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.

The problem/conflict is the viewpoint that only tournament data matters and that if tournament data has an acceptable win/loss spread then the rest of the game should be fine as well.

Balancing the game better probably wouldn't seriously impact tournament statistics. So that is a reasonable assumption.

It would do miles and away a greater service to those people that arne't playing in tournaments, so change for the sake of change would not be valid.

I can definitely tell the difference between the game's feel in terms of balance today vs back in the fan comp days.

It was so enjoyable being able to put together an army knowing that it would be within a reasonable range regardless of the units/battalions I brought. I still used PPC well into the GHB days (point scale was about the same so I could play a PPC list vs a GHB one) because of that.

My personal guess, we are missing GHB 19 as doing the book together with AoS 2.0 was a mistake and the already not that good balancing now gets worse (or better said get recognised more) the longer the old stuff stays.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
*facedesk*

Percentage meta as compared to percentage tourney wins. If X% of player play a given faction but that factions wins 2X% of those tourneys then there is a skew towards that faction being better. And I believe you know that is exactly what I meant. The second bit is such a blatant strawman I barely know how to respond. And you have still not addressed that there is no proof the game is balanced, unless you consider over 60% or under 40% win rate balanced.

Some outliers don't mean you have to completely rewrite the system. Literally all you need to do to fix DoK is bump up Hag Queens and some of the other Aura units in points, and maaaybe Morathi. Nagash needs to go up and including Grimghasts in LoN was a mistake. LoN without the Nighthaunt units is actually a strong and balanced book.

"Proof the game is balanced" is such a subjective thing that I honestly don't know how to respond about it. Pretty much every supported faction is between 40-60% win rate on THWG's stats there, which is pretty solid for variance considering how many there are. Again, a few outliers, but that doesn't mean the game is broken.

In fact, when auticus was working on Azyr and posted these stats: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/664850.page which has a very similar variance, everyone, including you, NinthMusketeer, told him how good it looked, despite there being two Factions above 60% and one below 40%. But somehow similar numbers are different in this situation, or your own personal idea of what balance is has changed since then.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This argument only makes sense if the speaker feels the game is unbalanced and balance should be improved.

Maybe provide some reasoning as to why the proposed changes will not improve balance. Show us why summoning & mortal wound based armies are not stronger than those which are not. Give us some examples, data, or even anecdotes.

DoK does neither Summoning nor MWs, and is the highest win % at the moment.

Stormcast does not summon (there is one CA in one specific kind of list that can resummon on a 5+, and is not the reason they work). There's only one unit that does a lot of MWs (Evocators), all others are fairly incidental.

Slaanesh and Tzeentch are summoning armies and no one is complaining about them running around destroying the meta. Heck, Tzeentch also has solid MW output and is considered a mid-tier army by most people.

Fyreslayers are an army designed to shut down both MWs (with Beard Save) and Summoning (via body clogging up the board and locking objectives), while doing neither. Bonesplitterz similar, thanks to 2 wound high body count and Kunnin Rukk efficiency.

KO did neither when they were considered a hard-meta build with Barak-Ziflin Alpha Strike, their damage was all regular damage and when they died they died.

Idoneth Deepkin are a very strong army with a variety of builds and again has no summoning and only MWs on one unit (Morsarr, once per game, on a dice roll).

Nighthaunt have neither spammable MWs nor Summoning and play with defensiveness and overall damage efficiency.

Seraphon have summoning, and despite being one of the better armies at summoning if they build for it, no one is complaining that they're destroying the world.


Summoning is, in fact, usually not that difficult to shut down once you realize where it comes from and how to stop it. Usually it boils down to "Kill the Heroes", because they're the things that need to be summoned by. The rest of shutting it down is learning how to zone 9" effectively so even when they do summon it doesn't have much impact. That has everything to do with experience and nothing to do with list building.

As for MW output armies, which ones are left? The ones that can do it really efficiently are Skaven (potentially a problem but also expensive and blow themselves up, also only out for a month so lack of experience against them), Tzeentch (considered a mid-tier army and more focus on hordes than MW output) and Evocator bomb Stormcast armies (get shut down extremely hard by chaff, especially things that have MW saves like Daughters, Plaguebearers, and Fyreslayers).

auticus wrote:
The problem/conflict is the viewpoint that only tournament data matters and that if tournament data has an acceptable win/loss spread then the rest of the game should be fine as well.

Balancing the game better probably wouldn't seriously impact tournament statistics. So that is a reasonable assumption.

It would do miles and away a greater service to those people that arne't playing in tournaments, so change for the sake of change would not be valid.

I can definitely tell the difference between the game's feel in terms of balance today vs back in the fan comp days.

Fair points, but a few things I disagree with:

Tournament data matters for a few reasons. First, it's one of the few places you can get huge numbers of people that don't know each other to play games, and it's also recorded. Playing against the same person over and over doesn't really give statistically relevant data, nor are most people in their basements or FLGSs recording their games. Data is data.

Second, tournament games are games where both people are showing up with the intention to win, whether their lists are super honed or not. Casual games are riddled with mistakes, misrolls, distractions, and early endings because of time restraints. That's very much not usable data, an environment where two people are actively trying to get through a game and win while keeping all rules in line provides much better data. To that end, tournaments do it much better.

The things people find too strong about the game in a casual setting varies hard from person to person, area to area. I've seen people online not two months ago complaining about Free Peoples being too good because of Stand and Shoot, and others complain about Beastclaw being busted because of the halving damage on Stonehorns. Yet neither of these things are discussed in this thread nor considered in the general consensus to be too strong. Feelings are, generally, not a thing to base change on.

We should have a Godwin's law for balance discussions. Any time somebody mentions that even chess is imbalanced, he or she automatically loses the debate. (I know thats not how Godwin's law works but...)

 Galas wrote:
We should have a Godwin's law for balance discussions. Any time somebody mentions that even chess is imbalanced, he or she automatically loses the debate.

We'll put it right next to the Godwin's Godwin's Law: "Anyone who says 'Anyone who says X, automatically loses the debate, because Y', automatically loses the debate, because they contribute nothing to the discussion."

Requizen wrote:

auticus wrote:
PS - Mortal Khorne still isn't a faction. Buy different models if you want to win.

Why? Why should I? Or anyone else for that matter?

You should buy models because you like them, or to enlarge your army or to meet minimum foc requirements. Not because you have to in order to stand a chance of winning.

I’m thinking of Overlords. I’m told that if I want to win, I have to ditch the ships and spam skyhooks and endrinriggers. Why? Why should I be forced to abandon minis I’ve paid for to buy more models that I don’t want? Why can’t the ones I have not work properly?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Requizen wrote:

auticus wrote:
PS - Mortal Khorne still isn't a faction. Buy different models if you want to win.

Why? Why should I? Or anyone else for that matter?

You should buy models because you like them, or to enlarge your army or to meet minimum foc requirements. Not because you have to in order to stand a chance of winning.

I’m thinking of Overlords. I’m told that if I want to win, I have to ditch the ships and spam skyhooks and endrinriggers. Why? Why should I be forced to abandon minis I’ve paid for to buy more models that I don’t want? Why can’t the ones I have not work properly?

Because... that's how games work. If you want the best chance at winning, you build/play to get the best chance at winning.

"Why can't I win consistently at Starcraft when building nothing but Zerglings?"
"Why can't I win consistently at DOTA by playing Rylai as hard carry?"
"Why can't I win consistently at American Football by doing nothing but run plays every single play?"
etc

Because it doesn't work like that. Games are often designed to work in a certain way and when you try to go against the grain, it doesn't work out.

You want to play multiple boat KO? You're gimping yourself. They're support pieces where you might have 1 for transport and maybe 1 for interference running, but they're not designed to be workhorses. KO is balanced with punchy 'Riggers and shooty 'Nauts doing most of the heavy lifting, so you should load up on those. I don't ever see a world in which you can just buy 2k points off the shelf based on looks and have it work. Even with carefully calculated formulas and enough pages of comp restrictions to blind a man, you'd still end up with units that do well in missions or combo better or do well against armies that are commonly seen, and so will perform better. That's not a failing of the system, that's just how asymmetrical games usually work.

You guys thought the Terorrgheist doing 6 mortals was bad? Skarbrand can do 8 mortal wounds or 16 mortal wounds if you roll a 6.

This stuff is going full ridiculous. How on earth does the team think that is even remotely okay?

Wayniac wrote:
You guys thought the Terorrgheist doing 6 mortals was bad? Skarbrand can do 8 mortal wounds or 16 mortal wounds if you roll a 6.

This stuff is going full ridiculous. How on earth does the team think that is even remotely okay?

That's one rule for a warscroll we haven't fully seen yet. Not to mention that he's still only an 8" move without fly and a 4+ save, so can pretty reasonably be outmaneuvered and charged or just shot to death depending on your army.

Requizen wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
You guys thought the Terorrgheist doing 6 mortals was bad? Skarbrand can do 8 mortal wounds or 16 mortal wounds if you roll a 6.

This stuff is going full ridiculous. How on earth does the team think that is even remotely okay?

That's one rule for a warscroll we haven't fully seen yet. Not to mention that he's still only an 8" move without fly and a 4+ save, so can pretty reasonably be outmaneuvered and charged or just shot to death depending on your army.

Not just this, but carnage seems to be a big rework.
From what's been said, it will have a "see below" rather than a profile.
This means it shouldn't be able to be used multiple times (warscroll update pending)

Currently you can buff the ever living gak out of him and boost carnage's attack value.
The new system may actually balance this a bit more.


The other thing to look at is it's base.
This is a huge character model that will cost a huge chunk of points.
With 400 or so points I can make spider riders do more mortal wounds than that.

He's also one hell of a fire magnet, so will likely take alot of abuse early on.

Requizen wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Requizen wrote:

auticus wrote:
PS - Mortal Khorne still isn't a faction. Buy different models if you want to win.

Why? Why should I? Or anyone else for that matter?

You should buy models because you like them, or to enlarge your army or to meet minimum foc requirements. Not because you have to in order to stand a chance of winning.

I’m thinking of Overlords. I’m told that if I want to win, I have to ditch the ships and spam skyhooks and endrinriggers. Why? Why should I be forced to abandon minis I’ve paid for to buy more models that I don’t want? Why can’t the ones I have not work properly?

Because... that's how games work. If you want the best chance at winning, you build/play to get the best chance at winning.

"Why can't I win consistently at Starcraft when building nothing but Zerglings?"
"Why can't I win consistently at DOTA by playing Rylai as hard carry?"
"Why can't I win consistently at American Football by doing nothing but run plays every single play?"
etc

Because it doesn't work like that. Games are often designed to work in a certain way and when you try to go against the grain, it doesn't work out.

You want to play multiple boat KO? You're gimping yourself. They're support pieces where you might have 1 for transport and maybe 1 for interference running, but they're not designed to be workhorses. KO is balanced with punchy 'Riggers and shooty 'Nauts doing most of the heavy lifting, so you should load up on those. I don't ever see a world in which you can just buy 2k points off the shelf based on looks and have it work. Even with carefully calculated formulas and enough pages of comp restrictions to blind a man, you'd still end up with units that do well in missions or combo better or do well against armies that are commonly seen, and so will perform better. That's not a failing of the system, that's just how asymmetrical games usually work.

You say that about Kharadron Overlords as if it was some kind of design choice and not just a derivation of the Battletome being imbalanced. What are you gonna say in 6 months, when for example, Kharadrons receive a new battletome and then the most powerfull list is spamming flying boats? "Oh, the army was clearly designed like that, if you use a bunch of infantry you are doing it wrong, it is just for support"

Also, your example about Starcraft is horrible. Nobody here is asking for random lists to win. In Starcraft EVERY UNIT has his place in any given moment of the battle, in response to what you are facing. Thats balance.. In AoS many units just don't work agaisnt the mayority of targets or are straight up inferior versions of much more powerfull units. THATS imbalance.

 Galas wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Requizen wrote:

auticus wrote:
PS - Mortal Khorne still isn't a faction. Buy different models if you want to win.

Why? Why should I? Or anyone else for that matter?

You should buy models because you like them, or to enlarge your army or to meet minimum foc requirements. Not because you have to in order to stand a chance of winning.

I’m thinking of Overlords. I’m told that if I want to win, I have to ditch the ships and spam skyhooks and endrinriggers. Why? Why should I be forced to abandon minis I’ve paid for to buy more models that I don’t want? Why can’t the ones I have not work properly?

Because... that's how games work. If you want the best chance at winning, you build/play to get the best chance at winning.

"Why can't I win consistently at Starcraft when building nothing but Zerglings?"
"Why can't I win consistently at DOTA by playing Rylai as hard carry?"
"Why can't I win consistently at American Football by doing nothing but run plays every single play?"
etc

Because it doesn't work like that. Games are often designed to work in a certain way and when you try to go against the grain, it doesn't work out.

You want to play multiple boat KO? You're gimping yourself. They're support pieces where you might have 1 for transport and maybe 1 for interference running, but they're not designed to be workhorses. KO is balanced with punchy 'Riggers and shooty 'Nauts doing most of the heavy lifting, so you should load up on those. I don't ever see a world in which you can just buy 2k points off the shelf based on looks and have it work. Even with carefully calculated formulas and enough pages of comp restrictions to blind a man, you'd still end up with units that do well in missions or combo better or do well against armies that are commonly seen, and so will perform better. That's not a failing of the system, that's just how asymmetrical games usually work.

You say that about Kharadron Overlords as if it was some kind of design choice and not just a derivation of the Battletome being imbalance. What are you gonna say in 6 months, when for example, Kharadrons receive a new battletome and then the most powerfull list is spamming flying boats? "Oh, the army was clearly designed like that, if you use a bunch of infantry you are doing it wrong, it is just for support"

Also, your example about Starcraft is horrible. Nobody here is asking for random lists to win. In Starcraft EVERY UNIT has his place in any given moment of the battle, in response to what you are facing. Thats balance.. In AoS many units just don't work agaisnt the mayority of targets or are straight up inferior versions of much more powerfull units. THATS imbalance.

Beat me to the punch. This. This is what I’m getting at.

@ Wayniac

I saw that today. It looks brutal. Now, I’ll reserve judgement until I see the whole book, but I’m not holding my breath. Although apparently, it’s actually a bit of a nerf when compared to the old rules if you can believe that!

Requizen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
*facedesk*

Percentage meta as compared to percentage tourney wins. If X% of player play a given faction but that factions wins 2X% of those tourneys then there is a skew towards that faction being better. And I believe you know that is exactly what I meant. The second bit is such a blatant strawman I barely know how to respond. And you have still not addressed that there is no proof the game is balanced, unless you consider over 60% or under 40% win rate balanced.

Some outliers don't mean you have to completely rewrite the system. Literally all you need to do to fix DoK is bump up Hag Queens and some of the other Aura units in points, and maaaybe Morathi. Nagash needs to go up and including Grimghasts in LoN was a mistake. LoN without the Nighthaunt units is actually a strong and balanced book.

"Proof the game is balanced" is such a subjective thing that I honestly don't know how to respond about it. Pretty much every supported faction is between 40-60% win rate on THWG's stats there, which is pretty solid for variance considering how many there are. Again, a few outliers, but that doesn't mean the game is broken.

In fact, when auticus was working on Azyr and posted these stats: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/664850.page which has a very similar variance, everyone, including you, NinthMusketeer, told him how good it looked, despite there being two Factions above 60% and one below 40%.

I am extremely glad you brought that up. It shows that I am, in fact, not expecting 50/50 win rate at all armies or even close to that. And it is much better balance than we currently have. Out of 17 factions, 3 are outside the 40-60 range. For Honest Wargamer data we have 32 allegiances, of which 10 are outside the 40-60 range. That is 82% verses 68%. Further, the Azyr values are the earliest ones meaning that started off with no playtesting/feedback and improved from there whereas the current AoS setup has years of feedback to draw from, meaning the comparison is weighted in the GHB's favor from the onset.

But somehow similar numbers are different in this situation, or your own personal idea of what balance is has changed since then.

As demonstrated above, this is completely untrue.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This argument only makes sense if the speaker feels the game is unbalanced and balance should be improved.

Maybe provide some reasoning as to why the proposed changes will not improve balance. Show us why summoning & mortal wound based armies are not stronger than those which are not. Give us some examples, data, or even anecdotes.

DoK does neither Summoning nor MWs, and is the highest win % at the moment.

Stormcast does not summon (there is one CA in one specific kind of list that can resummon on a 5+, and is not the reason they work). There's only one unit that does a lot of MWs (Evocators), all others are fairly incidental.

Slaanesh and Tzeentch are summoning armies and no one is complaining about them running around destroying the meta. Heck, Tzeentch also has solid MW output and is considered a mid-tier army by most people.

Fyreslayers are an army designed to shut down both MWs (with Beard Save) and Summoning (via body clogging up the board and locking objectives), while doing neither. Bonesplitterz similar, thanks to 2 wound high body count and Kunnin Rukk efficiency.

KO did neither when they were considered a hard-meta build with Barak-Ziflin Alpha Strike, their damage was all regular damage and when they died they died.

Idoneth Deepkin are a very strong army with a variety of builds and again has no summoning and only MWs on one unit (Morsarr, once per game, on a dice roll).

Nighthaunt have neither spammable MWs nor Summoning and play with defensiveness and overall damage efficiency.

Seraphon have summoning, and despite being one of the better armies at summoning if they build for it, no one is complaining that they're destroying the world.


Summoning is, in fact, usually not that difficult to shut down once you realize where it comes from and how to stop it. Usually it boils down to "Kill the Heroes", because they're the things that need to be summoned by. The rest of shutting it down is learning how to zone 9" effectively so even when they do summon it doesn't have much impact. That has everything to do with experience and nothing to do with list building.

As for MW output armies, which ones are left? The ones that can do it really efficiently are Skaven (potentially a problem but also expensive and blow themselves up, also only out for a month so lack of experience against them), Tzeentch (considered a mid-tier army and more focus on hordes than MW output) and Evocator bomb Stormcast armies (get shut down extremely hard by chaff, especially things that have MW saves like Daughters, Plaguebearers, and Fyreslayers).

Let us look at the data you presented again. Looking at the winner's circle (dropping Gutbusters, Draconis & Moonclan since they are not allegiances, dropping Beasts, Gloomspite, and Skaven for having less data), then dividing it into the top half and bottom half. DoK does not deal MWs or Summon. LoN summons. SCE deal MWs. Blades does both. Deepkin, as you mentioned, do not deal many mortal wounds overall save eels on the charge. However their tournament armies are based entirely around eels on the charge, but I will still count them as not. FEC summons. Tzeentch does both. Nighthaunt summons (returning slain models). Sylvaneth does neither. Hosts does both.

So out of the top 10 we have 7 armies in the summons/MW category, and 3 that are not.

Now for the bottom half. Nurgle & Seraphon summon. The other eight don't summon or deal MWs. So out of the bottom 10 we have 2 armies in the summons/MW category, and 8 that are not. Icing on the cake is that those two are above the others.

So once again, we are left with your referenced evidence showing overwhelmingly that the game is unbalanced and that summon/MW armies are favored.

Anecdote but twitter discussion going on now centered on khorne book states that their goal was to get most of the books put out by end of year and that all of the factions will be equally absurd.

So all absurd = more balanced.

So by December we may at least have the ability to field our favorite faction and not have powergamer dave grind our face into his nether region all game because our factions will have bite too.

We can dream at least right.

Having all the factions be overpowered relative to now would indeed mean that none of them are. It IS technically a solution.

But my brand new battletome (Skaven) is utterly steamrolled by the other brand new battletome (FEC) despite Skaven being pretty dam OP themselves. So in all likelyhood what that twitter feed means is that the balance will be just as crappy for those covered by the new paradigm and even worse for everyone else. However it could be that Skaven & FEC are anomalies and we will go back to Beasts/Gloomspite level, which would be a huge relief. After the pendulum swing from the best balanced battletome release ever to tied for the worst (FEC/GHB1 Tzeentch) I honestly have no idea what to expect.

Also in the last days of Azyr, and something I was proud of, was we got all armies in the 55/45 ratio before GHB blew the fan comps out of the water and ended them.

That was also around the time I got hate mail from people saying I killed listbuilding and made the game boring because I made listbuilding not matter and that people were fielding what amounted to random armies and winning local tournaments with them and that was boring. One guy even wished I got cancer for killing his hobby due to listbuilding dying because of me. I framed that email and put it on my wall.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

After the pendulum swing from the best balanced battletome release ever to tied for the worst (FEC/GHB1 Tzeentch) I honestly have no idea what to expect.

If I weren't working on a new game right now (PC tabletop wargame in my own world) I'd be interested in doing Azyr part II to see what I could come up with.

What’s ironic is that when you talk about internal balance, the FEC are apparently the most balanced faction there is. Almost every unit, every play style, every item etc. is apparently viable. But then you move to external balance and well...you know.

auticus wrote:
One guy even wished I got cancer for killing his hobby due to listbuilding dying because of me. I framed that email and put it on my wall.

That is absolutely hilarious. Seriously the most deeply amusing thing I have read in a long time, thank you for sharing.

On the upside, it is human nature to complain more than compliment so I wouldn't read too much into the hate mail.

After the pendulum swing from the best balanced battletome release ever to tied for the worst (FEC/GHB1 Tzeentch) I honestly have no idea what to expect.

If I weren't working on a new game right now (PC tabletop wargame in my own world) I'd be interested in doing Azyr part II to see what I could come up with.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What’s ironic is that when you talk about internal balance, the FEC are apparently the most balanced faction there is. Almost every unit, every play style, every item etc. is apparently viable. But then you move to external balance and well...you know.

This is my issue with them above all else.
Everything in that book works.
You can randomly generate a list by rolling dice to determine your units and it will hold its own stupidly well.
We did it for 3 games against different players and it was amazing to see how absurdly strong a purely random list was.

This was also against high tier tournament armies including an archregent spam FEC list aswell. (2 games at 2k and 1 at 2.5k)

In terms of internal balance, the book is pretty spot on.
Nothing is a must take or must avoid taking.




As a side note to mortal wounds etc, spamming them doesn't make an army viable atall.
Spiderfang can drop an insane amount every single turn, yet they aren't exactly doing much currently.

I think the internal balance is horrid; courtiers in a list at all (barring battalions) are never-take because an archregent is better and will summon one in for free. Courtiers that aren't a varghulf are never-take (barring battalions) because you are summoning them in with the archregent anyways so you just bring the best one. The dragon is strictly inferior to the terrorgheist, all delusions are vastly inferior to feast day, and only feast day competes with Blisterskin/Gristlegore in terms of strength. No mount trait comes even close to as good as the re-roll hits on terry maw. I could go on but you get the point.

That any random list is crazy good against other things speaks to how strong the battletome is, how any random list fares against a specifically optimized one is a measure of the internal balance. And the ghulf between those is vast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jackal90 wrote:
As a side note to mortal wounds etc, spamming them doesn't make an army viable atall.
Spiderfang can drop an insane amount every single turn, yet they aren't exactly doing much currently.

The argument is that MW spamming and/or summoning does better than armies which do not have it on average, not all the time. As has been mentioned DoK does very well without either (though they do have a not insignificant amount of MW negation), but that is but one point of data in relation the whole.

Spiderfang suffer because their MW output comes in bursts rather than consistently and there is only a limited amount of control over when/where those bursts happen coupled with the models dealing them being fragile and easy to kill if that burst does not happen at the right time. Compare to Deepkin where their MW output is not particularly high but they have a high degree of control when they happen and who they are dealt to, letting them get more mileage out of a much smaller amount. Ultimately you are correct that Spiderfang are an army (well, part of one) that deals MWs but does not perform very well.

MW spam is a pillar to build on, not the entire win itself. An army that has no access to MW spam or summoning spam faced against an army that can do those things will generally with some outlier exceptions like DOK be at a severe disadvantage.

 Galas wrote:
We should have a Godwin's law for balance discussions. Any time somebody mentions that even chess is imbalanced, he or she automatically loses the debate. (I know thats not how Godwin's law works but...)

If it were to be rephrased as the original Godwin's Law it should be something like:

"As an online Warhammer discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving chess approaches 1"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
You guys thought the Terorrgheist doing 6 mortals was bad? Skarbrand can do 8 mortal wounds or 16 mortal wounds if you roll a 6.

This stuff is going full ridiculous. How on earth does the team think that is even remotely okay?

A ) We haven't seen the full rules
B ) We currently have no way of knowing how he will work on the table after these changes we are not privy to.
C ) If this continues this will be the Kelermorph thread all over again.
D ) If this becomes the Kelermorph thread all over again we will need to talk about Cypher, the greatest marksman in 40k.

Who whould be AoS' Cypher? That Stormcast hero with the giant bow?

Can I run a little exercise here? The 3 ‘core’ Stormcast units; Liberators, Hunters and Sequitors. How do they stack up when compared to each other? I know that Sequitors are the best by far. What about Hunters? And what do you think of their current points costs?

 Galas wrote:
Who whould be AoS' Cypher? That Stormcast hero with the giant bow?

Well, it would be have to someone dual-wielding something. Neave Blacktalon? Basically Cypher before the Fall leading her Unfallen to victory?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Can I run a little exercise here? The 3 ‘core’ Stormcast units; Liberators, Hunters and Sequitors. How do they stack up when compared to each other? I know that Sequitors are the best by far. What about Hunters? And what do you think of their current points costs?

Sequitors are severely undercosted, the other two are decent though liberators are probably a wee bit overcosted. The hunters are more of a specialist/flank unit and don't serve well as conventional 'stand in the front' battleline. With stormcast you usually want some units with cheaper points-per-wound to be the 'chaff' of the army. But there are plenty of other ways to do things.

So would you suggest increasing Sequitors by 20pts and decreasing Liberators by 20pts?

I would put Sequitors up by 30 tbh--their ability to chose between re-roll all saves or re-roll all hits is really strong and their large amount of special weapons (2 per 5 and the champion) coupled with good attack profiles means their damage output is quite high.

Liberators I would just drop by 10. If they were on 32mm I'd say they are fine as-is, but a 40mm base hurts them enough that I think they should go down a little.

So the new Khorne stuff seems to be even more ridiculous than the last ridiculous stuff. They seem to be borderline broken strong.

This level of nonsense has me not wanting to bother with AOS. It's just stupid at this point. Each new release is usually (not always) even more broken than the one before.