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:
I am OK with units getting bonuses for not moving as long as it is thematic. Dwarves, Freeguild shooters, etc. Elves I do not see as static lines of archers; they should be mobile.

I like the new line of sight forests, but would like them better if it were 2" as just 1 feels too short.

2 or 3" would have been better yeah.

 kodos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

When many shooting units are balanced around the idea of them not moving or staying out of a certain range threshold to get a reasonable hit/wound value or things of that nature--well yeah, it becomes less of an option.

So your basic problem is that "static build" or "never moving any model" army is not high tier any more.

So your basic problem with reading is the comprehension part?

Wanderers haven't been "high tier". Shadow Warriors haven't been "high tier".

What you seem to either be unable or unwilling to grasp is this:
When units have been, since the introduction of AoS1.0, balanced with a caveat around them being outside of a certain range of an enemy or with a certain number of models in the unit or with them being planted in cover or not moving--measures should have been made with AoS2.0 to ensure that point values either dropped on those units or their effects were made to be equal to those of their melee counterparts.

3” sounds right. That’s what they usually use for area effects/retreating etc. isn’t it?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

When many shooting units are balanced around the idea of them not moving or staying out of a certain range threshold to get a reasonable hit/wound value or things of that nature--well yeah, it becomes less of an option.

So your basic problem is that "static build" or "never moving any model" army is not high tier any more.

So your basic problem with reading is the comprehension part?

Wanderers haven't been "high tier". Shadow Warriors haven't been "high tier".

What you seem to either be unable or unwilling to grasp is this:
When units have been, since the introduction of AoS1.0, balanced with a caveat around them being outside of a certain range of an enemy or with a certain number of models in the unit or with them being planted in cover or not moving--measures should have been made with AoS2.0 to ensure that point values either dropped on those units or their effects were made to be equal to those of their melee counterparts.

Glade Guard were extremely strong in GHB1 & 2, showing up in mixed order lists at tournaments. Maybe the lack of a points drop simply brought them into line.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am OK with units getting bonuses for not moving as long as it is thematic. Dwarves, Freeguild shooters, etc. Elves I do not see as static lines of archers; they should be mobile.

I can see an argument being made for the static lines of archers, but ideally Glade Guard should have had the following:

Peerless Archery 2.0 wrote:
Peerless Archery:
The archers of the Glade Guard are famed for their skill at ambushing foes. When the Glade Guard take their time lining up their shots at the expense of their arrows not breaching armor as heavily--but with their shots more likely to result in massive trauma to their victims. At shorter ranges, the Glade Guard unleash a hail of arrows before melting away from their pursuers leaving behind nothing but confused and irate survivors.

Glade Guard Longbows can be fired using the following profiles(choose at the start of your shooting):
Aimed Shots R18" 1 Attack 3+/3+ -1 Rend 1 Damage
Quick Shots R9" 3 Attacks 3+/3+ -1 Rend 1 Damage

When fired as Aimed Shots, to Hit rolls of 6s result in a single Mortal Wound.
Once a unit is finished firing Quick Shots, the unit may immediately move D6 inches away from their target unit.

I like the new line of sight forests, but would like them better if it were 2" as just 1 feels too short.

Honestly, it would be better if it were requiring you to draw 1 inch through the center of the Woods.

At 12 points a model they come out near the center of the graph when I run them through.

Center of the graph means that they are ok for most of the game but the stuff vastly underpointed is significantly more powerful which will make them appear like a crap unit.

Meaning if you are a competitive player you'd never use them because they aren't going to perform like undercosted units would.

This goes back to GW needs to get the undercosted units in check which makes the more normalized units better as opposed to keeping the undercosted units OP which in the competitive landscape are the only units you ever go toward.

Of course the opposite ... making the glade guard (or whatever "C" scale unit that is in the middle) also OP for their cost in an effort to make everything OP so nothing is OP is another direction. There are more normal units though than undercost units so a lot more energy would need to be expending making the "C" units OP as well to cancel out the "A" units and high "B" units that are already there.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Glade Guard were extremely strong in GHB1 & 2, showing up in mixed order lists at tournaments. Maybe the lack of a points drop simply brought them into line.

You're conflating "mixed order" with "Wanderers".
That's the same damn reason I can't play my Guard anymore for 40k. As a non-souped army, they were continuously hit with nonsense because of people bringing them in as Allies.

What they did or didn't do with "mixed Order" doesn't mean anything when you talk about the faction they belong to.

 Kanluwen wrote:

So your basic problem with reading is the comprehension part?

My basic problem is that I like the new terrain rules and see them as one of the best changes in AoS 2.
And I cannot understand why it should be removed because points are wrong.

There are a lot of units not expensive enough and releasing the GHB18 now was a big mistake (unless the GHB19 is released for christmas or a big point errata is coming in autum
So I don't accept an argument for rules changes instead of point adjustments

That some builds now need to adept because they need to move their models, yeah this is fine.

That old lists are not valid anymore and people need to buy new models to be competitive, yeah this is still GW. We all know how they run their business. Changing a good rule because one does not like their business model, no.

auticus wrote:
At 12 points a model they come out near the center of the graph when I run them through.

Center of the graph means that they are ok for most of the game but the stuff vastly underpointed is significantly more powerful which will make them appear like a crap unit.

Meaning if you are a competitive player you'd never use them because they aren't going to perform like undercosted units would.

This goes back to GW needs to get the undercosted units in check which makes the more normalized units better as opposed to keeping the undercosted units OP which in the competitive landscape are the only units you ever go toward.

Of course the opposite ... making the glade guard (or whatever "C" scale unit that is in the middle) also OP for their cost in an effort to make everything OP so nothing is OP is another direction. There are more normal units though than undercost units so a lot more energy would need to be expending making the "C" units OP as well to cancel out the "A" units and high "B" units that are already there.

This brings up another argument is see about balance: Which category do you balance against? (I'll use your grading system as an example) If you balance against group "A", everything becomes more powerful. Units die quickly and games end more quickly. This can honestly be a lot of fun. If you balance against "C" we move more toward the baseline. Weak units get better, strong units get "worse". This is probably the easiest place to balance a game since you would likely end up having to repoint fewer units (but I could be wrong since I'm not a game designer). In my opinion, it would be best to balance around the "B- to B" range. You still end up with most units feeling more powerful without those previously on the top tier feeling like the nerf bat hit them square in the junk, but everything doesn't feel as samey as it would if you had brought everything to the middling tier.

 kodos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

So your basic problem with reading is the comprehension part?

My basic problem is that I like the new terrain rules and see them as one of the best changes in AoS 2.
And I cannot understand why it should be removed because points are wrong.

There are a lot of units not expensive enough and releasing the GHB18 now was a big mistake (unless the GHB19 is released for christmas or a big point errata is coming in autum
So I don't accept an argument for rules changes instead of point adjustments

That some builds now need to adept because they need to move their models, yeah this is fine.

That old lists are not valid anymore and people need to buy new models to be competitive, yeah this is still GW. We all know how they run their business. Changing a good rule because one does not like their business model, no.

So basically, you're arguing against something I didn't actually advocate for?

Try reading my posts fully. Don't just pick and choose bits.

 EnTyme wrote:

auticus wrote:
At 12 points a model they come out near the center of the graph when I run them through.

Center of the graph means that they are ok for most of the game but the stuff vastly underpointed is significantly more powerful which will make them appear like a crap unit.

Meaning if you are a competitive player you'd never use them because they aren't going to perform like undercosted units would.

This goes back to GW needs to get the undercosted units in check which makes the more normalized units better as opposed to keeping the undercosted units OP which in the competitive landscape are the only units you ever go toward.

Of course the opposite ... making the glade guard (or whatever "C" scale unit that is in the middle) also OP for their cost in an effort to make everything OP so nothing is OP is another direction. There are more normal units though than undercost units so a lot more energy would need to be expending making the "C" units OP as well to cancel out the "A" units and high "B" units that are already there.

This brings up another argument is see about balance: Which category do you balance against? (I'll use your grading system as an example) If you balance against group "A", everything becomes more powerful. Units die quickly and games end more quickly. This can honestly be a lot of fun. If you balance against "C" we move more toward the baseline. Weak units get better, strong units get "worse". This is probably the easiest place to balance a game since you would likely end up having to repoint fewer units (but I could be wrong since I'm not a game designer). In my opinion, it would be best to balance around the "B- to B" range. You still end up with most units feeling more powerful without those previously on the top tier feeling like the nerf bat hit them square in the junk, but everything doesn't feel as samey as it would if you had brought everything to the middling tier.

If you move all units towards B,then B becomes the new C
You can't balance towards a "tier" because tiers are fluid by their own nature. You should balance towards a state of the game that you, as a designer, likes. "I like my games to last this amount of time. And I like my units to have this amount of stats, and special rules, without a lowly grunt having 3+ save, 2 wounds and 4 attacks + 3 special rules" for example. And then you, after defining whats your ideal state of a game, try to balance towards it. Theres no point in balancing units up and down randomly if you don't actually know whats the "ideal state of the game" you want to achieve.

My feeling is that every faction should have access to some of the overpowered hotness, and that way every player has the chance to use their chosen faction to compete if they want. The problem with GW is they tend to put all the overpowered crap in three or four factions that the designers are enthusiastic about, and totally neglect other factions that they are less enthusiastic about. They seem to have very poor discipline or focus.

Then that neglect leads to poor sales and those poor sales are used to justify further neglect which eventually leads to an army being ignored for multiple editions of the game and then dropped entirely, like Tomb Kings or Bretonians.

 Galas wrote:
If you move all units towards B,then B becomes the new C
You can't balance towards a "tier" because tiers are fluid by their own nature. You should balance towards a state of the game that you, as a designer, likes. "I like my games to last this amount of time. And I like my units to have this amount of stats, and special rules, without a lowly grunt having 3+ save, 2 wounds and 4 attacks + 3 special rules" for example. And then you, after defining whats your ideal state of a game, try to balance towards it. Theres no point in balancing units up and down randomly if you don't actually know whats the "ideal state of the game" you want to achieve.

Great points. I would like my game to be able to last at least 4 turns, with victory more dependent upon getting the objectives rather than just tabling your opponent. With that in mind, I would seriously consider scaling back the amount of mortal wounds getting thrown about. They should be a special occurrence, but they're becoming the norm.

 Da Boss wrote:
My feeling is that every faction should have access to some of the overpowered hotness, and that way every player has the chance to use their chosen faction to compete if they want. The problem with GW is they tend to put all the overpowered crap in three or four factions that the designers are enthusiastic about, and totally neglect other factions that they are less enthusiastic about. They seem to have very poor discipline or focus.

Then that neglect leads to poor sales and those poor sales are used to justify further neglect which eventually leads to an army being ignored for multiple editions of the game and then dropped entirely, like Tomb Kings or Bretonians.

Thing is overpowered hotness means "Every faction has one working competitive build/unit" Which means if you to to a competition you see the same armies winning. It also means that some models become unpopular in the casual/local level or "that guy models/army compositions." Ergo you create a huge power divide which means that some good choices are having a negative effect.

Instead what you want is a much more even spread; that way you can have variety without losing - sure not EVERY army list will work but the majority of decently put together ones should. It means you avoid min-maxing the game and you end up with something where there is variety. It also means that you avoid ending up pushig your market to only buying a segment of the product; GW is far healthier when all their models are selling strong. It spreads the market load; it means that investments are making their money back and profit etc...



It's better for GW and its better for gamers. Sure it cuts out the "I've got a super powereful nearly auto-win button" element; but in general most people don't find that fun in the long term. Sure the first few times it works its really neat - both to see it work as an opponent (so long as said opponent isn't totally new); and really neat as a player. But after its worked a few times and becomes the near "auto win" button or "only button worth using" then it gets old, tired and honestly becomes a "hey just don't bring XYZ to the next game its boring"

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Glade Guard were extremely strong in GHB1 & 2, showing up in mixed order lists at tournaments. Maybe the lack of a points drop simply brought them into line.

You're conflating "mixed order" with "Wanderers".
That's the same damn reason I can't play my Guard anymore for 40k. As a non-souped army, they were continuously hit with nonsense because of people bringing them in as Allies.

What they did or didn't do with "mixed Order" doesn't mean anything when you talk about the faction they belong to.

They have always performed decent to well on the battlefield whenever I have seen them, Order or Wanderer allegiance. Wanderer allegiance lets them retreat and get their shooting buff, with the added bonus of avoiding the new rule that a unit cannot shoot out of melee. The raw math has them as average. I just do not see any evidence that they are a bad unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
Having done my GHB 2018 analysis I would say that the points are in a very bad place right now. The GHB 2016 they weren't great, but had a skew of about 17% (meaning that 17% of the units pointed sat above or below the average bell curve for what they "should have cost" within a tolerance level)

The GHB 2018 is at roughly 22%.

I forgot to ask this earlier; while the average skew is higher, is the proportion of units causing that skew similar? For example; having half the units be 30% off-point creates a 15% average skew while having a quarter the units be 60% off also creates a 15% skew but those two situations are obviously quite different when it comes to the tabletop.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Glade Guard were extremely strong in GHB1 & 2, showing up in mixed order lists at tournaments. Maybe the lack of a points drop simply brought them into line.

You're conflating "mixed order" with "Wanderers".
That's the same damn reason I can't play my Guard anymore for 40k. As a non-souped army, they were continuously hit with nonsense because of people bringing them in as Allies.

What they did or didn't do with "mixed Order" doesn't mean anything when you talk about the faction they belong to.

They have always performed decent to well on the battlefield whenever I have seen them, Order or Wanderer allegiance.

Mine never perform well, but then again I'm not claiming that they cannot do well. My claim is in the context of the constant nonsense from Auticus that we should see more hindrances placed upon shooting units--things like the -1 to hit against characters near units, the 1" through Woods = no shooting, or the "can only shoot units within 3" of them rules.

Wanderer allegiance lets them retreat and get their shooting buff, with the added bonus of avoiding the new rule that a unit cannot shoot out of melee.

Counterpoint:
When playing against someone who is willing to take the potential hit from battleshock and encircle the unit with their Pile Ins, Glade Guard can't retreat. They don't get to move over units.

The raw math has them as average. I just do not see any evidence that they are a bad unit.

Strictly speaking, I haven't outright said that they're a bad unit--I've just heavily implied that they're very lackluster when compared to some of the melee units that currently exist by virtue of their schtick with Arcane Bodkins. Namarti Reavers are in a similar design space(just minus the Arcane Bodkins and with a silly bonus to running ooooohh ahhhh )

Like I said in reply to your static bit, I'd much rather see Glade Guard get reworked from the ground up than just try to make them 'worth their points'.
And in that same vein, I'd also like to see Wanderers in general get a shift in design space. Sylvaneth bring the forests with them, Idoneth shape the field to their liking, Nurgle corrupts it, Nagash's Legions use gravesites...

Why not allow for Wanderers to 'trap' a piece of terrain after they've occupied it?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Glade Guard were extremely strong in GHB1 & 2, showing up in mixed order lists at tournaments. Maybe the lack of a points drop simply brought them into line.

You're conflating "mixed order" with "Wanderers".
That's the same damn reason I can't play my Guard anymore for 40k. As a non-souped army, they were continuously hit with nonsense because of people bringing them in as Allies.

What they did or didn't do with "mixed Order" doesn't mean anything when you talk about the faction they belong to.

They have always performed decent to well on the battlefield whenever I have seen them, Order or Wanderer allegiance.

Mine never perform well, but then again I'm not claiming that they cannot do well. My claim is in the context of the constant nonsense from Auticus that we should see more hindrances placed upon shooting units--things like the -1 to hit against characters near units, the 1" through Woods = no shooting, or the "can only shoot units within 3" of them rules.

I believe Auticus would like to see such restrictions alongside a point drop for units that are not over-performing. He doesn't have a problem with shooting units, he doesn't like it when there is no reasonable tactical counter to shooting armies. I agree with him; even an entirely shooting army should have to rely on mobility, gimmicks, or some other element that ensures they must be played beyond simply picking targets in order to win. And the opponent should have options to mitigate that beyond happening to have warscrolls with abilities that do so directly. Terrain and locking ranged units in melee are classic approaches to this and have always worked well when implemented properly. Without such things the counter to ranged armies is to essentially overwhelm them before they do enough damage for shooting, which does not work well for game design when it is the only available tactic.

Wanderer allegiance lets them retreat and get their shooting buff, with the added bonus of avoiding the new rule that a unit cannot shoot out of melee.

Counterpoint:
When playing against someone who is willing to take the potential hit from battleshock and encircle the unit with their Pile Ins, Glade Guard can't retreat. They don't get to move over units.

That is a good thing; making tactics and positioning matter more.

The raw math has them as average. I just do not see any evidence that they are a bad unit.

Strictly speaking, I haven't outright said that they're a bad unit--I've just heavily implied that they're very lackluster when compared to some of the melee units that currently exist by virtue of their schtick with Arcane Bodkins. Namarti Reavers are in a similar design space(just minus the Arcane Bodkins and with a silly bonus to running ooooohh ahhhh )

Ah, I see.

Like I said in reply to your static bit, I'd much rather see Glade Guard get reworked from the ground up than just try to make them 'worth their points'.
And in that same vein, I'd also like to see Wanderers in general get a shift in design space. Sylvaneth bring the forests with them, Idoneth shape the field to their liking, Nurgle corrupts it, Nagash's Legions use gravesites...

Why not allow for Wanderers to 'trap' a piece of terrain after they've occupied it?

Or allow one piece of terrain to be trapped pre-deployment per hero in the army or something. Make it deadly to non-wanderer units.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I believe Auticus would like to see such restrictions alongside a point drop for units that are not over-performing. He doesn't have a problem with shooting units, he doesn't like it when there is no reasonable tactical counter to shooting armies. I agree with him; even an entirely shooting army should have to rely on mobility, gimmicks, or some other element that ensures they must be played beyond simply picking targets in order to win. And the opponent should have options to mitigate that beyond happening to have warscrolls with abilities that do so directly. Terrain and locking ranged units in melee are classic approaches to this and have always worked well when implemented properly. Without such things the counter to ranged armies is to essentially overwhelm them before they do enough damage for shooting, which does not work well for game design when it is the only available tactic.

Too many times the examples given center around nonsense like Skyfires, Castigators, or Judicators when the discussion comes around to this topic. They're shooting units that can be used for shooting builds, but shooting armies are not the ones that really are causing these issues. I don't hear people complaining about Glade Guard hordes, I don't hear people complaining about Swifthawk Agents and Shadow Warrior alpha strikes. It's always a unit that isn't really meant to be 'spammed'(with the weird exception of Judicators who for whatever reason are Battleline) but is meant to be some kind of supporting unit for a melee heavy force.

Wanderer allegiance lets them retreat and get their shooting buff, with the added bonus of avoiding the new rule that a unit cannot shoot out of melee.

Counterpoint:
When playing against someone who is willing to take the potential hit from battleshock and encircle the unit with their Pile Ins, Glade Guard can't retreat. They don't get to move over units.

That is a good thing; making tactics and positioning matter more.

Sure it's a good thing--but again, it comes down to the idea that melee can potentially 'shut off' a ranged unit while ranged can't really do the same to melee. I've been tooling around for awhile that some of these ranged armies should get an Allegiance ability as part of their stuff that makes it so they can lower an enemy's movement value as part of the casualties they inflict. Make it a Bravery test, modified by casualties, that removes a point of Movement from the affected unit for the next phase.

The raw math has them as average. I just do not see any evidence that they are a bad unit.

Strictly speaking, I haven't outright said that they're a bad unit--I've just heavily implied that they're very lackluster when compared to some of the melee units that currently exist by virtue of their schtick with Arcane Bodkins. Namarti Reavers are in a similar design space(just minus the Arcane Bodkins and with a silly bonus to running ooooohh ahhhh )

Ah, I see.

Admittedly, I've had good success with Reavers of late at short range--but when you're hucking 30 dice at someone, you're bound to make some hits and they're bound to fail some rolls.

Like I said in reply to your static bit, I'd much rather see Glade Guard get reworked from the ground up than just try to make them 'worth their points'.
And in that same vein, I'd also like to see Wanderers in general get a shift in design space. Sylvaneth bring the forests with them, Idoneth shape the field to their liking, Nurgle corrupts it, Nagash's Legions use gravesites...

Why not allow for Wanderers to 'trap' a piece of terrain after they've occupied it?

Or allow one piece of terrain to be trapped pre-deployment per hero in the army or something. Make it deadly to non-wanderer units.

Ideally, I'd have it be so that certain Wanderer units had to occupy the terrain beforehand. Making it so that the terrain gets trapped pre-deployment would mean that people would just avoid it(which, while great in a tactical sense is still flustering when it's a part of your strategy). This would be a great place for the Waywatcher to get some more utility and for Deepwood Scouts and/or the actual Waywatcher unit to make a comeback. When I first started Warhammer back in the days of yore, Wood Elf armies could actually take traps as part of their army list and deploy spike traps, rope traps, etc.

Hell it could be our version of endless spells for Wanderers, since we no longer are 'masters of the forest'. It sets us apart from Sylvaneth a bit and gives the faction its own schtick as resourceful survivors.

I want balanced game where 2000 points means 2000 points and where missile units have to maneuver to get their shots off and where a battlefield is a battlefield and operates like one, where you use terrain to outmaneuver and position your army against your opponent instead of sitting still in a static line and being able to do whatever you want with little effort.

If a unit is undercosted I am 100% for raising their points. I'm against lowering points of average scale units because of the over power skew. I think the overpower skew needs addressed.

I want rules in place that make the battle feel like a battle and not a model representation of magic the gathering or warhammer invasion where you can tap a unit and attack any other unit without penalty and we just focus on combos and synergies. Thats not a wargame to me. Thats a miniatures game that borrows heavily from CCG mechanics.

If you feel that is nonsense... ok. But as I said earlier this year when I was getting ripped apart on the forums for talking about my houserules that were forests block line of sight, look out sir existing, etc... the pendulum of GW swings back and forth.

The pendulum now swung back more in the direction I want and I get to enjoy a couple of years of a game that is closer to a wargame than a CCG with models. On a real battlefield, missile units are support units. They provide support to the mainline units, they soften up units, they hold objectives, they provide a ranged sting to keep the enemy at bay. Thats been how missile units in swords and sorcery and historical combats have been represented forever, thats what I enjoy because thats the type of game I want. I don't want to play a game where my opponent can just take an army heavily filled with shooting attacks knowing that range is superior because you can strike from a distance (because if everyone could have guns in ye olde days they would have done so every single time) and use that as the main event. *shrug*

I want a game where you have to outplay me on the table, not a game where you can excel spreadsheet me off the table before the first die has been cast or where a lucky double turn roll wins the game.

There are exceptions like the wood elves always enjoyed for years, being the skirmish army in a block game and that was cool too.

I know that that pendulum will swing back in a few years, its just a matter of time. I'd also like to converse about gaming and present what I want in a game without people taking it the same as insulting their heritage and making everything a personal slight and attack and just jawing angry internet warrior style back and forth.

auticus wrote:
I want balanced game where 2000 points means 2000 points and where missile units have to maneuver to get their shots off and where a battlefield is a battlefield and operates like one, where you use terrain to outmaneuver and position your army against your opponent instead of sitting still in a static line and being able to do whatever you want with little effort.

So why is it okay for melee units to be uncontested but not okay for ranged units? Why should melee units just be able to move forward, no matter the terrain setup, and then declare charges with no reaction possible?

I've had far more of a "sitting still in a static line and being able to do whatever I want" with a melee army than I have with a ranged army. There's enough melee armies in the game that I don't have to move to them.

If a unit is undercosted I am 100% for raising their points. I'm against lowering points of average scale units because of the over power skew. I think the overpower skew needs addressed.

And I feel like your "skew" doesn't factor in that there are penalties in place that only affect ranged units. There's no -1 to hit penalty against hitting a character in melee if it's in a certain range of a friendly unit, there's no "melee can only attack this unit" rule, there's no "if your measure passes 1" over this scenery piece, you cannot attack" scenery.

I want rules in place that make the battle feel like a battle and not a model representation of magic the gathering or warhammer invasion where you can tap a unit and attack any other unit without penalty and we just focus on combos and synergies. Thats not a wargame to me. Thats a miniatures game that borrows heavily from CCG mechanics.

You do know that this is more or less exactly what we do in AoS, right...?

If you feel that is nonsense... ok. But as I said earlier this year when I was getting ripped apart on the forums for talking about my houserules that were forests block line of sight, look out sir existing, etc... the pendulum of GW swings back and forth.

Let's be fair: You weren't being "ripped apart" for the content of the rules, you were being "ripped apart" because of your insistence on talking about houserules when the full rules were just coming out. You were also being "ripped apart" because at the time you kept harping upon the ridiculous idea that ranged armies are somehow shutting down tables and driving new players away.

You still haven't gotten over the last part, if I'm going to be honest here. A ranged build for an army is not a ranged army. A ranged army is an army that is clearly designed to be dependent upon ranged attacks to deal most of its damage, with close combat units being present but not the dominant force within it.

The unspoken factor here is right in the name; ranged units. They make their attacks from a distance; less time moving, no charge required, and no opportunity for the enemy to swing back.

I think you both have some good points.

Although shooting units and armies will always have an inherent advantage over melee units, bare in mind that the most shooty army of them all, the Overlords, aren’t exactly in a good spot right now. I guess what I’m saying is, don’t swing the pendulum too far.

Overlords have no wizards; they cannot cast the Aethervoid Pendulum. They would need an allied wizard to do it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Overlords have no wizards; they cannot cast the Aethervoid Pendulum. They would need an allied wizard to do it.

Is that a joke? I honestly can’t tell.

I was thinking more of don’t nerf shooting too much because whilst it has an advantage it’s not the be all and end all.

Let's be fair: You weren't being "ripped apart" for the content of the rules, you were being "ripped apart" because of your insistence on talking about houserules when the full rules were just coming out. You were also being "ripped apart" because at the time you kept harping upon the ridiculous idea that ranged armies are somehow shutting down tables and driving new players away.

I've been ripped apart for those houserules that are now official rules for about three years now.

So why is it okay for melee units to be uncontested but not okay for ranged units? Why should melee units just be able to move forward, no matter the terrain setup, and then declare charges with no reaction possible?

I've had far more of a "sitting still in a static line and being able to do whatever I want" with a melee army than I have with a ranged army. There's enough melee armies in the game that I don't have to move to them.

DIdn't say it was ok for them. I've always been a fan of charge reactions and my own game system uses charge reactions so that units can shoot and flee in response to a charge.

You do know that this is more or less exactly what we do in AoS, right...?

With the new edition its a lot closer thats for sure.

You were also being "ripped apart" because at the time you kept harping upon the ridiculous idea that ranged armies are somehow shutting down tables and driving new players away.

Right. The ridiculous idea that accounted for seven player drops at my local last year. Seven out of about fifteen. Thats almost 50% of our new blood dropping because they got to face off against kunnin rukk style armies or the skyfire garbage, or the stormcast ranged spam garbage and they found it to be an unintuitive, frustrating, garbage experience that they left for other games that made a little more sense.

The problem isn't really ranged attacks. It was that no matter where you go on the table those ranged units could hit you regardless.

Now thats changed. And I'm glad. The game is tons more interesting now "officially" (i'm getting the same experience because those rules have all been things I've been using since day-one).

And since 2.0 was announced we have gained double our player count BECAUSE of changes to things like forests.

I'm going to at this point bow out of the rant because I'm not a GW game designer and have no influence on them so involving myself in an angry rant over a game of plastic dudes and how GW implemented the rules is not really in my best interest or constructive use of my time. I'm going to enjoy my 2-3 years of forests blocking line of sight again officially as well as the look out sir officially without having to argue on the senate floor for hours about houseruling it in and how houserules are bad. I'm not going to be sorry for my enjoyment of that. I'm also going to enjoy that my own community is doubling their player count because the rules moved over into a place that makes a lot more sense over gamey gamey ccg deck building rules using pretty models. I'm not going to be sorry for that enjoyment either.

If you want melee units to have restrictions do what I did and houserule them in. I have had to do it for the entire lifespan of AOS up until now. Charge reactions would be a good thing. Maybe 3.0 will have charge reactions.

TL;DR: I dont have a thing against ranged units. I have a thing against unintuitive non immersive rules. Which I have communicated as such probably over one hundred times this year. An example being missile troops firing through several layers of forests and hitting with no penalty being unintuitive and non immersive.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

I forgot to ask this earlier; while the average skew is higher, is the proportion of units causing that skew similar? For example; having half the units be 30% off-point creates a 15% average skew while having a quarter the units be 60% off also creates a 15% skew but those two situations are obviously quite different when it comes to the tabletop.

Thats a great question, but unfortunately what I mean is that 22% of the units in the game are either under or over powered. (12% under powered, 10% overpowered)

The amount of under/over I didnt get into fully, but thats a really good metric to examine.

Kanluwen, the limits of melee are built into the mechanics of the game. Charge can be "shut off" by the dice, and we don't need a terrain piece that makes units untargetable by melee beyond 1" because most melee weapons only have a 1" reach. The open table makes units untargetable by melee beyond 1".

Auticus, you have a tendency to see trends in your local meta and translate them to trends in the community as a whole. If anything, ranged armies have drawn players to the game in my area, and based on the hype Kharadron Overlords got on release, I'd say that's closer to the case in overall community.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The unspoken factor here is right in the name; ranged units. They make their attacks from a distance; less time moving, no charge required, and no opportunity for the enemy to swing back.

On the opposite side of things, close combat units get to attack twice in any given turn that they've made it into combat since you get to activate during both your turn and your opponent's turn.

auticus wrote:Right. The ridiculous idea that accounted for seven player drops at my local last year. Seven out of about fifteen. Thats almost 50% of our new blood dropping because they got to face off against kunnin rukk style armies or the skyfire garbage, or the stormcast ranged spam garbage and they found it to be an unintuitive, frustrating, garbage experience that they left for other games that made a little more sense.

The problem isn't really ranged attacks. It was that no matter where you go on the table those ranged units could hit you regardless.

And this is why I've continually stated that I feel he's a bit too colored by his anecdotal experience and why I have been harping so heavily upon the fact that just because an army can have a ranged build does not make it a ranged army.

Kunnin Rukk? Skyfire? Judicator spam? Those are all melee(or in the case of Skyfires: Magic) heavy armies that have a ranged element that people found and exploited since it played into the Mortal Wound or dice spam side of things.

Again, I don't hear about Wanderer Glade Guard hordes. I don't hear about Swifthawk Agents. I don't hear about Namarti Reaver hordes. One of the biggest disappointments for the Idoneth book was that the ballistae on the Leviadon and Allopex are basically the same darned thing as the Namarti Reavers' shooting attack, just hitting and wounding on 3s instead of 4s.

I guess maybe somewhere there's been complaints about them, but the majority of times I've really seen mention of Glade Guard is regarding Arcane Bodkins(which is why I know people were taking them as part of mixed Order).

Now thats changed. And I'm glad. The game is tons more interesting now "officially" (i'm getting the same experience because those rules have all been things I've been using since day-one).

And since 2.0 was announced we have gained double our player count BECAUSE of changes to things like forests.

Which is great and all, but Skyfires are still going to be able to hit you "no matter where you go on the table". They have the Fly keyword Auticus. That means they get to ignore the undergrowth rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
Kanluwen, the limits of melee are built into the mechanics of the game. Charge can be "shut off" by the dice, and we don't need a terrain piece that makes units untargetable by melee beyond 1" because most melee weapons only have a 1" reach. The open table makes units untargetable by melee beyond 1".

There's a difference between "unable to attack" and "untargetable".
A unit that is out of 18" range for a bowman is "untargetable" by your definition otherwise.

Charge can be "shut off" by dice, but the dice can be mitigated far heavier than terrain setups can be. Between spells to move up quickly, abilities to increase Charge rolls, etc--there's way more mitigation to that than there is for a 4+/4+ shooting attack with an 18" range and 0 rend.

Auticus, you have a tendency to see trends in your local meta and translate them to trends in the community as a whole. If anything, ranged armies have drawn players to the game in my area, and based on the hype Kharadron Overlords got on release, I'd say that's closer to the case in overall community.

You are correct, we all see things in our own experience that color our perspective. I don't see my trends in my community as to the community as a whole though, but my viewpoints come from what affects me personally and the people around me personally. I have said this many times in the past and will say it again: my opinion and views are 100% based on the community around me and how the rules affect my community around me. I have no way to talk about the community globally because thats impossible. I have no issue with ranged units or armies personally so long as they are operating within the realm of immersion and not able to just bypass the entire game by sitting back and shooting through houses and forests because lord Bob's horn is visible behind all of the terrain he's hiding behind.

The people that we (my community) lost because of kunnin rukk, skyfires, etc... were lost because there was no intuitive way to get around them. You look at a battlefield and you expect that if you take cover behind woods or a house or something that it would give you a benefit, but in AOS 1.0 there was no benefit if 29 guys were hidden but Lord Bob marauder #30's horn was visible on his helmet. The whole unit could then be targeted with no penalty because of that. Thats why we lost people. Because the game was not intuitive at all and was playing like a glorified collectible card game with pretty miniatures.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Which is great and all, but Skyfires are still going to be able to hit you "no matter where you go on the table". They have the Fly keyword Auticus. That means they get to ignore the undergrowth rule.

Ok. They fly. They have a narrative and immersive reason for why they can shoot over woods. I'm ok with that. It makes sense.

Units on foot blowing cannonballs through three layers of forests however do not make sense and are unintuitive.

You are focused so heavily on MECHANICS. I am focused heavily on IMMERSION.

auticus wrote:
You are focused so heavily on MECHANICS. I am focused heavily on IMMERSION.

I'm focused so heavily on MECHANICS, because you don't play a game via its IMMERSION.
Immersion is something that will happen whether the mechanics are there or not.

You know what breaks immersion for me? Randomly having penalties to shooting attacks that aren't there for melee or magic. Being told that because of a few outliers(and Skyfires most definitely are outliers) that aren't even part of shooting armies as a whole that my style of play is somehow "less than" or that it's going to drive people away. It's not the playstyle that drives people away, it is the player. If someone does nothing but go for an aggressive alpha strike it doesn't matter what type of army they're playing, you will lose people.

Except that the people I know are pretty much universally in the camp of if the rules allow you to do it and its immersion breaking or doesn't make sense, then to them and us it is bad game design.

An aggressive player playing an aggressive build shooting through three levels of forest produces the same WTF moment as a non aggressive casual player shooting through three levels of forest.

I don't care if its skyfires. Or glade guard. Or hand gunners. Or an elephant cannon. Or Prince Lew with his slingshot, If its shooting through forests with no penalty at a unit of 30 marauders because one of the maraudr's helmet horns is visible, its a WTF experience.

That has absolutely zero to do with the player bringing in aggressive lists or non aggressive lists.

Mayhaps you are thinking that these people quit the game because they got beaten because of a rukk bomb or skyfires, but no thats not why they quit the game. I know that that is a common assumption that people would only quit out of frustration for not being able to win.

These are the same guys I played with for five editions of WHFB that have gotten beaten before but overcame it but the rules made sense. These are the same guys that road tripped with me to baltimore and chicago and dallas and little rock and several other cities to play in GTs that all were high placing guys. They aren't bad players. These guys were quitting because the rules left too many WTF moments that made no sense. The same reaction would have been given if 20 glade guard were shooting through three layers of forest to hit lord bob's helmet and doing damage to the whole unit. Not because its OP... because its stupid as hell.