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.

Rather sizable move of the goalposts there.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Rather sizable move of the goalposts there.

Not really no. If you have something worth discussing by all means share and we can discuss. Otherwise... if you only wish to do your drive by ****posting, go antagonize somewhere else

*All* cavalry/brute and *mostly* cavalry brute are very different things. I commented on the former. Lists which have any infantry are completely irrelevant as commentary to what I expressed.

Or maybe we should talk about the devs specifically calling out balance concerns of all-cav 100k and how they were paying close attention to it.

Or that it could simply be down to people using planet bowling ball when there is supposed to be more terrain on the board.

Opposing giving players choice because GW has done it badly is not a rational opinion.

I think you're splitting hairs but sure. All cavalry vs mostly cavalry are two different things.

When I see a 2000 point list and one is:
5 units medium cavalry
3 units light cavalry
2 units missile troops

And I compare it to:
6 units medium cavalry
4 units light cavalry

I don't see a giant difference in how that game plays on the table. So it is for me a gradient on the two things. All and mostly in the above case play out almost identical to me so I treat them the same.

I realize that "mostly" is an abstract terminology though.

Or maybe we should talk about the devs specifically calling out balance concerns of all-cav 100k and how they were paying close attention to it.

Having been a part of the playtest team I simply do not believe that they were paying close attention to it. This same discussion happend almost same time last year. Many of the playtesters playtest against their wives or partners very casually and weren't really trying to hammer on the game like tournament players are fond of doing.

So contest the following points:
Infantry vs mostly cavalry

* mostly cavalry dictates charges against mostly infantry - a negative play experience for many people having to react the entire time (note my use of the words many people)

* mostly cavalry is faster and therefore can reach objectives quicker than infantry and the game is solidly built around capping objectives.

* mostly cavalry is faster and has greater board control than mostly infantry.

* mostly cavalry doesn't lose attacks when they take wounds as fast as mostly infantry because cavalry and brutes and monsters are 100% effective until they die. an infantry stand that loses 3 of 4 wounds only has 1 set of attacks. A cavalry stand that loses 3 of its 4 wounds is still 100% of its attacks.

* mostly cavalry does impact hits when they charge to do more damage.

Based on those above things, discuss how mostly infantry is balanced against mostly to all cavalry armies and what the developers were specifically doing to pay attention to it?

Because I dont think they were paying attention to game balance. I think a lot of those playtesters want all or mostly cavalry and monster armies because AOS lets them do it and its fun and the developers hear a lot of comments about how much fun and more players they'll get and that they are a commercial endeavor trying to make money - so I understand them from that point.

However I can be persuaded that perhaps I just don't see how mostly infantry is at a stark disadvantage and I'm missing something.

Or that it could simply be down to people using planet bowling ball when there is supposed to be more terrain on the board.

The expected terrain count on tables was, as of Leandros email to me when he commented on my youtube video showing me using a lot of terrain - 2 or 3 pieces total. THE TOURNAMENT GUIDELINES that I was given when I ran the underspire online tournament was 2-3 pieces of terrain max. EDIT: whoops I was wrong I looked up the email. It was 2-4 pieces of terrain with 1 piece being sizeable (6-8" in diameter) and the other 1-3 pieces being small 3 or 4" in diameter.

Not planet bowling ball, but not a heavy feature either. Plus terrain was purposely meant to not be that impactful.

In the context of mostly cavalry, terrain makes them lose their impact hits if you can find a way to leverage said 2 or 3 pieces of terrain. Certainly a benefit, but cavalry still fight just as well as their infantry counterparts when stuck in depending on what they are attacking (a medium cav unit slamming into an elite heavy unit through terrain losing impact hits has made a blunder).

Opposing giving players choice because GW has done it badly is not a rational opinion.

Not even remotely on target with why I oppose that choice. Has nothing to do with Games Workshop.

Zero.

Nada.

Has everything to do with the items I have posted above.

Player choice is a false choice in this case because cavalry and brutes are the better option unless they are disgustingly overcost.

Additionally - for taste - I play rank and file for rank and file. Rank and file involves infantry. Heavy to all cavalry is not rank and file for players getting into the game for that purpose.

Also nothing to do with Games Workshop. That was my same reason for quitting warhammer in 7th edition. I got tired of cav-hammer every game for years. If Warhammer had been done by Privateer, or Mantic, or Joe's Game Shop I would have quit because rank and file with nothing but or heavily featuring mostly cavalry is not why I play these games.

Player choice is often taking what is best and most powerful. Player choice here is the illusion of choice. Infantry exists, but if you're competitive or playing in a competitive environment, you are purposely handicapping yourself if you take a lot of infantry in a game that lets you just take however many cav / brute choices you want.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree--I consider 'all' and 'most' to be distinctly different concepts. Besides, if there is no significant difference why NOT let players do it?

Those terrain guidelines are not what I have seen in games or heard of from playtesters, and I am rather suspicious of your implication that most playtesting happens against the playtester's partners. To be frank, I find that line pretty absurd to include in your argument for multiple reasons.

Post-Edit: This is in response to the below post; I want to provide additional context to my above statement but not drag out the thread with personal arguments. The "multiple reasons" I mentioned are as follows:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree--I consider 'all' and 'most' to be distinctly different concepts.

Those terrain guidelines are not what I have seen in games or heard of from playtesters, and I am rather suspicious of your implication that most playtesting happens against the playtester's partners. To be frank, I find that line pretty absurd to include in your argument for multiple reasons.

Be suspicious all day long, doesn't change that that was how it happened to include a full on chat on it to discuss the validity of testing and concerns from some of us on testing a product in such a manner. If things have changed today then awesome. You can find it as absurd as you wish. Pretty much everything I state you come back with a back handed comment about how I'm lying or whatever so... thats par for the course as far as I'm concerned. The point of stating it was to state that playtesting wasn't being done at a level where the game was being stressed, it was casually playing against casual opponents. Thats not what someone who is interested in balanced games wants to see. Now I know you are a stickler for exact verbage so I will comment that there was testing being done under the guise of tournament testing and that it was pretty involved as well, but there wasn't nearly enough of that going on.

And if they have changed terrain guidelines - great. Thats what it was this time last year which spawned this video (after the designers saw one of my battle reports with a lot of terrain and battle lines):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLGuRoyUj9Y&ab_channel=Auticusx

And a great discussion afterward that we had on the discord about it with the designers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
But lets go back to the real discussion and not trying to derail it with how i'm lying or absurd or whatever ad hominem attacks are pretty basic standard operating procedures from you...

Based on balanced gameplay, based off of the pointers I gave on cavalry's (and brute) advantage over infantry... where is the balanced game play if I can just spam cav and brutes.

Why on earth would i not want to do that if I could?

What do infantry get that makes them worth taking if I want to optimize and bust the game ?

Other than "player choice" and "its fun to take" - what is missing here that makes infantry attractive gameplay-wise moreso than cav to balance them out? What in particular were the designers looking for in terms of balance / unbalance that made them feel that this is fine do you feel?

Since my intent is clearly being misinterpreted, I will clarify my original point.

It was a response to this sentiment (not just you):

 auticus wrote:
Sadly (or joyfully depending on your stance) I see the push for all mounted armies is getting stronger with the squires now getting pushed to mainstay.

There was also a push for all monster / brute armies which was only a matter of time

To which I say:
-All cavalry and all brute armies are already part of the game
-They have been part of the game for some time
-They are not dominating the game
-Giving players more choice is a positive quality

To again clarify, any list that includes anything other than cavalry or brutes, respectively, would by objective definition not be an all-cavalry or all-brute army. So any such lists are not what I was commenting on and have no bearing on the points I was making.

To raise such as counter-evidence is to change the standard of the discussion, thus my comment about moving the goal posts. To comment on infantry vs cav/brute balance is also outside of what I was referencing.

I think some are sensitive about armies which break the mold of "blocks of infantry in rank and file formation" because that is the primary appeal of the game... and at some point, if nobody is using them, then you no longer really have a rank and file game anymore.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think some are sensitive about armies which break the mold of "blocks of infantry in rank and file formation" because that is the primary appeal of the game... and at some point, if nobody is using them, then you no longer really have a rank and file game anymore.

Hm... I never thought of it that way. Good observation.

That's the way I see it. I'm all for people playing what they want to play but when it happens that cavalry/brute/monster focused lists are stronger than lists with investment in infantry, it bums me out. If brutes/cavalry/monsters are going to have inherent advantages over infantry, units should be relatively compensated in one way or another. In my opinion, this can be done by restricting non-infantry choices more than they currently are, since they are more powerful choices in many cases.

Pre 1.5.1, W'adrhun infantry were, imho, terrible. Every list I made that had even a minimum sized unit of blooded/braves was just tangibly worse than if I took a unit of warbred or raptors. This drove me to making lists that had, at most, a single unit of hunters and finding ways to avoid infantry "taxes".

At the same time, trolls were/are extremely good, and dweghom don't really have anything besides infantry, so I can't say that infantry were being pushed out of the game. I know that in that same period that I felt pushed out of W'adrhun infantry, a lot of 100k players felt pushed towards Household Knights rather than focusing on Guard or Gilded/Steel Legion. This was also made better in 1.5.1.

While Nords aren't perfect (trolls and jotnar seem a bit much right now), I think that their paradigm is pretty good. Yes, you can take an all-brute/monster army, disregarding infantry, but it's a choice rather than how the rules sort of push you to go. (right now, imho, a bad choice, as both Werewolves/Ugrs need a boost and Trolls need a drop to make that sort of choice truly viable, imho).

Moral of the story seems to be: 1.5.1 update good, hopefully 1.5.2 update even better! But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't wary of things like the Mounted Squire Mastery, or the Fallen Divinity rule. In the long run, over some iterations I'm sure it'd be fine, but PB does swing and miss sometimes (Ugr and Huscarl price hike in 1.5.1 is mystifying to me)

I agree that there is plenty of balancing left to do. Having official rules for terrain would help a lot when it comes to cav/brutes/monsters, as right now there is literally nothing; it's all second hand and best guesses.

I personally feel that non-bracketing monsters are a concern that can't be dealt with via point adjustments. Especially when it comes to Nords, where leaving a monster at even one wound alive has a dramatic shift since it fights significantly better and with extreme reliability in damage output. I see that as a recipe for feels bad moments.

Can all cavalry and brute types claim objectives?
That might be a good way of stopping those types of forces not taking infantry.
Not played the full game yet only First Blood so not too sure on how best to counter such forces.
Terrain would seem to be a good way of stopping charges by cavalry.Maybe an option to take some field works to stop/reduce cavalry charges?

I think some are sensitive about armies which break the mold of "blocks of infantry in rank and file formation" because that is the primary appeal of the game... and at some point, if nobody is using them, then you no longer really have a rank and file game anymore.

That was entirely my second main argument against it yes. This is what I said about that very thing on the previous page:

In a rank and file game ... losing infantry off the table is a big disappointment.

Can all cavalry and brute types claim objectives?

Anything can claim objectives. mediums and heavies score. The new scenarios coming out start removing characters from being able to score.

errain would seem to be a good way of stopping charges by cavalry.Maybe an option to take some field works to stop/reduce cavalry charges?

Terrain in this game is very forgiving. They didn't want a game where terrain was too heavy handed because players then just dont' use any of it (lessons learned from oldhammer).

You cannot stop cavalry charges short of being against impassable terrain that they cannot cross, which is very rare.

Hindering terrain stops them from having impact hits which is useful but doesn't stop them from unleashing the rest of their normal attacks (impact hits are just a bonus IMO). Medium and Heavies also lose their inspire bonus (+1 on the charge) on the turn they charge through it but afterward they are fine. So its useful. But... their terrain rules are not laid out in black and white in terms of how much should be on the table (and again my last instructions from PARA BELLUM when I ran the underspire tournament was 2-4 pieces of terrain, 1 of which being large, the other 1-3 pieces being 2-4" in diameter) - and having seen pictures of some of the tournaments that have happened the last few months that is also the table layouts I am seeing. The point of all that being terrain is not numerous on tables, is generally fairly small, and you aren't getting a lot of use out of it other than here and there. And in your friendly casual games, you're going to have a hell of a time convincing your heavy cavalry loving friend that you should be allowed to take a bunch of hindering zonal terrain without rules stating how much terrain should be on the table (and even then when they place the terrain they are going to put it on the edges of the table out of the way, that is like what 99.9% of everyone I have ever known has done in that instance)

The houserule I employed in the underspire was to give spears / pikes an anti-cavalry bonus so that you could at least counter someone that wanted to run mostly or all cavalry.

As it stands now from a purely optimization standpoint the only thing stopping people from going mostly or all all cavalry / brutes is

* restraint on their part to keep the game with some infantry blocks

* bad point costed cavalry that is too far in the unoptimal zone

Otherwise from a pure gameplay standpoint nothing else withstanding (which is the environment that I mostly come from) the better choice will definitely not be walking on two legs and lacking impact hits and have a slower move speed.

Some ways that they can consider:

* an anti-cavalry type weapon like the pike or spear

* a solid rule that states infantry stands take precedent when claiming objectives. As it is - infantry WAS used to hold objectives more than blocks of cavalry so this is a rule that also makes sense and isn't gamey gamey for the sake of abstraction.

I dont like points being the only tool used.

I do think infantry should take the precedent for claiming objectives.
Archers will come in handy to thin cavalry out a bit.
Might have to see what buffs can be used for the infantry in the forces played against cavalry heavy forces.

Terrain really is a big unknown here. There are rules for what terrain does, but so rules whatsoever for how much of it there should be. It is all second-hand and that is inconsistent. Given its ability to deny impact hits terrain has a significant effect on how strong brutes and particularly cavalry are (the latter more often relying on impact hit damage).

Also worth noting cavalry/brutes are not overperforming across the board. Plus some infantry and monsters are too strong as well. Without the terrain factor nailed down it is next to impossible to say if it is a trend of certain unit types or just normal imbalance of some options being too strong.

This isn't about cavalry bonusees overperforming.

Its an added bonus. it doesn't have to be overperforming. Its still greater than zero impact, while infantry gets zero impact from it.

As an item greater than zero, it becomes more desirable. From a powergamer's perspective, thats all it takes to spam. An item with 0 in the column vs an item with a value > 0 in the column will be on paper more attractive depending on the point cost associated.

Cavalry and brutes in addition to the impact hit bonus have the added speed bonus to get to objectives fast, which is the prime game for almost all of the scenarios.

Cavalry brutes in addition to those two factors do not degrade their attacks like infantry does.

There are many factors that go into why cavalry and brutes outperform infantry and make them more desirable from a powergamer's perspective.

Once the tournament meta starts churning, this is how games become all about that one thing in the long run.

Everyone in this thread has enough experience with AOS and Warhammer to know what I'm talking about.

(the latter more often relying on impact hit damage).

Cavalry do not rely on impact damage, its just a nice added bonus.

A Men At Arms 3 stands is 12 attacks, Clash 2, 1 attack each, and a D2 with shields D3 to the front with a 5" move for 105 points

Household Knights 3 stands is also 12 attacks, same wounds, same clash, D4 to the front, and an 8" move with the added bonus of getting to do impact hits on their charge for 150 points. (and they are Resolve 2)

They both have similar staying power. They can both sit on something and the knights will last longer barring the men at arms pay 20 extra points for the D4 (so then they are 150 points vs 125 points)

They both fight exactly the same except on the charge knights get extra bonus hits.

Knights have a 3" better movement, or 6" better movement overall so can get where they need to go faster. They are also base Resolve 3.

They are both medium choices.

So 150 points vs 125 points... 25 points extra and you get:

* +3" move per action (+6" movement)
* +1 better Resolve so are going to be sticking around longer
* Impact Hits
* Attacks don't degrade as fast since it takes 4 wounds to drop a knight before you see a loss of attacks.

Those two shapes are almost identical to each other and can fulfil the same type of roles. The cavalry does not RELY on impact hits unless you are trying to use them as a mega hammer that can bust through things.

Medium cavalry is a support unit that fulfils much of the same roles as men at arms do for 25 points more, but they can get where they need to go much faster.

TERRAIN can at best remove the impact hit portion, but they are only paying 25 points more, and the intangible of if terrain is or is not there is well worth paying 25 points for the potential for impact hits when I'm also getting up to 6" faster movement a turn and a better point of resolve to stick around longer (and not needing to activate to get my D4 since the vet's +1 defense the men at arms are getting only goes once they activate)

Again - from an optimizer point of view - this is a no brainer.

You can compare that also with household guard. Household Guard cost 150 points as well.

Same cost.
Household Knights +6" better movement, +1 better defense to the front, impact hits, attacks degrade slower due to needing to take 4 wounds off of the knight before you notice.

Household Guard Cleave 1 so they can hit armor better and extra support so if you have back ranks you can do more attacks, but then you are paying more points for those back ranks.

Now Household Guard are great, I love them. But from an optimizer standpoint, the knights have a higher utility because they are faster, can do more attacks due to the cav rule requiring you to do 4 wounds before you drop attacks, potential to most of the time have impact hits unless there is some terrain on the table stopping them once in a while...

Is it an overwhelming tabling?

No.

Is it enough for the tournament scene to start min maxing toward? Absolutely.

Whats the point of all that?

All cav and brute armies, despite it being great for player choice, negatively impact the game once the tournament players start crafting the meta that everyone buys around and removes from rank and file games appeal.

I am not opposed to all cav armies existing so long as there are proper optimized counters that make them know there's a consequence for running skew lists.

That can be done with anti cav weaponry in the hands of infantry.

That can be done by letting infantry take precedence over scoring objectives.

That can be done by changing scenarios so that most of them aren't about objectives and introducing some other proper victory conditions.

There are I'm sure other ways this can be done that I'm missing here.

I suppose we will see. I do not expect to see cavalry and brutes dominating the game. I expect to see specific units overperform, because that's what happens when balance isn't perfect. Then PB will learn, refine, and move forward. I just don't see it as a big deal, just as I did not feel the expanded hero options were going to be a huge issue either.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah I think 1 faction per year is the target, which makes the idea of 18 factions somewhat absurd considering theyll still be releasing new ones 12+ years from now

I mean, Warhammer 40k has been around for 30+ years, and we still are getting new factions from time to time.

Warhammer 40k didn't have any true rivals 30 years ago, did they?
A glacial release schedule in today's market is not feasible, especially for a fledgling company that has to compete against GW and video games.

Battletech was literally the bigger fish in the early to mid 90s.

Hellbringer Sorcerer is up on the e-shop. They will be adding the rules for him soon.

Sasorijap wrote:
Hellbringer Sorcerer is up on the e-shop. They will be adding the rules for him soon.

That is an incredibly cool model. Damn.

Hmm, are you sure that'll be a stable mount?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Hmm, are you sure that'll be a stable mount?

My first thought when I saw it, but they assure us it's better than it looks?

I'm interested to see how different he is to the flame sorcerer.

Beats the snot out of the normal tempered sorcerer model.

uhhh.... huh... are we thinking this will be a mounted version of the sorcerer (as in instead of picking "Tempered Sorcerer" you pick "Hellbringer Sorcerer") or are we thinking this is more like the Apex Matriarch/Queen where you would have to take a Tempered Sorceror and a Heldrake and then buy a 5 pt upgrade for the Sorceror to mount it on the Heldrake?

chaos0xomega wrote:
uhhh.... huh... are we thinking this will be a mounted version of the sorcerer (as in instead of picking "Tempered Sorcerer" you pick "Hellbringer Sorcerer") or are we thinking this is more like the Apex Matriarch/Queen where you would have to take a Tempered Sorceror and a Heldrake and then buy a 5 pt upgrade for the Sorceror to mount it on the Heldrake?

If I remember right in their google hangouts sessions they've said it's a mastery upgrade on a Sorcerer.

Darn.

Update from the Discord. Apparently the social media posts saying that the Old Dominion army list is being released on March 3rd were a miscommunication with the PR team.

March 3rd will only be a preview of the army's rules, not a full army list release.

Thats interesting because the playtesters were told it was also a full release and that the fourth round of input would be considered after the full release for tweaks.

Regardless - thats good because there are a few things in the current version that are still a bit not right so I'm glad they are taking the time to iron those out.

Yes but I want them now. Undead Byzantines hit me right where I am most unable to resist- the wallet.