted by a significant margin. Maybe the math you have cited can show we are all wrong. However, there needs be some further evidence other than saying a smart guy did this math, he accounted for everything, and it can't be debated. I am not sure if you are using this math in your PPC comp system. This is because the math doesn't seem to be reflected in your points values or account for the heavy monster points tax in that comp system.

Well I'm pretty sure that math doesn't count anyway, so I'm not sure why you are asking me. Though perhaps as a guideline for someone else you could provide answers to those questions in regards to your own math, that which you provided earlier in the thread. Since you were using it in support of your argument previously we know its legitimate, so you should have no trouble answering those questions without changing or adding anything.

Edit: Actually with some re-releading it looks like those questions you asked were already answered by Auticus, many in the post exactly previous to yours even! Clearly some miscommunication, but it would still be great to see how you answer that for your math.

I'm pretty sure we've come to a point where this discussion is pointless. I'm ok that the bulk of players are ok with the random dart at the wall method of pointing units. At this point there are far more interesting things to discuss.

Like if there will be an update to points. And what do we think the random darts will undercost this next round?

Also... new FW khorne dragon. 50 wounds, 2 feet of table space. Interested to see points on that. Will it be Nagash level and go to 2000 points? Or will it be a moderate 800 points?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well I'm pretty sure that math doesn't count anyway, so I'm not sure why you are asking me. Though perhaps as a guideline for someone else you could provide answers to those questions in regards to your own math, that which you provided earlier in the thread. Since you were using it in support of your argument previously we know its legitimate, so you should have no trouble answering those questions without changing or adding anything.

I did put the exact methodology in my math. Please look it over and if you have any questions. I did a comparative analysis to other units to show that when compared to other units the GUO is overcosted at its current value of 240pts. I have even recommended in this thread what I believe should be the baseline units to compare all units for all AoS points costs. I also updated my questions for more specific answers I hope to find.



@Auticus are you serious a 50wound model? Where are the stats for this thing because it seems so stupid and why would anyone ever use it.

I'll have to apologize Broxus, but I wasn't able to determine the answers to the questions you posted in regards to your own math when I re read it. Could you break it down by individual question and answer just to make it clear? Considering you asked it of Auticus despite the answers being previously present I don't think it's an unreasonable request.

1) No subjective values were used in my analysis
2) I never used any scale other than relational percentages to other units to discuss my results for pointed units in the GHB.
3) I never made any claims with my math that any units were under costed other than the GUO when shown in relation to the other units I cited (liberators, retributors, plaguebearers, stormcast heroes)
4) I only accounted for -,-1,-2 rending and this will stay proportional for all the units I used. I did not do damage solely on mortal wounds which I previously stated in my math. All the units were both attacked and defending against a unit that hits on 4+, wounds on a 4+ and has a 4+ save (a likely opponent in AoS). In total I used over 7+ stats to make my analysis
5) Basic unit of measurement considered to be balanced IMHO:
Troops: Stormcast Liberators (100-pts)
Elite troops: Bloodbound Skullreapers (150-pts)
Ranged troops: Stormcast Judicators (180-pts)
Cavalry: Bloodbound Skullcrushers (150-pets)
General: Mighty Lord of Khorne (130-pts)
Standards: Bloodbound Bloodsecrator (130-pts)
Behemoths: Khorne Bloodthrister of Insensate Rage (350-pts)
Artillery: Order Cannons (210-pts)
6) No it didn’t however this only strengthens my point



There were other questions asked previously that I have answered http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/711900.page

I would be happy to provide this to your PPC feedback thread. I have some questions about some of the assigned point costs and recommended changes. Could you please provide the link?

Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for.

The PPC thread is in the AoS tactics subforum, I am typing on my phone right now so I unfortunately cannot copy the link but it should be easy to find.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for.

The PPC thread is in the AoS tactics subforum, I am typing on my phone right now so I unfortunately cannot copy the link but it should be easy to find.

If you have a moment could you look at answering those questions also for the other set of data.

For 1, I believe Auticus did not factor in subjective values exactly because they are subjective.

2-5 he already explained before you asked:

Auticus wrote:The methodology calculates the average damage output per turn against every possible save then averaged out. It then calculates the average defensive utilility (saves, regen, ward save equivalents, etc) and averages them out. It then divides that by the GHB cost to get an efficiency score.

Ex: a great damage output that you pay little for is a must take because its over powered since it does't cost what it should in favor of the taker.. A great damage output that you pay normal price for is lower. A great damage output that you pay too much for is bad.

The lettering is a ranking of the scores. So lay out every unit in the game in a line based on their scores in any given category, and the percentile bands correspond to their grade. Heroes were graded by comparing only other heroes due to the command abilities and what not not being able to be mathematically modeled.

Auticus wrote:and typically boil things down to expected wounds per turn and expected wounds they can absorb per turn and they divided that score up by the points the GHB presents, whereas my score also added in movement and magic and flight and a few other things (and also divdes the points by GHB). Also just as a side note, my system does not state that everything is under/over cost. The graph on the website shows perfect center which is when you list everything the dead center average. There are a lot of items in all four quadrants. Overcosted are items in the bottom left, undercosted are the items in the upper right, and the degree at their overcosting/undercosting depends how low or high in that quadrant they are pushing.

auticus wrote:I'm pretty sure we've come to a point where this discussion is pointless. I'm ok that the bulk of players are ok with the random dart at the wall method of pointing units. At this point there are far more interesting things to discuss.

Like if there will be an update to points. And what do we think the random darts will undercost this next round?

NinthMusketeer wrote:Now as for the balance discussion on behemoths and otherwise, I have no counter arguments because I have conceded the discussion. Behemoths are not undercosted and armies which do not rely on them are broadly viable even without relying on OP elements. This is supported by the winning tournament lists that show a wide diversity of builds. We also see a large monster diversity since people prefer to bring them because they are cool, and do not see a limited subset of behemoths appearing repeatedly. Again, the tournament evidence shows this, and the math which says otherwise doesn't count because it isn't understood by people who disagree with it.

Great. More sarcastic and belittling comments from Ninth and Auticus. I have tried to be polite and engage in a good discussion and it seems Broxus has too, and yet I am just met with comments like this from two forum members I respected. After every heated discussion and argument we had to endure on this forum at the launch of AoS, instead this thread has been by far the most souring I have ever encoutered.

I don't wish to discuss further with either of you if the only effort put in is to make cutting and dismissive remarks. At this point I don't feel like posting in the subforum at all.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
@Lord Kragan, if you post your feedback on the Ironfist over in the PPC thread I'd be happy to discuss it over there.

Now as for the balance discussion on behemoths and otherwise, I have no counter arguments because I have conceded the discussion. Behemoths are not undercosted and armies which do not rely on them are broadly viable even without relying on OP elements. This is supported by the winning tournament lists that show a wide diversity of builds. We also see a large monster diversity since people prefer to bring them because they are cool, and do not see a limited subset of behemoths appearing repeatedly. Again, the tournament evidence shows this, and the math which says otherwise doesn't count because it isn't understood by people who disagree with it.

Holy passive aggressiveness with a sharp side of Sarcasm.

Really, you two are taking this to an annoying level.

Maybe the discussion about point-costs and the math behind them should be continued elsewhere? It has little to do with the AOS FAQ, after all.

Speaking of the FAQ, I still wish they'd just make the Ring of Immortality unusable by Heroes on Monsters/Mounts. That way the worst excesses of the Ring's use get dealt with without also shafting the regular Heroes.

And the change to the Tomb Herald's rules is just stupid, in my humble opinion.