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.

Why stop comparing them? Those are the lists that frequent our local store and our "for fun" events. As such they are something that one has to deal with or not play. The game allows it to be a thing, so it will be a thing.

I'm pretty sure everyone on the forum by now knows that your players are frothing at the mouth, completely unreasonable and exist solely to win with the highest tournament lists.

Unfortunately, that's anecdotal. I've played in several stories all across my country and never had issues talking to something like a human being and deciding what sort of match we wanted. Optimizing an army to the best it can be, when compared with Timmy's allowance spent on cool models, will always make the balance seem horrendous, in any game.

 Thadin wrote:

Stop comparing top tier minmaxing (3 Keepers optimized to the teeth for the sole purpose of kicking puppies) armies against friendly casual army lists.

If you're going to balance the game you have to compare the top tier armies. Because all those represent is a sound understanding of the game and "correct" building according to the game rules. Which is basically the most simplistic form of building an army with the least amount of ambiguity. "Casual friendly" lists don't really exist in a sense that you can use them for pickup games agaisnt strangers or in any competitive environment. Because often as not they simply represent personal bias or poor army composition/game understanding.

You balance at the top end of the game and that balance filters down into the rest of the game. If you design the game with broad even balance so that there are multiple pathways to victory and good armies then you make a large swathe of units and options valid; which increases diversity. And you can still tone down to casual friendly lists. If, however, you have very clear broken spikes way above the average power performance then those lists are a problem because they become the "Best of the best" by a long margin.


3 Keepers IS also very fluffy for the right kind of fluff and the gamer who freaking loves that model (and perhaps the FW one as well).

 Overread wrote:

 Thadin wrote:

Stop comparing top tier minmaxing (3 Keepers optimized to the teeth for the sole purpose of kicking puppies) armies against friendly casual army lists.

If you're going to balance the game you have to compare the top tier armies. Because all those represent is a sound understanding of the game and "correct" building according to the game rules. Which is basically the most simplistic form of building an army with the least amount of ambiguity. "Casual friendly" lists don't really exist in a sense that you can use them for pickup games agaisnt strangers or in any competitive environment. Because often as not they simply represent personal bias or poor army composition/game understanding.

You balance at the top end of the game and that balance filters down into the rest of the game. If you design the game with broad even balance so that there are multiple pathways to victory and good armies then you make a large swathe of units and options valid; which increases diversity. And you can still tone down to casual friendly lists. If, however, you have very clear broken spikes way above the average power performance then those lists are a problem because they become the "Best of the best" by a long margin.


3 Keepers IS also very fluffy for the right kind of fluff and the gamer who freaking loves that model (and perhaps the FW one as well).

I agree with you. I hope my posts didn't come across as saying that top tier shouldn't be compared to top tier. There are plenty of armies that when optimized hard, that can stand up to Slaanesh, especially after the rounds of nerfs it's received. This is also why I'm annoyed at auticus ignoring tournament results in favor of his anecdotal evidence from what seems to be a toxic community.

 Thadin wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Thadin wrote:

Stop comparing top tier minmaxing (3 Keepers optimized to the teeth for the sole purpose of kicking puppies) armies against friendly casual army lists.

If you're going to balance the game you have to compare the top tier armies. Because all those represent is a sound understanding of the game and "correct" building according to the game rules. Which is basically the most simplistic form of building an army with the least amount of ambiguity. "Casual friendly" lists don't really exist in a sense that you can use them for pickup games agaisnt strangers or in any competitive environment. Because often as not they simply represent personal bias or poor army composition/game understanding.

You balance at the top end of the game and that balance filters down into the rest of the game. If you design the game with broad even balance so that there are multiple pathways to victory and good armies then you make a large swathe of units and options valid; which increases diversity. And you can still tone down to casual friendly lists. If, however, you have very clear broken spikes way above the average power performance then those lists are a problem because they become the "Best of the best" by a long margin.


3 Keepers IS also very fluffy for the right kind of fluff and the gamer who freaking loves that model (and perhaps the FW one as well).

I agree with you. I hope my posts didn't come across as saying that top tier shouldn't be compared to top tier. There are plenty of armies that when optimized hard, that can stand up to Slaanesh, especially after the rounds of nerfs it's received. This is also why I'm annoyed at auticus ignoring tournament results in favor of his anecdotal evidence from what seems to be a toxic community.

Maybe some people have trouble talking to their opponents before the game? Although I have no idea how you'd decide to play a game with someone without talking to them....

It could also be he is playing something hyper fun and has no synergy or cohesion at all and is just mad when he gets beat. I've never seen him post a list before. When a BoC player is happy with the balance of the game as a whole (other than shooting needs a minor nerf) then what is he playing? Goblins and Sylvaneth i can see you are not happy with the game b.c the lists that work don;t feel like the army. I would like to know what he plays now.

I love how to discredit my argument, we just go right to it must be that I play an inept list and am mad because I lose. I realize some of you were still in elementary school back in the 2000s when I was doing the GT thing and have a handful of top 10 GT placings from those.

Or that I have a hard time talking to people.

The context of my games is for fun narrative campaign events on a packet that say in big red bold letters "do not field your tournament adepticon lists, this is not the place for that".

So you wont even say what you play right now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS, playing in 6th edition means nothing now. Also in 2000 i was still playing BoC... i had a 10% win rate b.c they were the worst army by far. Back then balance was 10x worst than it is now.

 auticus wrote:
The context of my games is for fun narrative campaign events on a packet that say in big red bold letters "do not field your tournament adepticon lists, this is not the place for that".

If you are running the events and people bring dumb stuff, then remove them from play, or better yet, implement rules that punish those people explicitly. You could even force them to submit lists beforehand that must be approved. The game's shortcomings seem to be amplified for you due to a local problem that most others are not experiencing.

Right, he is doing a narrative campaign and says no tournament lists, but he isn't enforcing that.

It's not terribly fair to him to make implications like that, that he's bad or can't talk to people. It's really not conducive to a discussion/argument on the matters of balance. Work off of what we do know, what he's said about his group and consider how that colours opinions. I've got no doubt that Auticus has some unpleasant people to play with. I've seen them too, even though my over all experience playing Warhammer up in the North has been great. A bad group can make a game worse.

I think to wrap up my stance on the matter. The game is in a decent spot. There are issues with balance that could be made better, and some that cannot due to different armies having their own strengths and weaknesses that match up different against eachother. Slaanesh may roll over Stormcast Eternals and Fyreslayers, who are by all accounts, up there in power level in a tournament scene. However, that same Slaanesh list would get spanked by the Skaven I play. Being able to do 42 wounds to 4+ armor save in a single turn, without being in melee, is what Skaven is good at.

It is unfair to compare optimized, well-built lists to a weak list. The gap is closing in terms of balance.

 Thadin wrote:
It's not terribly fair to him to make implications like that, that he's bad or can't talk to people. It's really not conducive to a discussion/argument on the matters of balance. Work off of what we do know, what he's said about his group and consider how that colours opinions. I've got no doubt that Auticus has some unpleasant people to play with. I've seen them too, even though my over all experience playing Warhammer up in the North has been great. A bad group can make a game worse.

I think to wrap up my stance on the matter. The game is in a decent spot. There are issues with balance that could be made better, and some that cannot due to different armies having their own strengths and weaknesses that match up different against eachother. Slaanesh may roll over Stormcast Eternals and Fyreslayers, who are by all accounts, up there in power level in a tournament scene. However, that same Slaanesh list would get spanked by the Skaven I play. Being able to do 42 wounds to 4+ armor save in a single turn, without being in melee, is what Skaven is good at.

It is unfair to compare optimized, well-built lists to a weak list. The gap is closing in terms of balance.

Well said on all points.

It's not terribly fair to him to make implications like that, that he's bad or can't talk to people. It's really not conducive to a discussion/argument on the matters of balance. Work off of what we do know

Thank you. That is 100% correct. Its a conversation ender (purposely) to just revert to "well you obviously just hate losing and can't make good lists so thats why you are complaining lol".

In my area you get run out of the store if you try to enforce what someone brings to a game. You will get ganged up on quickly and removed.

I'm sure if I had a group that wouldn't bring powerlists to a for fun game that my opinion might be very different, but powerlists are what we eat here 24/7 in both aos and 40k.

My last 40k game was also a narrative for fun campaign. In which I brought thousand sons with rubric marines for the story (which can be very fun against other for fun armies) and I was put on the table with the guy with the adepticon 5 knight list.

Where he proceeded to go on and on about how you need to git gud and not get mad for bringing "bad lists" (again in a for fun event we're not talkinga bout me showing up to a tournament with rubric marines and expecting a good game) and get stomped for it.

So when the game allows that gulf, you have to be prepared to either deal with it, or find something else. So when we talk about good balance, good enough balance, etc... what is good enough balance?

It seems that on dakka that good enough balance is simply "if the tournament scene is fine, then everything else is fine, just min/max too and the problems go away". Thats the impression I've gotten from most of the posters here anyway.

 auticus wrote:

It's not terribly fair to him to make implications like that, that he's bad or can't talk to people. It's really not conducive to a discussion/argument on the matters of balance. Work off of what we do know

Thank you. That is 100% correct. Its a conversation ender (purposely) to just revert to "well you obviously just hate losing and can't make good lists so thats why you are complaining lol".

In my area you get run out of the store if you try to enforce what someone brings to a game. You will get ganged up on quickly and removed.

I'm sure if I had a group that wouldn't bring powerlists to a for fun game that my opinion might be very different, but powerlists are what we eat here 24/7 in both aos and 40k.

My last 40k game was also a narrative for fun campaign. In which I brought thousand sons with rubric marines for the story (which can be very fun against other for fun armies) and I was put on the table with the guy with the adepticon 5 knight list.

Where he proceeded to go on and on about how you need to git gud and not get mad for bringing "bad lists" (again in a for fun event we're not talkinga bout me showing up to a tournament with rubric marines and expecting a good game) and get stomped for it.

So when the game allows that gulf, you have to be prepared to either deal with it, or find something else. So when we talk about good balance, good enough balance, etc... what is good enough balance?

It seems that on dakka that good enough balance is simply "if the tournament scene is fine, then everything else is fine, just min/max too and the problems go away". Thats the impression I've gotten from most of the posters here anyway.

TFG can and will break every game regardless of balance. If you are only surrounded by TFG, then I'm truly sorry about your luck. If you cannot find any other like minded individuals with whom to play, then you probably should move on and do something else. Nothing from GW is perfect, and I don't expect it to ever be that way.

Perhaps you could try playing Meeting Engagements. I ran a tournament last year with great success as it severely restricts what people can bring to the fight.

Actually the Syl'Eske Host from one of the White Dwarf's more or less puts the summoning back to where it was pre-nerf, so the summoning hasn't particularly gotten better. One just has to bring Syl'Eske now to do it.

Its still not as good, you are giving up all your HoS book command traits and artefacts to even take it, and you have to be wholly (or is it just within?) of Syl'Eske. So its not really double, its double within the 1 hero. If you focus her down first its a wasted host.

Syl'esske's host is Within 12, so a much bigger area of effect... However, it is not that difficult to kill 9 wounds with a 4+ save. At least, it shouldn't be.

You can still take an artefact from a Realm, but yeah, you lose your command trait, since Slaanesh has no generic command trait or artefact list.

 mokoshkana wrote:
Maybe some people have trouble talking to their opponents before the game? Although I have no idea how you'd decide to play a game with someone without talking to them....

Walk in to the store, see that table for game X is empty. Ask if someone wants to share table cost and play a game of X. Pay for the first hours. Play the game.
There technicaly could be some talking, if you want to ask to do a list check, but anyone who played more then 4-5 times is going to know that their opponent may ask for it, so they will give it without asking.
So no talking is required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mokoshkana wrote:
TFG can and will break every game regardless of balance. If you are only surrounded by TFG, then I'm truly sorry about your luck. If you cannot find any other like minded individuals with whom to play, then you probably should move on and do something else. Nothing from GW is perfect, and I don't expect it to ever be that way.

Perhaps you could try playing Meeting Engagements. I ran a tournament last year with great success as it severely restricts what people can bring to the fight.

I don't think it is a case for perfection of a game. But designing something clearly too good, with the hope, that people will not spam or use it in their games is foolish. This is specialy bad for places where people can not or aren't willing to buy 4000pts of a faction to play 1850 or 2000pts games. What you are saying here equals to saying people who can't afford buying 4000pts within 6 months of starting to play should not play GW games, and that sounds stupid to me.

No one asking for all armies to be at 50% win ratio, but it would be nice if armies that cost the similar amount of cash didn't have such huge power differences between each other or instant lose match ups. this maybe ain't so important for people who have multiple armies, for multiple GW games, but for a new player who starts isn't very happy that his army has close to zero chance of winning vs his friends army. And good luck convincing another teen that he should spend 200-300$ on models he doesn't want to buy, so you can have fun.

I'm not looking for perfect. I can play a host of other games where I don't have these issues. Maybe thats just because in my neck of the woods, all of those type of players just gravitate towards GW games because those are the most popular. Maybe if they spread their presence into the other games I play, I'd notice more.

I play a hard faction to play in conquest (the fantasy rank and file game). Against two of the four factions, I'm on hard-mode. But here's the thing. I can always make a game out of it. Its not over turn 1 or 2.

Hell even in whfb 7th edition, I ended that edition playing chaos warrior infantry-heavy army in an edition where everyone loved their cavalry, and I still placed top 3 in RTTs in my region because while the games were all hard for me, I could still at least give a good game.

In AOS I can't give a good game unless I specifically buy from a limited selection of builds, AND those builds rotate yearly. The same is true for 40k.

I'm not expecting to roll up to the table with 2000 points of random crap and have a 50% chance of winning. What I am expecting is to be able to pick a faction, build a list that I like, and not have a 95% of getting face planted because my opponents all buy whatever is winning Adepticon.

Because I can do that in every other game I play, and I used to be able to do that in whfb as well.

Karol wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Maybe some people have trouble talking to their opponents before the game? Although I have no idea how you'd decide to play a game with someone without talking to them....

Walk in to the store, see that table for game X is empty. Ask if someone wants to share table cost and play a game of X. Pay for the first hours. Play the game.
There technicaly could be some talking, if you want to ask to do a list check, but anyone who played more then 4-5 times is going to know that their opponent may ask for it, so they will give it without asking.
So no talking is required.

Live your life the way you want, but if I'm playing a stranger in a game, I'm talking through everything beforehand. I've never heard of having to rent tables in order to play a game, but in light of that, that is all the more reason to smooth any wrinkles with a stranger prior to paying and playing. Outside of a tournament, where you know the possibilities of builds and missions from the tournament pack, would you just blindly assume an opponent will follow social contracts? Heck random TFG could straight up cheat you by bringing extra points or an illegal list of sorts. I prefer to talk through everything and anytime someone says something questionable, I ask to see it in the battletome, which has resulted in me correcting people on rules they thought were right.

Karol wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
TFG can and will break every game regardless of balance. If you are only surrounded by TFG, then I'm truly sorry about your luck. If you cannot find any other like minded individuals with whom to play, then you probably should move on and do something else. Nothing from GW is perfect, and I don't expect it to ever be that way.

Perhaps you could try playing Meeting Engagements. I ran a tournament last year with great success as it severely restricts what people can bring to the fight.

I don't think it is a case for perfection of a game. But designing something clearly too good, with the hope, that people will not spam or use it in their games is foolish. This is specialy bad for places where people can not or aren't willing to buy 4000pts of a faction to play 1850 or 2000pts games. What you are saying here equals to saying people who can't afford buying 4000pts within 6 months of starting to play should not play GW games, and that sounds stupid to me.

No one asking for all armies to be at 50% win ratio, but it would be nice if armies that cost the similar amount of cash didn't have such huge power differences between each other or instant lose match ups. this maybe ain't so important for people who have multiple armies, for multiple GW games, but for a new player who starts isn't very happy that his army has close to zero chance of winning vs his friends army. And good luck convincing another teen that he should spend 200-300$ on models he doesn't want to buy, so you can have fun.

Again this is where talking to an opponent comes into play. If my friend has an inefficient army and I play something that stomps him over and over again, I am not incentivizing him to continue playing. Also, as the experienced player in this scenario, I should be helping guide his army towards good builds. People can buy whatever they like and build their army in any manner they see fit, but they should also understand the ramifications behind those choices. While points/rules can change, synergies usually don't. If I ignore potential synergy opportunity in order to play what I think is cool, that's my choice, but then I cannot complain that it doesn't work.

With respect to money, armies that cost the same means nothing. Some models are finecast and are crazy expensive, and others are plastic and less expensive. Should finecast models have better rules because they cost more money?

 auticus wrote:


In AOS I can't give a good game unless I specifically buy from a limited selection of builds, AND those builds rotate yearly. The same is true for 40k.

I'm not expecting to roll up to the table with 2000 points of random crap and have a 50% chance of winning. What I am expecting is to be able to pick a faction, build a list that I like, and not have a 95% of getting face planted because my opponents all buy whatever is winning Adepticon.

What do you play?

The whole 'talk with your opponent' thing only works if your opponent is reasonable and willing to reduce their own chances of victory for a more balanced matchup. Here in the US, with our competitive-minded culture, it is not uncommon at all to find people who will not be receptive to compromise. Finding someone else to play? Easier said than done, assuming such reasonable players are even present in one's local meta.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The whole 'talk with your opponent' thing only works if your opponent is reasonable and willing to reduce their own chances of victory for a more balanced matchup. Here in the US, with our competitive-minded culture, it is not uncommon at all to find people who will not be receptive to compromise. Finding someone else to play? Easier said than done, assuming such reasonable players are even present in one's local meta.

Sure, but if the choice is between a game with grossly mismatched forces or no game at all, then there is no choice for me. Purposely subjecting myself to 2.5+ hours of frustration is not my idea of a good time.

Then you can see why it is frustrating for players expressing concerns about balance to be told "why is it so hard to just talk to your opponent?" For some they are being talked down to for a choice that in their experience does not exist.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Then you can see why it is frustrating for players expressing concerns about balance to be told "why is it so hard to just talk to your opponent?" For some they are being talked down to for a choice that in their experience does not exist.

But the choice does exist. No one is forcing anyone to play the game. If one knows they are going to have a bad experience playing, they can just choose not to play. For instance:
I approach you for a game, and you agree.
Now, I ask what army and build you would be playing.
You state, I'm playing "Broken list X from Army Y"
I say, "I can't handle that, can you bring something else that is reasonable with respect to my army list"
You say "No, I am only willing to play my power gaming list"
I say "Sorry, but I am not interested in that type of game. Thanks, but if that's the only option, I'd rather not play against you."

Mokoshkana that works great in very large groups on active evenings/days when you've got a large pool of players to choose from. However most game groups are not that large, they are much smaller so the number of people free to game is also smaller.

The other aspect is attitude of the group, if the group is generally highly competitive and all share a similar mindset then you might find that its even harder because now the number of people willing to adapt their game is even smaller.



You see the same issue when you've low and high skilled players together. In big groups both sides generally find their own skill group to play with. In much smaller groups you do end up with newbs against pros and all the potential issues that can cause (esp when the two don't understand their own power/skill differences).

 Overread wrote:
Mokoshkana that works great in very large groups on active evenings/days when you've got a large pool of players to choose from. However most game groups are not that large, they are much smaller so the number of people free to game is also smaller.

The other aspect is attitude of the group, if the group is generally highly competitive and all share a similar mindset then you might find that its even harder because now the number of people willing to adapt their game is even smaller.



You see the same issue when you've low and high skilled players together. In big groups both sides generally find their own skill group to play with. In much smaller groups you do end up with newbs against pros and all the potential issues that can cause (esp when the two don't understand their own power/skill differences).

I get it. Again, I will reiterate because it seems to have been missed. No one is forcing anyone to have a bad time playing the game. If you know you are going to have a bad time, DO NOT PLAY. Do anything else. Don't needlessly subject yourself to stressful situations.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Mokoshkana that works great in very large groups on active evenings/days when you've got a large pool of players to choose from. However most game groups are not that large, they are much smaller so the number of people free to game is also smaller.

The other aspect is attitude of the group, if the group is generally highly competitive and all share a similar mindset then you might find that its even harder because now the number of people willing to adapt their game is even smaller.



You see the same issue when you've low and high skilled players together. In big groups both sides generally find their own skill group to play with. In much smaller groups you do end up with newbs against pros and all the potential issues that can cause (esp when the two don't understand their own power/skill differences).

I get it. Again, I will reiterate because it seems to have been missed. No one is forcing anyone to have a bad time playing the game. If you know you are going to have a bad time, DO NOT PLAY. Do anything else. Don't needlessly subject yourself to stressful situations.

What we have come to is:
-Player voices concern about game balance
-Your response: don't play the game at all

In addition to being extremely toxic and contributing to deterioration of an existing game community, that mentality is anathema to a successful game.

Let me illustrate the type of people that are very common in the GW end of my area's games. I'm going to use both my last AOS and last 40k game example.

Last AOS narrative event. I am playing slaanesh but only have one keeper of secrets since this is a keep your adepticon lists at home event listed very plainly on the packet. Opponent has triple keepers.

Opponent wins pretty easily because he summons 1800 extra points in the game, which I cannot keep up with.

Me: This event was supposed to be for fun lists, not tournament lists.

Opponent: this list is for fun for me.

Me; YOu know what I'm talking about.

Opponent: Where does it say in any book written that slaanesh wouldn't bring three keeper of secrets? Who are you to tell me what I can and cant do with the models I bought and painted? The rules say I can bring them, you didn't write the rules. Leave the rules writing to Games Workshop.

=============================================
Last 40k event. Narrative campaign for fun lists specified. I bring rubric thousand sons. No it isn't going to do very well in a tournament but this is a for fun event and is a for fun army>

I'm paired against dude that brings his adepticon ITC five knights list. This is his "for fun" list as well.

Dude tables me in 2 turns. Same basic exchange:

Me: why is this in a for-fun event?

Him: Who are you to tell me what I can use? The rules say I can take this, you didn't write the rules. I'm tired of people who bring bad lists who complain that they can't win because they can't make good lists. You need to get better at the game, not complain that you lost because you take bad lists.

And again - this is a for fun event where you are supposed to take for fun armies, and these type of lists are what come out anyway.

My options for that day:

1) bring a triple keeper of secrets list to the event despite it being a for fun event (this occurred last fall when they were at the apex of their bustedness, substitute triple keeper with whatever is in the top 3 adepticon frequency of showing up for the example depending on what year it is), just in case I have to play against someone whose idea of fun is tournament lists only. when I bring triple keeper of secrets, suddenly like magic I have "gutten gud". Its as if the game hinges really heavily on the army list portion of the game!

2) play, and not care about the outcome of the game, because it was decided when he sat down across from me and plopped his three keeper of secrets (or five knights in 40k against my rubric army) down on the table. Be there to sling dice, drink beer, lolz, and socialize, and not care about the game portion of the game. Because caring about the game portion of the game is pretty futile if you aren't willing to do #1.

3) not play AOS or 40k because in a competitive environment, you are either going to have to do 1 or 2, or not play. No amount of talking is going to change peoples' minds.

I used to do 1, but that was in the day where your army could stay viable for a few years. Now you have to swap it out annually. Then I switched to playing armies I enjoyed but were harder, but not impossible. Which was a lot of fun and made winning worth more.

Then it became the gulf of disparity between tournament spam and even B lists being not much fun / one-sided.

It doesn't take much skill to decide to pick up whatever one of the top power three lists are at the time and have good games with them. YOu just have to be willing to sell them and buy and paint a new army the following year if you wish to stick around. I don't see how or why that is encouraged.

Hi, narrative player here.

My narrative has one Exalted Keeper with a court of six regular Keepers (her 'Handmaidens') and I have pages and pages of fluff about them that I'm willing to share.

Would very much dislike to be told I couldn't play at a narrative event because I'm playing multiple Keepers. That's how my fluff has been since before the Slaanesh book came out (I have fluff with multiple keepers in a battle as far back as NOVA 2017).

If GW could balance their game, such a thing wouldn't be a problem. So let's not cast aspersions on players; instead, let's ask GW to balance their game.

Now, that said, I'm not wholly certain triple keepers is that unbalanced after the nerfs. Summoning has been nerfed and the attack-last ability has been slightly nerfed. So GW is making an effort.