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.

 auticus wrote:
Yeah I woke up to a thread rolling in one of the groups I am in with one of the tourney slaanesh players gloating and strutting and telling everyone that was saying his stuff was OP to learn to play better and stop telling him what he's not allowed to take and whining its too powerful, since GW had the chance to tone it down but clearly they felt it was fine and left it alone.

Which is why I'm glad I'm not playing AOS anymore. Models are great... but when they are at the detriment of why I buy the models and spend the time painting them (the game) then that is where its not great.

Edit: and now in getting my morning coffee and reading around, others are saying iit got super nerfed (lol?). Raising the depravity cost was I suppose a form of point tweaking. But as Overread mentions, all it really did was enforce that the triple keeper of secrets build is basically the only type of build you will see out of anyone who is building to win games (I assume most people) to get the most depravity possible to free-summon the most points.

Seems more to me that the issue here is an obnoxious person in the group that doesn’t understand that WAAC mentality and a friendly environment don’t mix.
It’s always swings and roundabouts with power.
As of jan-feb there’s likely to be a new flavour everyone wants.

True but GW bad rules foster and endorse WAAC mentality and force groups to socially engineer and peer pressure each other, instead of letting the rules dictate what is and is not legal.

When sporting teams get together to play, they don't have to self-regulate themselves typically; the rules of the game dictate what they can and cannot do.

In the US at least, tabletop games are very similar to sports to a great many people.

Actually if a top pro football team goes to play with a local school club the top team very much do moderate how they choose to play.

Lack of play regulation at the social level only tends to come into practice when its a competitive event between like-minded individuals.

 Overread wrote:
Actually if a top pro football team goes to play with a local school club the top team very much do moderate how they choose to play.

Lack of play regulation at the social level only tends to come into practice when its a competitive event between like-minded individuals.

So I played soccer (football to those across the pond) for a great number of years. Both indoor and outdoor. This reminds me of a time a number of years back where my soccer club in a "B" FIFA league drew for whatever reason the city's professional soccer club. I want to say they had an odd number of teams in their "A" league, of w hich the pro soccer club was a part, and so the league organizer would pair a "B" with an "A" to make sure everyone had a game during the course of the season and there were no byes.

That game was fun. And ridiculous. We were destroyed and stopped counting score after it was 10-0 in the first half.

They however did not tone anything back. Everyone was laughing and it was all in good fun, but the competitive spirit was still there and they still tried as hard as they could even though we were obviously mismatched.

Thats how American tabletop games are also played, at least in my neck of the woods.

I am told so often on forums that this only comes to practiice when its a competitive event between like-minded individuals, and I push back on that so hard because its so blatantly and grossly false, and I know my region is not the only region in the US where this is true in game stores. Triple keepers smoking casuals happens every weekend in my local stores in non tournament events. Tourney power flesh eater courts nutsacking a casual campaign happens every weekend in my local stores. Not just at tournaments where its expected, and certainly not just between two competitive like minded people.

The unspoken rule is "if its legal by GW, you have to deal with it" as far as pick up games go, public campaigns go, and obviously public tournament events go. If you want to escape that you either don't play, or you try to assemble a private group in your basement or garage and then social engineer them to your bidding.

This obviously rankles and chaffes a lot of people, and considering you only have a dozen or so public players in your total player pool... it takes a tremendous amount of politics and personal willpower and energy to forge. As such it is also highly unrealistic, when if the rules were a bit tighter in the first place it wouldn't be necessary at all.

Chiming in, Auticus articulates what my area is like as well. We're close to one of the venues for bigger Tournaments (Adepticon), and our boys and girls make the trip to compete for 40k and AoS. So generally, pick up games are going to be just as hard as tournaments, though almost everyone barring brand new players try to build for that.

There are a few folk, myself being one, that do talk about narrative events and more casual leagues ... But generally those become corrupted with more competitive lists due to the need to win, or because someone provided a prize pool for the end, or something equally unfortunate.

I guess the saving grace for new folk is the Warhammer store that has free leagues meant to be fun and are so far maintained as that.

I think that a lot of people feel auticus exaggerates, and while his area does seem to be a bit extreme, it's a pretty common idea that "if the list is legal, deal with it" and caring how good it is versus your opponent is the lowest concern, if a concern at all. There are people who will bring a power list to casual games, curb stomp people and see nothing wrong with it (not all are the "git gud scrub" type who gloat about it, however). There are people who see nothing wrong with bringing a tournament list to a narrative campaign game or bring a heavy-hitter list to a teaching game for a newish player. They exist, and seem to be pretty common in game stores in the USA.

Worse though is the person who doesn't INTEND to pick a power army, but what they like happens to be the good stuff and they inadvertently curb stomp people and get a bad reputation when they just really like the KoS model or really like the idea of Eel cavalry or big undead monsters. Those people get hit the hardest because they are doing exactly what GW is telling them to, but since what they like is really good they just crush people.

I will, however, echo something mentioned in a thread long time ago. That the attitude and behaviour of players is very dependent on the area/country you play in. I know I, and a few people from other countries in Europe, are very lucky to have a more friendly playing areas.

Although I will admit that this is slowly changing in the 40k group as there are now a few people in that group that are now travelling to the US tourneys(ITC) and are becoming more and more competitive the more they play in that particular tourney circuit. As a social phenomenon I find it very interesting to watch.

Personally, I'm in an area where if a player has the attitude of "if legal, then your problem" then that player doesn't find pick up games. If cutthroat is the name of the game, that is always discussed ahead of time. And generally, it's not a long discussion either.

Player A: "Anyone got an army with them?"

Player B: "Sure. What were you thinking?"

Player A: "2000pts."

Player B: "Alright. Do I bring the thunder?"

Player A: "Yes." or "No." with optional clarification.

Takes about a minute.

I think that a lot of people feel auticus exaggerates, and while his area does seem to be a bit extreme

There is no exaggeration at all about my area, that is quite plainly how it is. I also have traveled the country and don't find my area to be extreme at all. I find it to be pretty normal how they operate as far as American gaming environments are concerned.

That the attitude and behaviour of players is very dependent on the area/country you play in.

I absolutely agree. Which is why when someone from the UK or other countries tries to say I am exaggerating and push that its just hyperbole, why I continue to counter argue. Because there is nothing hyperbolic at all about it. Thats american culture.

We have a gent that is from the UK that lives in our city now and he has claimed MANY times how different it is over here and how he likes that because he is a competitive dude and likes how the default in any store here is beat-face.

So I totally get that other cultures see this as an absurd cartoon caricature. Even the guys in the US that are blessed with a more casual play group say that, but thats just not the norm here.

The last time I went to Adepticon in 2018 it was to do the AOS narrative event. It was being touted as being casual and friendly and all about the story and the tournament guys had their tournament and the narrative guys would have this. So I was stoked.

Until I saw that the lists being brought to this were by and large not casual friendly narrative, and the narrative being told was that everyone has a super powerful force.

Which is why ... people who have casual groups or live in a country where that is the norm (casual play) that don't have to deal with this... I want better balanced rules from GW.

Player A: "Anyone got an army with them?"

Player B: "Sure. What were you thinking?"

Player A: "2000pts."

Player B: "Alright. Do I bring the thunder?"

Player A: "Yes." or "No." with optional clarification.

This is how it works in my three stores:

A: anyone got an army with them?
B: sure what are you thinking.
A: 2000 pts.

Note at this point the conversation ends 80% of the time and then the game is played
The other 20%:
B: Alright do I bring the thunder.
A: yes (default) - good game
A: no (not default) i'd rather you not bring your adepticon smash face list.
Three answers derive from this
---> 1) B: sorry I don't have the inclination and/or models to accomodate your wish. (players don't play, they go their own separate ways)
---> 2) B: ok, I removed one of the smash face models. Its now toned down from Filth to "A" tier. Lets play. (players play, bad experience)
---> 3) C: ok. (players play, lists are toned down, both players have fun)

I find all three happen in equal measure.

There is a fourth option I have seen happen a couple times a month. Both players unload their force. Player A looks at Player B's force, and says "I have nothing I can do to beat that, do you want to play something else?" To which they agree and play something else.

To sum up US culture in a nutshell, I once talked in my group about how I deliberately tone back armies and tactics so that I will lose games to opponents I could easily beat otherwise, because everyone having fun means more to me than winning.

Some people thought I was making it up, as an excuse for losing games.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
To sum up US culture in a nutshell, I once talked in my group about how I deliberately tone back armies and tactics so that I will lose games to opponents I could easily beat otherwise, because everyone having fun means more to me than winning.

Some people thought I was making it up, as an excuse for losing games.

I can understand why if you explained it that way, because it really sounds like you're losing on purpose.

Toning down your army list doesn't mean that. It means that you don't optimize everything to the extremes, but rather adapt to your opponent's list so that the game is still interesting. You can still play with the units at your disposal, use them at their best and still play to try to win.

I feel one part of the problem is that a lot of players are too focused on the list building part of the game. I always thought that there is no skill in particular while optimizing your list ; it's how you deal with your units on the battlefield that really show a player's talent.

Which is why I always get weird looks from competitive players when I'm telling them to play a game where the units are set from the scenario, like a narrative battle with specific armies. They usually see it as you can't play it "seriously" to win at all costs that way.

It is literally quite possible to not get a game if you are not tournament ready here in the States.

I can't tell you how often I have heard, "I'm preparing this list for the next tournament."

The only time a game isn't like this is if there are literally no tournament games happening like for Flames of War or Battletech. Warmachine? Steamroller or nothing (some only bring their Steamroller lists, and they can't build down from it). AoS or 40K? We have probably a dozen stores that sell GW in our metropolis, and so one of those games is having a tournament in a weekend. X-Wing? Oh, yeah.

I'm wondering if Marvel Protocols or SW Legion will be hitting that pace. One of the bigger stores just had Legion tournament at the beginning of the month, and they had a slightly better turn out then our WMH end of the year gathering.

I feel you are missing the point I was trying to make.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well if dealing 9 damage in a combat phase is the standard by which he is measured then I suppose he isn't so great.

Your missing the point... he cant buff well, he gets outran for the unit he can buff, he isn't consistent damage, and his 1 buff cost CP and is actually bad within BoC b.c they don't need +to wound when you can get re-roll wounds a few ways. He is basically a supporting melee beat stick that isn't good at beating things. A chaos lord does what he does in melee but for 1 CP can make a unit fight twice, thats leaps and bounds better than 1 unit getting +1 to wound....

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well if dealing 9 damage in a combat phase is the standard by which he is measured then I suppose he isn't so great.

Your missing the point... he cant buff well, he gets outran for the unit he can buff, he isn't consistent damage, and his 1 buff cost CP and is actually bad within BoC b.c they don't need +to wound when you can get re-roll wounds a few ways. He is basically a supporting melee beat stick that isn't good at beating things. A chaos lord does what he does in melee but for 1 CP can make a unit fight twice, thats leaps and bounds better than 1 unit getting +1 to wound....

Well we can crunch the numbers:

Doombull verses 5+ save: 4.83 average damage
verses 4+ save: 4.08

Chaos Lord verses 5+ save: 4.77
verses 4+ save: 4.11

So average damage is about the same. The doombull is faster and more durable, but does not have as good a command ability. So comparatively speaking they are on similar terms, though the superiority of the CL's command ability definitely gives him the edge. In that respect 100 for the doombull verses 110 for the CL makes sense. But I feel like the chaos lord should be in the 150 range, and only that low because there is serious competition for CP in the StD lineup. So by the same comparison the doombull would be more like 130-140.

But perhaps a better question would be, what 100 points of troop option beats a doombull?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel you are missing the point I was trying to make.

Not at all, I get it. It's just the way you put it makes the misunderstanding easier for others not understanding your point of view.

That said, my statement about the inflation of list building's importance in players' mind still applies. And I believe most troubles here actually come from player's mindset about that specific part of the game. GW could make the best rules ever, as long as this mindset is the same, the troubles will keep appearing.

The problem existing or not isn't an issue, like most things it is the severity that matters.

And I believe most troubles here actually come from player's mindset about that specific part of the game. GW could make the best rules ever, as long as this mindset is the same, the troubles will keep appearing.

That can be proven to be objectively false.

During the 6th edition of whfb, the balance was the best its ever been, and these balance discussions were not common.

During the fan comp days of AOS, the balance was pretty good and these balance discussions being so off the rails were not common when using fan comps as the context (they were common in that people didn't want fan comp and wanted official points but thats a different context).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The problem existing or not isn't an issue, like most things it is the severity that matters.

Severity only makes it worse, but it is the problem at the roots that actually sparks it all.

If that mindset didn't exist, that kind of problem would be irrelevant by nature. That's how I see it.

 auticus wrote:

That can be proven to be objectively false.

During the 6th edition of whfb, the balance was the best its ever been, and these balance discussions were not common.

During the fan comp days of AOS, the balance was pretty good and these balance discussions being so off the rails were not common when using fan comps as the context (they were common in that people didn't want fan comp and wanted official points but thats a different context).

Objectively false, when you're using a subjective statement ? On what facts was 6th edition balanced, actually ? I'm interested to see you prove that, really.

This is exactly the kind of reactions I get all the time. People using subjectivity from their competitive mindset and brushing it away like it was never the problem at the roots.

About AoS' debut, I believe the main reason is more to look at the community's mindset at that time. Let's face it, most hardcore competitive players from Battle didn't jump the boat at that time - and I'm not sure there were really hardcore competitive players in the first days of AoS. Their mindset was different, and so their point of view was as well. It was fine for them because they found the fun even so their game was dragged in the trash by those who left. If you didn't remember that time, I do - I was there.

 Sarouan wrote:

Objectively false, when you're using a subjective statement ? On what facts was 6th edition balanced, actually ? I'm interested to see you prove that, really.

by the pure fact that the 6. Edition Core Rules and Faction Rules (ravening hordes) were written by the same team at the same time

 Sarouan wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The problem existing or not isn't an issue, like most things it is the severity that matters.

Severity only makes it worse, but it is the problem at the roots that actually sparks it all.

If that mindset didn't exist, that kind of problem would be irrelevant by nature. That's how I see it.

Absolutely, but really the root problem is simply that some people are donkey-caves. THAT isn't changing any time soon, so we are left dealing with severity. Or put differently, we are dealing with the amount of room donkey-caves have to work with.

Of course even that is somewhat secondary for the level of severe imbalance AoS is at, where even two people doing their best to balance against each other can easily end up with wildly different results.

A 100 point doombull feels completely wrong but I have to agree that even at 120 it wasn't good enough. And at 100, he isn't because hes part of a non functional army.

He should be in the 150-160 range and be worth those points.

After the point drops I have come to the realisation that the best way to use the Brass Despoiler batallion in a mixed khorne army is with 3x10 gors and 3 Doombulls.

Bullgors have much more damage than a Doombull (The bloodkine has nearly the same damage output than a Doombull), but they need a ton of buffs to be reliable. The Doombull offers a good punch in a nice package that doesn't work alone but as a bigger list with other things that punch harder can go under the radar.

The problem of course is the fething 190 point cost of Brass Despoilers.

 kodos wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

Objectively false, when you're using a subjective statement ? On what facts was 6th edition balanced, actually ? I'm interested to see you prove that, really.

by the pure fact that the 6. Edition Core Rules and Faction Rules (ravening hordes) were written by the same team at the same time

by the same token 40k was balanced briefly in 3rd edition when all the then-current armies had lists in the BRB.

Unlike Index 8th which had a slew of issues (less than now of course) immediately.

About AoS' debut, I believe the main reason is more to look at the community's mindset at that time. Let's face it, most hardcore competitive players from Battle didn't jump the boat at that time - and I'm not sure there were really hardcore competitive players in the first days of AoS. Their mindset was different, and so their point of view was as well. It was fine for them because they found the fun even so their game was dragged in the trash by those who left. If you didn't remember that time, I do - I was there.

I can't speak for the world but in my region our AOS scene started with almost nothing but the hardcore competitive players. One of our hardest of hards was at the GW store with his 300 model tzeentch armies trying with a straight face to say that unbound summoning was just fine and you just needed to git gud.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Objectively false, when you're using a subjective statement ? On what facts was 6th edition balanced, actually ? I'm interested to see you prove that, really.

Are you asking me to mathematically prove balance? The win/loss percentages of the time were all pretty much the same across the board. There certainly was nothing like what we have today or even 10 years ago. There were no armies that were pulling higher than a 60% win rate at tournaments like slaanesh and friends do today. That started to change when they returned to their ways of leaking a book every 6 months or whatever, but the first two or three years of 6th ed were heads and shoulders better balance wise and army viability wise than today.

By the meaning of the response being that the intent seemed to be people will always complain about balance so nothing has ever been balanced so GW today with AOS is fine because balance can't happen, when back then there weren't a lot of wailing over balance, and when the fan comps in AOS were running ther ewasn't a lot of imbalance running amuk then either.

I can objectively say my comp had at worst a 58/42 win split for the worst offenders, which is several times greater than what GW has right now. I can objectively state that 6th edition whfb had less than a 60/40 disparity across the board as well at the GT level (because I was there at most of them for years and saw)

Thats as close as I can get to mathematically proving that the balance was miles better than when it started going to hell with Mat Ward and the demon book in 7th edition carrying on through GW's writing today. The caveat was that around late 2003 to early 2004, 6th edition started becoming the GW we all know, and that armies like the vampire counts started rising in power in part due to the bus death star build, and then swelling with ultimate power in 7th edition alongside demons and dark elves.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well if dealing 9 damage in a combat phase is the standard by which he is measured then I suppose he isn't so great.

Your missing the point... he cant buff well, he gets outran for the unit he can buff, he isn't consistent damage, and his 1 buff cost CP and is actually bad within BoC b.c they don't need +to wound when you can get re-roll wounds a few ways. He is basically a supporting melee beat stick that isn't good at beating things. A chaos lord does what he does in melee but for 1 CP can make a unit fight twice, thats leaps and bounds better than 1 unit getting +1 to wound....

But perhaps a better question would be, what 100 points of troop option beats a doombull?

Shadow warriors; 2+/3+ if in cover, 18" range 10 shots, -1 for 1 vs 5+ its 4.68 damage, they can also deepstrike, not giving stats for the rest, but some more are, Freeguild Pistoliers, warpfire thrower, Leadbelchers, etc...

There are plenty, many are more niche or even more squishy, but there are lots. If you go with 100pts for blocks as well its even more so (but thats not full fair), there are MANYmore if you go up to CL points, some units can do double the damage for 150pts give or take 10pts as well. Sof or 50% more points to get many times double the wounds and damage? yeah sounds good.

since FW is cleaning house i was wondering, how are clossal squig, squig gobba and troggoth hag doing it on the table?

in a mono troggoth or mono squig army, are these models worth it to add?

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
since FW is cleaning house i was wondering, how are clossal squig, squig gobba and troggoth hag doing it on the table?

in a mono troggoth or mono squig army, are these models worth it to add?

The spitter does just fine, I always take one as range is scarce.
Always earns its place no matter what.

The colossal is squishy.
Hits like a train and I love using it as it can be insanely quick, but you have to avoid a fair few things (large blocks, dedicated CC troops etc)
As long as you pick your targets it will do well.
You would likely get more from the same points worth of bounders, but it provides a big distraction.

The hag I can’t say as I’ve never used one.
Dislike the model so I’ll never use it.





As a side note, I wouldn’t mind seeing a legion of Azgorh update either.
A few adjustments here and there would go a long way to helping them.
Not had any love for a while.
Not so fussy about spells and terrain like others have, but just a few tweaks to rules and points here and there.
Also want the skullcracker back on the FW site.
It’s a staple of most LoA armies but you either have to convert or find one on eBay.
Considering the last few have gone for around £300 or so, converting is the only reasonable option.

The new Plague Monk warscroll is up.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls//AoS_Skaven_Warscroll_card_Plague_Monks.pdf

With just a quick read over and no benefit of a stats deep dive, they still seem really good, in my opinion. Just not bonkers like they were.

Would like to see more of this kind of adjustment to warscrolls across the board,rather than just points +/-.

Would like to see more of this kind of adjustment to warscrolls across the board,rather than just points +/-.

I agree fully.

Agree here as well and its something I've long said. Sometimes points is good, but every time points go up in value it makes the potential number you can take of a model go down. This is bad in a model game because someone who enjoys taking 3 keepers in a list suddenly getting told "nope now you can only take max 2" now has a "useless" model unless the game goes to 3K points.

Changing the units warscroll means that players can retain the same point potential number to use in their army; but at the same time its core stats get adjusted. Also many times upping and lowering points isn't actually dealing with a problem. Heck sometimes when an army has a powerful core upping the points doesn't actually shut it down - Daughters of Khaine still use lots of witches supported by queens even though the points went up on both. The powerblock remained functional it was the support models that likely took a greater fall in use.