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:

 Sasori wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ok, show me your data that shows the majority of stormcast units need to be buffed.

It's my opinion, which I didn't present as a fact like you did. That's why I asked for your Data, which we discovered doesn't fit what you were presenting as a fact.

Well I referenced the overall data since SCE last received an update. You asked me for my data then bent it to create a circumstance where what I said was no longer true. When called upon to provide backing for your position you fell back on 'it's just my opinion!'

I guess it is just my opinion that the most complete set of data we have should be presented as fact.

You cherry picked a single chart, and ignored the rest of the data which doesn't fit your narrative. This is the same thing that people do in politics to get across a false point, and it's very deceitful.

There has been numerous changes since the SCE last released, and when you factor the changes in, which the other charts do so, it shows that SCE do not "Overperform other armies by a huge margin" Even the chart you presented shows that, as the SCE had 1 single 1st place win over the next four armies.

You also ignored the meta% and overall win % which is much more relevant and paint a completely different picture.

I "cherry picked" a chart of aggregate data of tournament placings for all of second edition. I guess it is my opinion that is a valid set of data and it was not deceitful to present it that way. If the "my opinion" defense is valid for you then it is valid for me as well.

Win % is heavily weighted towards the middle, as I have explained before. Winners are matched against winners and losers against losers in rounds after the first, meaning there is a heavy skew towards 50/50.

Also, can you provide any data to back up your position? I am asking again.

Also, can you provide any reasoning for why the majority of units should have their points adjusted instead of the minority? I am asking again.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I "cherry picked" a chart of aggregate data of tournament placings for all of second edition. I guess it is my opinion that is a valid set of data and it was not deceitful to present it that way. If the "my opinion" defense is valid for you then it is valid for me as well.

Win % is heavily weighted towards the middle, as I have explained before. Winners are matched against winners and losers against losers in rounds after the first, meaning there is a heavy skew towards 50/50.

Also, can you provide any data to back up your position? I am asking again.

Also, can you provide any reasoning for why the majority of units should have their points adjusted instead of the minority? I am asking again.

Yes, you cherry picked an aggregate chart of all the placings for second edition. I'm glad you agree. The point is that the chart you picked isn't nearly as relevant, since there have been significant changes such as new battletomes. Are you trying to imply that these changes should not be accounted for? The data at that website does in fact have several charts that are account for and are more recent, and show that SCE rankings have been in a decline. This is much more relevant than the single chart that has old data that isn't near as relevant anymore.

An aggregate charts usefulness is based on how time-relevant the data is. Depending on the industry or the subject, some are useful across decades, while some are outdated in months. In this case, we must take into account the new releases, their meta%, and the match% to get a clearer picture of how things shake out. In this case, there are several other charts on that website that provide this.


I did point to the data backing up my position several points ago, I referenced the chart and the win % a few posts back.

As to the point why the majority of units should have their points adjusted, is simple. Nerfing a stronger unit does not always solve the fact that a weaker unit is over-pointed. These units can be internally and externally over-pointed. A good example is Castigators who are currently at 3 for 80. These are both externally and internally over-pointed. That means that nerfing Evocators does not make Castigators any better externally.

Ok, then show me the data for the majority of SCE units being underpowered compared to the average. Or explain how overall win % in a chart with a heavy skew towards 50% equates to the balance of all units within a battletome and between those of different battletomes.

Also, out of the charts which show aggregate rankings:
-One which puts SCE at #3
-One which puts SCE at #10
-One which puts SCE at #3
-One which puts SCE at #4

But I am cherry picking. Your data is better than my data because date trumps sample size.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ok, then show me the data for the majority of SCE units being underpowered compared to the average.

Also, out of the charts which show aggregate rankings:
-One which puts SCE at #3
-One which puts SCE at #10
-One which puts SCE at #3
-One which puts SCE at #4

But I am cherry picking.

I imagine that there is no chart that exists for most of the SCE units being under powered. That would be a pretty huge effort, as it would require all the lists, the win%, loss% and other factors to present a good clear picture. I don't have time for that, which is why I stated it was my opinion on the matter. I presented you with the internal/external balance issue and an example unit. You didn't comment on this, and instead changing goalposts asking for a chart that doesn't exist.

As for the rankings, you once again presented a number without trying to explain it, being intentionally deceitful again., I am going to explain the data behind it. Y Two of the charts (one of the #3 and the #4) have Stormcast sitting there is sorted purely on the weighted number of wins which is why it is important that we compare the real win %(match wins) that accounts for the number of armies participating. That's the real relevant number here. For instance, in the AoS 2.2 Chart, it shows the meta percentage of SCE is at nearly 12%, compared to say, BoC which has a meta percentage of 3.4%. This means that there are basically 4 SCE armies for every single BoC entry. This means that through sheer number of SCE participating in events there are going to be more number of wins, which is how the chart is sorted. That's why the match win% which accounts for Meta number is important. When you account for the meta %, it gives you the real match win % which is 49% for SCE and 56% for BoC.

Yes, you are cherry picking. You posted a chart that wasn't really relevant, and now you've posted a ranking, without even bothering to explain how it's sorted. Those last two "ranks" for instance are just how the chart is sorted, which is meaningless if you don't explain the methodology and examine the data, which I have presented here.

The arguments don't really support your measure Ninth, Sasori has been calmly dissecting the data that's been presented and you've been either asking for things that are near impossible to present

Ok, then show me the data for the majority of SCE units being underpowered compared to the average.

Which would be hard to near impossible to measure in a system that doesn't have concurrent averages to begin with due to the variety in point pricing.

You've been moving the goals when it comes to your data sets, and cherry picking data. You should calm down and present your points with proper data sets to back them up if you are going to make such claims.

I claimed stormcast are in the top three armies and outperform others. When I sourced a chart showing tournament wins I made it clear the my measurement was by tournament wins. I think that is a good standard, because of how tournaments work where winners go against winners naturally the higher end armies will face against other higher end armies and that will artificially deflate their win %, with the inverse for poor armies. Something that he has yet to address. He has been using oranges to say I've been cherry-picking my apples.

He has not, on the other hand, provided evidence of this claim, from the very start of the conversation:

At this point I think most of the rest of the SCE units need a points drop.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To illustrate my point, here is a fictional set of tournament data:

LoN = 40% meta
DoK = 20% meta
SCE = 30% meta
FEC = 10% meta

FEC has 20% of the tournament wins, DoK has 30%, LoN has 30%, and SCE has 20%

From just the win verses meta this makes FEC the best army by far. But that cuts out the overall rankings of first to last in the whole tournament. The stormcast, with the worst win to meta ratio, may consistently occupy the upper half of overall rankings with only the occasional fluke sending one into the lower half and while they perform well on average are unable to 'seal the deal' against the very best to secure tournament wins. Meanwhile FEC has a handful of extremely skilled players but is generally avoided by others because while they are strong when played well it is difficult to do so. Players who aim to do to a tournament and get some wins without needing to be extremely skilled will naturally bandwagon onto the easiest factions, which distorts the results. This is before factoring in the practicality of a given army when it comes to monetary price, ease of assembly & transport, painting, and even model availability.

Defaulting to just wins is not the most accurate solution by any means, but I prefer it out of what is available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormcast units are solid overall. They have a few duds, but the army is not bad. They do not need buffs on the majority of their units. My source? Literally hundreds of games and dozens of tournents worth of experience. What I see is "your evidence is bad and I don't need any" and it is making me sour on the whole conversation. I've gotten to the point where I'm being abrasive and need to stop.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I claimed stormcast are in the top three armies and outperform others. When I sourced a chart showing tournament wins I made it clear the my measurement was by tournament wins. I think that is a good standard, because of how tournaments work where winners go against winners naturally the higher end armies will face against other higher end armies and that will artificially deflate their win %, with the inverse for poor armies. Something that he has yet to address. He has been using oranges to say I've been cherry-picking my apples.

He has not, on the other hand, provided evidence of this claim, from the very start of the conversation:

At this point I think most of the rest of the SCE units need a points drop.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To illustrate my point, here is a fictional set of tournament data:

LoN = 40% meta
DoK = 20% meta
SCE = 30% meta
FEC = 10% meta

FEC has 20% of the tournament wins, DoK has 30%, LoN has 30%, and SCE has 20%

From just the win verses meta this makes FEC the best army by far. But that cuts out the overall rankings of first to last in the whole tournament. The stormcast, with the worst win to meta ratio, may consistently occupy the upper half of overall rankings with only the occasional fluke sending one into the lower half and while they perform well on average are unable to 'seal the deal' against the very best to secure tournament wins. Meanwhile FEC has a handful of extremely skilled players but is generally avoided by others because while they are strong when played well it is difficult to do so. Players who aim to do to a tournament and get some wins without needing to be extremely skilled will naturally bandwagon onto the easiest factions, which distorts the results. This is before factoring in the practicality of a given army when it comes to monetary price, ease of assembly & transport, painting, and even model availability.

Defaulting to just wins is not the most accurate solution by any means, but I prefer it out of what is available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormcast units are solid overall. They have a few duds, but the army is not bad. They do not need buffs on the majority of their units. My source? Literally hundreds of games and dozens of tournents worth of experience. What I see is "your evidence is bad and I don't need any" and it is making me sour on the whole conversation. I've gotten to the point where I'm being abrasive and need to stop.

I've addressed why the chart you picked is cherry picking data, and I've addressed your data points multiple times. You are not addressing mine, and others on the forum are noticing this as well.

Additionally, my claim for the very beginning, I noted the SCE points drop was my opinion. I never stated anything as a fact, and have addressed this. I have also given you an example of the internal/external balance issue and a unit as an example. I have noticed that you have not addressed that all, but continue to harp that I haven't addressed anything, which is false.

And why are you trying to illustrate your point with a fictional set of tourney data? I have illustrated my point with the actual tournament data, provided by your source. Why don't you refute that instead of moving the goal posts to a set of data that doesn't exist

I am merely working with the data source that you originally provided. I am sorry if you don't like where the data analysis actually points to, but the fact of the matter is that your original statement about SCE is objectively wrong at this point in time. 6 months ago, you would have been 100% correct, but that is not the case anymore.

Your statement of "Your evidence is bad and I don't need any" is absolutely false as well. I am using the data, explaining the methodology in detail and explaining how I am arriving at the results.

 Sasori wrote:

I imagine that there is no chart that exists for most of the SCE units being under powered.

This is not the point

SCE are doing well does not mean that their internal balance is good or that all units a viable

Stormcasts are the Space Marines of AoS which means they have much more units available und multiple units have the same role in the battlefield which leads to the problem that some are better than other
People have told me that they won't using Sequitors any more even with just a 10 point increase because for them it is just the "cheap battleline unit" out of the core box and not the main fighting force it would be with a point increase


So yes, SCE doing well is because of some overpowered units that are equal to other overpowered units in the game

But the conclusion is not to buff all other units, but to nerf those that are OP and adjust the rules for units that are no option at all (as their powers they pay points for are useless on the battlefield which won't change with a point adjustments as they only would become cheap chaff and nothing more)

 Sasori wrote:

Additionally, my claim for the very beginning, I noted the SCE points drop was my opinion. I never stated anything as a fact, and have addressed this. I have also given you an example of the internal/external balance issue and a unit as an example. I have noticed that you have not addressed that all, but continue to harp that I haven't addressed anything, which is false.

He did adressed it, by providing arguments why a point drop of most units in the entire game is worse than a point increase of those units that are problem
And I also see a massive point drop as a problem for the overall balance instead of just making some units more expensive

Take SCE, instead of Evocators and Sequetors go up by 40 points you can also decrease other Paladins and Liberators by 40 points. But now you would have a big problem with most other batteline units in the game if a you get a Liberator unit for cheap

 Sasori wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I claimed stormcast are in the top three armies and outperform others. When I sourced a chart showing tournament wins I made it clear the my measurement was by tournament wins. I think that is a good standard, because of how tournaments work where winners go against winners naturally the higher end armies will face against other higher end armies and that will artificially deflate their win %, with the inverse for poor armies. Something that he has yet to address. He has been using oranges to say I've been cherry-picking my apples.

He has not, on the other hand, provided evidence of this claim, from the very start of the conversation:

At this point I think most of the rest of the SCE units need a points drop.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To illustrate my point, here is a fictional set of tournament data:

LoN = 40% meta
DoK = 20% meta
SCE = 30% meta
FEC = 10% meta

FEC has 20% of the tournament wins, DoK has 30%, LoN has 30%, and SCE has 20%

From just the win verses meta this makes FEC the best army by far. But that cuts out the overall rankings of first to last in the whole tournament. The stormcast, with the worst win to meta ratio, may consistently occupy the upper half of overall rankings with only the occasional fluke sending one into the lower half and while they perform well on average are unable to 'seal the deal' against the very best to secure tournament wins. Meanwhile FEC has a handful of extremely skilled players but is generally avoided by others because while they are strong when played well it is difficult to do so. Players who aim to do to a tournament and get some wins without needing to be extremely skilled will naturally bandwagon onto the easiest factions, which distorts the results. This is before factoring in the practicality of a given army when it comes to monetary price, ease of assembly & transport, painting, and even model availability.

Defaulting to just wins is not the most accurate solution by any means, but I prefer it out of what is available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormcast units are solid overall. They have a few duds, but the army is not bad. They do not need buffs on the majority of their units. My source? Literally hundreds of games and dozens of tournents worth of experience. What I see is "your evidence is bad and I don't need any" and it is making me sour on the whole conversation. I've gotten to the point where I'm being abrasive and need to stop.

I've addressed why the chart you picked is cherry picking data, and I've addressed your data points multiple times. You are not addressing mine, and others on the forum are noticing this as well.

Additionally, my claim for the very beginning, I noted the SCE points drop was my opinion. I never stated anything as a fact, and have addressed this. I have also given you an example of the internal/external balance issue and a unit as an example. I have noticed that you have not addressed that all, but continue to harp that I haven't addressed anything, which is false.

And why are you trying to illustrate your point with a fictional set of tourney data? I have illustrated my point with the actual tournament data, provided by your source. Why don't you refute that instead of moving the goal posts to a set of data that doesn't exist

I am merely working with the data source that you originally provided. I am sorry if you don't like where the data analysis actually points to, but the fact of the matter is that your original statement about SCE is objectively wrong at this point in time. 6 months ago, you would have been 100% correct, but that is not the case anymore.

Your statement of "Your evidence is bad and I don't need any" is absolutely false as well. I am using the data, explaining the methodology in detail and explaining how I am arriving at the results.

I am trying to address it, I am using the data, and you are not hearing me. What you think I am saying is not what I am trying to say. This is probably on me for not communicating effectively.

 kodos wrote:
This is not the point

Erhm, It was the point of the question being asked, which was to provide a data set that we both knew didn't exist.

 kodos wrote:
SCE are doing well does not mean that their internal balance is good or that all units a viable

Yes, I agree. This is what I have been arguing.

 kodos wrote:
So yes, SCE doing well is because of some overpowered units that are equal to other overpowered units in the game

I think it's debatable just how overpowered evocators and sequitors are at this point. Even Auticius agreed that when they were released they were very powerful, but with all the recent releases they are still powerful. If every other army gets nerfed, then these would need to get nerfed. At this point in time though, they are only slighty too cheap. At this point I think both units still deserve a points increase, but a minor one, especially if we keep seeing the power increase of the new tomes.

 kodos wrote:
But the conclusion is not to buff all other units, but to nerf those that are OP and adjust the rules for units that are no option at all (as their powers they pay points for are useless on the battlefield which won't change with a point adjustments as they only would become cheap chaff and nothing more)

This depends on the units in question. For instance in my Castigators example, nerfing a bunch of other units isn't going to fix them(Unless the nerfs were insane and hit all the units in the game hard). They themselves need to be buffed because of how bad they are. Some units would of course get better if many other armies units were nerfed. Each unit needs to be taken into account for this.

 kodos wrote:
He did adressed it, by providing arguments why a point drop of most units in the entire game is worse than a point increase of those units that are problem
And I also see a massive point drop as a problem for the overall balance instead of just making some units more expensive

You should be doing both, doing it only one way will almost never solve the problem. You want to bring up the weaker units that need it, while bringing down the units are far too powerful. This does not always have to be a huge change. Small points changes across a battletome can do it.

 kodos wrote:
Take SCE, instead of Evocators and Sequetors go up by 40 points you can also decrease other Paladins and Liberators by 40 points. But now you would have a big problem with most other batteline units in the game if a you get a Liberator unit for cheap

I gave a very good example of this with the Castigator. However, you don't have to be so drastic with the points. Liberators are a pretty bad battleline right now. Even Ninth agrees that dropping them by ten points would be fine. I think 15 would probably be the sweet spot myself. The issue is, even if you nerf some of the major offenders right now (LoN, GKoTG, Skaven), this does not make Paladins all of a sudden good, either. Retributors are still going to be too expensive at 220 points. You need to give them a (small) boost as well. It's all about the internal and external balance. Some units need to be nerfed, and some need to be raised up. I advocate a generally light touch when raising units up, so they don't become OP overnight.

Another great example is vanguard-palladors. This unit is way too expensive at 3 for 200. Nerfing Evocators, sequitors and some other armies main offenders isn't going to make them better, because they are still so weak. You still need to nerf the offending unit, and then raise up the units like Castigators and Palladors. Other armies would have to see significant nerfs across their entire range to all of sudden make these two units viable, and that is not a good solution to the problem.



EDIT: I would like to point out that the most recent event that concluded this weekend had Skaven at #1, FEC #2, and the highest ranking SCE list at #13.

 Sasori wrote:
[

 kodos wrote:
But the conclusion is not to buff all other units, but to nerf those that are OP and adjust the rules for units that are no option at all (as their powers they pay points for are useless on the battlefield which won't change with a point adjustments as they only would become cheap chaff and nothing more)

 kodos wrote:
He did adressed it, by providing arguments why a point drop of most units in the entire game is worse than a point increase of those units that are problem
And I also see a massive point drop as a problem for the overall balance instead of just making some units more expensive

You should be doing both, doing it only one way will almost never solve the problem. You want to bring up the weaker units that need it, while bringing down the units are far too powerful. This does not always have to be a huge change. Small points changes across a battletome can do it.
[....]
I gave a very good example of this with the Castigator. However, you don't have to be so drastic with the points. Liberators are a pretty bad battleline right now. Even Ninth agrees that dropping them by ten points would be fine. I think 15 would probably be the sweet spot myself. The issue is, even if you nerf some of the major offenders right now (LoN, GKoTG, Skaven), this does not make Paladins all of a sudden good, either. Retributors are still going to be too expensive at 220 points. You need to give them a (small) boost as well. It's all about the internal and external balance. Some units need to be nerfed, and some need to be raised up. I advocate a generally light touch when raising units up, so they don't become OP overnight.

Another great example is vanguard-palladors. This unit is way too expensive at 3 for 200. Nerfing Evocators, sequitors and some other armies main offenders isn't going to make them better, because they are still so weak. You still need to nerf the offending unit, and then raise up the units like Castigators and Palladors. Other armies would have to see significant nerfs across their entire range to all of sudden make these two units viable, and that is not a good solution to the problem.

Of course you should do both, but what AoS is missing at this point is the one basic unit the game is priced around.
Usually you take one common unit that is average and has nothing special but this is something rare as those units are hard to find outside of the bottom tier.

Liberators are not the best choice for it but the best available and making the basic unit 100 points and price eveything in the game around this unit would be best solution.

Castigators are a good example of what I was talking about by saying some units cannot be balanced by point adjustments. SCE have already a punch of shooting units and another one fits hardly in without being better or worse than one of the existing ones.
Of course we agree here that because SCE have so many units and some are just bad versions of others, the whole battledome would need a rework with new rules for most of the units to be a viable option or an alternative to other units instead of just a bad version of something else


For me internal balance is very important as all units a faction has need to be an option to take with advantages and disadvantages and not just being obvious better than others
But AoS is also taking the way of 8th Fantasy as lowering points also means increasing army size which newer armies compensate with a higher damage output and older units/factions get lost on the way.

So external balance to bring all factions in line again (best would be to buff some and nerf others to meet the middle) should be the first goal

SCE has a few duds, casigators, palladors, udicators with crossbows come to mind. Liberators are sub-par. It has a handful of units that are OP as well; sequitors, evocators, ballista.

Paladins are just fine though, but it is important to keep in mind the price of the starsoul maces is baked in so without them they will underperform. Judicators with bows, prosecutors, vanguard other than palladors, sacrosanct characters, most of the dracothian guard... Really SCE is in a good place on the majority of units which makes the poor/OP units all the more glaring.

Well said guys. So if the 100pt liberators are used as the benchmark for everything else in the game, what kind of points adjustments should we start giving out to the other SCE units? And as we discussed before, should liberators even remain at 100pts?

As Sasori mentioned, liberators at 85 points would be great. But given that points only come in increments of 10 at the moment bringing them to 90 would be a better plan. Using them at 100 as a benchmark would mean a ton of units needing to go up.

I think there are some pretty clear units that need to go up/down that everyone can agree on, the difficulty would be hashing out which units are close to the mark. Because the nature of things is that a unit has reached its best balanced when those saying it needs to be buffed are equal to those saying it needs to be nerfed

Something needs to be done about judicators with crossbows, the warscroll needs to be split so they can be given a lower cost.

That gives me fond memories of chameleon skinks. In Azyr, I had emails rolling in that said they were way too cheap and busted... followed by emails rolling in that said they were way too expensive and worthless.

(there were a few other units that had this from the community as well, I just remember the chameleon skinks the best)

What price would you guys slap on crossbow judicators, assuming liberators are 90 per 5?

@ auticus

That goes to show that you’ll never get everyone to agree on everything.

I learned to require battle reports after that to see the context.

Often the ones saying things were way overcosted were sending reports in showing misplays everywhere.

Thats not saying all were like that, but a good portion were like that (same with those saying something was too good, often they'd send reports in showing misplays which colored their perception)

I have seen that sooo many times. It's when the people playing the unit say it's overpowered or people playing against it say it's underpowered that there's a particular relevance.

Though (and not to sound arrogant) I have wound up in big discussions over how certain units are overpowered only for it to dawn on me that I had just gotten really good at using them. It helped remind me that sometimes I just need to pull my head out of my ass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What price would you guys slap on crossbow judicators, assuming liberators are 90 per 5?

@ auticus

That goes to show that you’ll never get everyone to agree on everything.

I don't have time at the moment and I would need to run the numbers, I'll get back to it.

Another favorite anecdote.

We had just gotten done wrapping up the dwarves. Dwarf player brings a force that was for the most part gunners and a giant blob of hammerers and a battle standard.

He's up against a horde of khorne. Everyone at the shop says Azyr is busted because there is no way that the dwarf player has a chance.

Game came down to one model (khorne player won with one model remaining on the table).

The counter was that an elite army should always beat a horde army and that the points were busted because if the points were correct there would have been more hammerers and the dwarf player would have won.

These are interesting mindsets that I have observed over the years.

“An elite army should always beat a horde army”.

I can’t understand that mentality. No army type should always be able to beat another type just...”because”.

But the game you described? Now that sounds like perfect balance, if it was between two very different army types but came down to a single model.

This is what I mean; winning should be down to skill (and a bit of luck) rather than inheritant over the top strengths and weaknesses.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
“An elite army should always beat a horde army”.

I can’t understand that mentality. No army type should always be able to beat another type just...”because”.

Many of us can remember that fellow at our FLG who was a bit of a powergamer with limited skill but bountiful excuses and everyone was relieved when he moved away. Guess where they move to

Another one related to balance though not about AOS specifically. That just came up this weekend.

I was writing a warriors of chaos list for Warlords of Erehwon since there is nothing that really represents them very well.

I took most of the list from the dwarf list in Erehwon (which is high strength, high resistance) and stripped special rules like stubborn and got rid of all the guns save a hellcannon which was a dwarf bombard with a demonic rule that let it eat its own guys and did D6 hits instead of D4.

I threw in two barbarian units (marauders, and marauder horsemen)

It was veto'd because the concept of warriors of chaos, that being an army that is about high quality HTH attacks, high resistance, and little to no shooting, is OP and especially OP with marauders that let them throw spears (special rule for erehwon, and barbarian troops have it in the stock list) and have bow horsemen (remembering warriors of chaos had marauder horsemen with throwing axes).

Even though the stats and point costs were pretty much direct translations from existing units and I didn't just make up my own things, that the concept of an army that existed in whfb for 30+ years was now considered OP.

The concept of it.

So with summoning being discussed lately, I was wondering; what if there was a fourth generic command ability (on top of the three from the core rules) when a unit was added to an opponent's army or returned to play after being slain to immediately remove that unit? This would not apply to units deploying from reserve; just new units added to an army or units that had been slain returning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So with summoning being discussed lately, I was wondering; what if there was a fourth generic command ability (on top of the three from the core rules) when a unit was added to an opponent's army or returned to play after being slain to immediately remove that unit? This would not apply to units deploying from reserve; just new units added to an army or units that had been slain returning.

I have used a rule in the past where when the thing responsible for the summoning died to remove its summoned units; more particularly in AOS 1.0 when chain summoning was off the hook and we were trying to find a way to reel it in with Azyr (it was a part of the Azyr document for a time)

It was removed because people complained that they didn't like seeing units that were summoned suddenly poof out. They complained that it was too hard to remember which units were summoned by a certain entity when said entity died. They complained summoned units on the table was a hassle to remove because they could have been in combat already and it was annoying to have to pull them off the table.

While not a direct correlation to your command point idea, I think it would be met with the same or similar complaining and people would complain that summoning doesn't matter anymore since you can just command point it away.

People REALLY REALLY REALLY like free units that give them free benefits and putting any type of cost to that seems to exponentially have a dampening effect on whether or not they'd consider using it.

In essence the magic formula seems to be:

{if mechanic cost < benefit AND risk near zero then always take, else do not take}

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So with summoning being discussed lately, I was wondering; what if there was a fourth generic command ability (on top of the three from the core rules) when a unit was added to an opponent's army or returned to play after being slain to immediately remove that unit? This would not apply to units deploying from reserve; just new units added to an army or units that had been slain returning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So with summoning being discussed lately, I was wondering; what if there was a fourth generic command ability (on top of the three from the core rules) when a unit was added to an opponent's army or returned to play after being slain to immediately remove that unit? This would not apply to units deploying from reserve; just new units added to an army or units that had been slain returning.

Sounds terrible. summoning honestly isnt that big of a deal and newer battletomes summoning is very well balanced. Slaanesh is the worst atm (you can have 20 harps and just infinity summon them) but with the release of the new battletome and how BoC, FeC, Kkorne were made, i dont see that being a thing anymore. Some armies like LoN has counter play as well. Newer battletomes power level takes into account for summoning as well (for the most part).

I play Boc and Deepkin, and honestly BoC summoning isnt that good, and my Deepkin dont summon, i have 0 problems with armies that does summon. Nor have i seen it as a problem in tournaments. Double turns are more of a factor than summoning has ever been.

I know its antidote but Played in a couple large tournaments in the past week, and summoning had no bearing on all my games, or my friends (a group of us played)


So to show you how unbalance your idea is. My BoC that took 3-4 turns so sacrificing 2 units worth of points and the ability to move and do other things now can summon 1 unit equal in points, just to have you stop it. Why would i even use my mechanic ever again? I could use those 180-200pts to run at your face thats 300 Raiders, those 30 Raiders can kill characters turn 1 (and i have, many, many, many times!). Especially b.c the power level of the battletome has summoning into it.

Remember Summoning is an army tool, just like raw stats, MW bombs, powers, teleporting, etc... Deepkin has 0 summoning and is still consider one of the best armies, b.c they have other tools due to not summoning.

The point of the balance thread is to talk about how to make the game bearable for non powergamer lists and lists that don't have newer books or an updated book.

"Summoning is not that bad" may very well be accurate if you are powergaming a newer list with an updated book.

It is not the case otherwise if you are not running a powergamer newer list with an updated book and your opponent is spamming summoning. There are still a great many factions that might as well not show up and this is trying to address that issue.

In a year if they 've released all the factions in newer books this may not even be a thing. But until that day...

I want to add, my friend also play an almost identical Seraphon list as the Winning of Adeptcion (he doesnt have the Birds and has something else, b.c he summons the birds).

I have beaten him many times (yes there is in question of the player skill, but we all talk about everygame and try to do better, we always learn and talk for at least an hour or more about each game, we play weekly, sometimes multi times a week, we also practice for tournaments and go to them, not saying we are top players, but we do try).

And it has some good counters. Shooting for one is a strong counter, and not low shots high rend high damage, but massive easy to hit weak shots. 30-50 shots with 1 damage, and re-rolls for do work. Summong is good against melee focus armies that cant respawn well, some armies like DoK can respawn to it, but other like Golbins cant.

You said FEC summoning is balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
I have used a rule in the past where when the thing responsible for the summoning died to remove its summoned units; more particularly in AOS 1.0 when chain summoning was off the hook and we were trying to find a way to reel it in with Azyr (it was a part of the Azyr document for a time)

It was removed because people complained that they didn't like seeing units that were summoned suddenly poof out. They complained that it was too hard to remember which units were summoned by a certain entity when said entity died. They complained summoned units on the table was a hassle to remove because they could have been in combat already and it was annoying to have to pull them off the table.

While not a direct correlation to your command point idea, I think it would be met with the same or similar complaining and people would complain that summoning doesn't matter anymore since you can just command point it away.

People REALLY REALLY REALLY like free units that give them free benefits and putting any type of cost to that seems to exponentially have a dampening effect on whether or not they'd consider using it.

In essence the magic formula seems to be:

{if mechanic cost < benefit AND risk near zero then always take, else do not take}

Obviously some people wouldn't like it, but would it work? Also keep in mind people really really do not like seeing an opponent get free stuff when they do not.

I think as a stop-gap given to armies that do not have new books or updated books, that yes it could work.

However I think knowing how well things like that have been received in the past and how much the 'git gud' community thrives on just telling someone to git gud, that it would be a mighty hard sell.

Of course in a more closed insular group of friends, it could be a great balancing tool to bring back some more even matchups that aren't turn 1-2 squashings so would definitely be up to try something along those lines.