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.

Something on my mind. I read and have talks with a lot of people daily on not just this game but a bunch of tabletop games. As a games designer myself I like to keep myself immersed in what makes people enjoy the things that they do.

Something I have read or heard a lot is the importance of points as a balancing mechanism. That they are required to hold interest in the game as they bring balance to the game.

Taking Age of Sigmar as the sample, but easily swapping out 40k as well, in actual reality on the table (where the rubber meets the road) we seek to actively break balance. Thats a given. Thats expected. When we talk about listbuilding we are talking about creating a powerful list that can win the game before the game even starts. This seems like a common goal with the community as a whole and also very expected.

When things like summoning first dropped, there was a LOT of rallying against those upset at it saying that free summoning was just fine, people just needed to develop skills to learn how to build a list that could do the same (a variant of git gud).

Now that more and more of the new edition have been revealed, we know for sure that some forces will indeed be able to easily bring in well over 500 points free (making a 2000 point game a 2500 - 2000 point game) and in some cases even more. Then there are the already good units that are operating above the bell curve of power getting points drops, pushing them even further up the bell curve of power.

This happened with GHB 17 as well.

The reactions went from "summoning won't be broken, stop worrying" to "summoning may be broken now but that just means we should build armies that can summon a lot now".

There is this general level of acceptance that thats fine and that army hopping should be a thing. That each edition has its darlings and you should play one of those or just be accepting that you are going to be losing a lot and there is really no game to be had, but that's ok. When the next edition drops and new darlings are unveiled, you should ebay your current force or put them away, and collect the new darling, and the cycle repeats and thats ok.

I ask - why is this acceptable? Not even acceptable... why is this desired? Why is imbalance desired? Why do we see stated over and over how important points are for balance but then when imbalance is given, the community embraces it and extols its virtues to the heavens?

It seems like a contradiction to me. For my own learning, I'd like to know why things like free summoning and undercosted units are desired by the community in such large quantities that it seems to rally for actual balance is a minority and an annoyance.

The main downside I see in community building is simply people don't like having to spend a lot of money and time collecting a new force regularly to keep up with the imbalance in the name of being able to get a good game in that isn't very one-sided. Thats probably been the largest challenge I've faced even back in my tournament days a decade ago. We do have a few people who love this, and regularly buy new armies and have them commission painted so they don't have to deal with any of that, but I don't find that the norm (here).

Im curious from a developer standpoint as to how this design paradigm of imbalance is desired, even when so many give lip-service to points and needing balance?

Now I know we haven't seen the new edition proper yet, but the reaction I'm reading from the people that DO have the material tells me that people are enjoying the propensity for listbuilding imbalance immensely.

The simple answer is that a community is still a collection of individuals and does not represent one unified vision of balance. This is essentially why games kind of fall apart when a company stops managing the game and players start trying to create their own sense of balance. Everyone has a different goal and you'll never quite get the kind of consensus needed to make the right kind of changes.

To drill down into the player mindset a bit; the truth is that competitive players often have a very pragmatic outlook on a game. It's their job to utilize the rules to the fullest to win and there's a very clear division of labor in their minds as to who's responsible for deciding what balance is. It's often not that they're rejecting balance; its that they have to play the ball where it lies.

You can't realistically reject the imbalances in a game that's presented to you. You might not like them or agree with them, but its not really your place to say what is and is not fair. You very well might be right, but just as often people are wrong on this stuff and fail to take it upon themselves to step up to the challenge their opponent places before them. It's a really fuzzy grey line and for a lot of people its easier to just let the developer's have totalitarian control over it and play the game as it exists to the best they can.

Now that more and more of the new edition have been revealed, we know for sure that some forces will indeed be able to easily bring in well over 500 points free (making a 2000 point game a 2500 - 2000 point game) and in some cases even more. Then there are the already good units that are operating above the bell curve of power getting points drops, pushing them even further up the bell curve of power.

Except they can't just up and do that every turn. This is where that whole "balance" thing comes into play.

With that said, most of the armies that are going to be summoning things are those which people already knew how to counteract/control their summoning.

Kan, it's pretty obvious he's talking about the 500 extra points over the game. Which is pretty easy to do with some of the top offenders.

Also explain to me how you stop a Slaan on a table with any kind of line of sight blocking terrain. He's generating about 120pts per turn with the astrolith bearer.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Kan, it's pretty obvious he's talking about the 500 extra points over the game. Which is pretty easy to do with some of the top offenders.

But again, they can't just up and do that every turn for many armies.

Also explain to me how you stop a Slaan on a table with any kind of line of sight blocking terrain. He's generating about 120pts per turn with the astrolith bearer.

Yeah, and if you kill that Astrolith Bearer then the Slaan isn't casting any spells and not really making too much headway.

I think in a lot of cases, it isn't that gamers really want balance, they want the appearance of balance. A points system gives this appearance, even if it often is completely artificial and inaccurate. For a lot of folks, also, there's the drive they have to try to min-max things, and a points system lets them do this. Almost everyone realizes on some level that points are not going to be accurate, so the same kind of player who tries to roll up their D&D character to have the most benefits in game mechanics with the fewest flaws will try to throw together a wargame list with the fewest points but the highest performance.

Lots of historical gamers don't give a rat's about points, and play more based on scenario than anything else. For them, it's often more of a "simulation" than a "game." Many, many, many gamers by their very nature will try to exploit a ruleset to try to win; after all, for most gamers, that's the point of playing, right? Why else would you play unless it's to win? (Personally, for me this isn't the point. Yes, the objective of the game is to win, but the point of the game is to have fun, in my eyes.)

I believe it's "sport jock syndrome". Some people NEED to win with plastic toy soldiers and what ever gives them an edge they will take it. If we compare this to sports, the "imbalance" is the "drugs" that sports get you banned for. Thing is the "imbalance" is legal with GW.

Another thing I believe is lots of us have been with GW for almost 2 decades now. We are use to this and for lots of us, this is all we know so it's "normal". Be it a time sink, money sink, don't know any better or what not, we are just use to this. So while in the begining the pain was there, now it's a dull pain we can ignore since we are use to it.

I am not saying all people are like this but you know how the internet is, a few small group always ruins it for the larger group.

I don't think its a small group though. Its a very very large group.

And as to the above, the seraphon can pretty much generate free points every turn yes. Offing the astrolith bearer or the slaan is not trivial. Back in 2015 in the 1.0 days, that was the counter argument to tzeentch summoning spam. Just kill the caster. Its easy.

Except that every intelligent player knew that wasn't true and put their summoners deep in a corner and out of reach surrounded by screens. Ranged attacks in this game don't have the range to get across the table and into the corners, you have to push your way over there, and in four or so turns of trying to get to the corner, they've had that many turns to generate free points while keeping their summoners and accessories like astrolith bearers out of your range.

Some armies like stormcast or (lol other seraphon) can teleport wherever they want so that is not *as* much of an issue, but a lot of armies don't have that ability.

There is no way to "easily" stop seraphon from getting 500+ free points every game, thus reducing what is viable to take. You either need to match that or you need to generate a ton of damage to offset it.

I don't desire it. But here is my personal take;

-Back before 7ed 40k I used to build a new army yearly and take it around on the circuit around the US. I might add a unit here or there thru the year but the list stayed primarily the same for that year until I built a new list the following year. The rapid rate of change in 7th made this a non-workable plan so I just stopped. I built stuff I wanted, sold other stuff, and just borrowed for those same events. I'm still in that mode for 8th ed 40k because until all the books are out and the dust settles it's basically a slightly better balanced 7th ed.

-In Fantasy I tended to always stick with an army an add stuff for 2-3 years at a time. Never really jumped.

Now I'm happily at a point where I tend to have the majority of armies and they the worse ones at the time get played at local events or pick up games and the ones shining in the sun at the time go to cut throat tournaments. I just see the shifting of the scale as a chance to revisit old friends

I realize I'm also not the typical gamer or even tournament dude. I build a list that works for me, generally with things people see as weaknesses, and just play. In 40k that generally means 4-2 or 5-1 on the weekend with a chance at best overall. Based on local performance of AoS I expect it'll be largely similar since I regularly beat the snot out of one of the higher ITC dudes.

I did have hopes that essentially GW would drop most armies that couldn't summons usable stuff by what should equate to 200ish points per army and slightly bump summoner models make them SUMMONING armies to function at the same level as normal armies. They didn't so i am a bit sad. I mean happy for my lizards who will run rampant for a year but sad to see things like my FEC and Ironjawz stay below par.

Locally most people don't chase the dragon in AoS. I think that's because it's generally a year between point updates and they're getting into the feeling that most of the really egregious gak is going to be handled. Granted Tzeentch took to long but the rest of it is normally addressed pretty quick thru FAQ's on how they work. I'll be interested to see 2019's GHB since it'll include more US playtester results.

 Valander wrote:
I think in a lot of cases, it isn't that gamers really want balance, they want the appearance of balance. A points system gives this appearance, even if it often is completely artificial and inaccurate. For a lot of folks, also, there's the drive they have to try to min-max things, and a points system lets them do this. Almost everyone realizes on some level that points are not going to be accurate, so the same kind of player who tries to roll up their D&D character to have the most benefits in game mechanics with the fewest flaws will try to throw together a wargame list with the fewest points but the highest performance.

I'm leaning towards this view as well. Personally, I'd just want to have a pleasant experience without the feeling of a need that I need to play the system, rather than just a player. A bit subjective stance to take, but I do feel there are better activities out there where I could apply my analytical mind and time.

Yeah when I was chasing the dragon as a tournament player (1998 - 2007 or so) I had three priimary fantasy armies: chaos, vampire counts, and dark elves.

Those armies were very busted during my time, and I collected them largely because they were very busted.

Fear / autobreak was how I stayed in the top 10 at nearly ever GW GT i attended, and I had a chance of winning one in Chicago except that my game 5 was against another undead player so we drew and that knocked me down and out of the running for 1st overall.

From what I'm gathering, reading, and seeing on facebook... the UK guys that playtest this really honestly soulfully believe that this is an awesome version and that summoning spam is a great thing for the game. And these are tournament players that believe imbalance is *great* for the game. That just ... baffles me. Even at my worst powergaming, I knew that from a player retention standpoint and overall quality of game experience that my tournament group running amuk among the baby seals was bad for the game overall.

Thank you for the thoughts on the topic.

I know that my opinion on this matter was changed when i wrote azyr comp. The biggest complaint that hit my inbox on a regular interval until GHB killed the fan comps was "you killed the game by killing listbuildiing, you made things too boring now that 2000 points is the same as anyone else's 2000 points". I just never got the clarification as to why we see so much about points should be balanced but the goal seems to be keeping imbalance because thats what the community wants (otherwise listbuilding is pointless if you can't make 2000 points worth more than 2000 points then you aren't getting a leg up over someone else in the listbuilding phase). Considering the goal for me when writing azyr was a balanced system, I was taken a back a little by the negativity surrounding that goal.

I'd be interested to hear from Ninth and his experiences with PPC comp to see if they were similarly received.

I dont' want imbalance personally but I do want armies to function differently. Which is a hard sell to get right honestly. I'm a personality list person. My lists generally don't contain a massive load of "da best" current units. They contain the stuff that works well for me.

I'm hopeful that with the inclusion of more US playtesters for AoS and possibly sending over the AoS dev team like they do for 40k to major events will shift it a bit more toward 40k where if it weren't for 2 codexes dropping a month right now it's a pretty balanced game now that they've put in the rule of 3.

I wish there were a way to playtest and send feedback. I have no idea what channels they use for that kind of thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is a response I found interesting on the topic:

IMO, points are like rules, a universal language that allows players to engage. With points, I can plan an unbalanced game and be aware of the odds.

You should be able to send opinions/thoughts to the faq email. That reaches the devs eventually from what I understand. At least now it does instead of being binned like 4 years ago.

auticus wrote:

The reactions went from "summoning won't be broken, stop worrying" to "summoning may be broken now but that just means we should build armies that can summon a lot now".

There is this general level of acceptance that thats fine and that army hopping should be a thing. That each edition has its darlings and you should play one of those or just be accepting that you are going to be losing a lot and there is really no game to be had, but that's ok. When the next edition drops and new darlings are unveiled, you should ebay your current force or put them away, and collect the new darling, and the cycle repeats and thats ok.

I ask - why is this acceptable? Not even acceptable... why is this desired? Why is imbalance desired? Why do we see stated over and over how important points are for balance but then when imbalance is given, the community embraces it and extols its virtues to the heavens?

My opinion:

It is not about any of the things you listed. Nothing to do with how people prefer to play at all.

This is purely about GW being given a free pass for crap game design because it is GW. People just bend over backwards to make excuses for GW and convince themselves that EVERYTHING IS JUST HOW I LIKE IT because nostalgia or stockholm syndrome or something. The exact same rules would crash and burn if published by anoyone else.

Some things to keep in mind:

-If a player isn't looking to make a strong/strongest list they tend not to be asking advice. Which is to say the majority of armies out there are not trying to break the balance but have a disproportionately tiny place in online discussion. To use myself as an example; I have four armies but only one of them makes an effort to break the game.

-To use the example of 500 points of summoning over a game, this isn't as simple as making it 2500 vs 2000, because those summons require mechanics that must be used properly and more importantly these summons only see use during a fraction of the game rather than the whole thing.

Now to get down to the original premise of the thread. I accept/tolerate imbalance for two reasons. One is that I understand the average perso cares less than I do. Two is that I realize it is somewhat of a lost cause. I will criticise imbalance where I see it but I also make a big effort to move on and enjoy the game anyways. On summoning I see it as being a bigger issue in casual games because players will be less prepared to counter it and because it scales very poorly. Nurgle in particular summons just as much in a 1000 point game as it does in 2500 point game and that's a problem. Many of the other mechanics only scale in small ways by size, like Seraphon.

My terror about summoning being free was exactly that... that for the most part it'd be fine (like with nurgle... its not that big a deal) but that they'd bust the game wide open with a few factions. And they appear to have done just that with seraphon and the death recycling and to a lesser extent tzeentch.

To add to my thoughts; even in a perfect balance situation it does not kill listbuilding, quite the opposite. Because having the right roles to support each other and a balance of units/model count/characters to complete objectives efficiently is worth more in a balanced setting than just spamming the most effective units. If someone says that balance kills list building then no offense but they actually do need to get good.

Games Workshop know they could put out just about any slop of rules, probably written by an intern in fifteen minutes and people will pay for it, and then go on the internet and defend to the death why ACTUALLY the imbalance is totally fine.

Surprised people have such a positive view of GHB 2019. Seems like GW would just keep releasing new stuff that isn't really balanced, much like what they're doing now.

I appreciate the semblance of balance they're trying to do with FAQ's and what not, but I don't think GW's aim is really balance. It's to sell great models and a fun exciting system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arbitrator wrote:
Games Workshop know they could put out just about any slop of rules, probably written by an intern in fifteen minutes and people will pay for it, and then go on the internet and defend to the death why ACTUALLY the imbalance is totally fine.

Not that you're completely wrong, but your statement does come off as kind of "STOP ENJOYING THINGS I DON'T"

auticus wrote:
I don't think its a small group though. Its a very very large group.

And as to the above, the seraphon can pretty much generate free points every turn yes. Offing the astrolith bearer or the slaan is not trivial. Back in 2015 in the 1.0 days, that was the counter argument to tzeentch summoning spam. Just kill the caster. Its easy.

And for some armies--even then, it was. I didn't have a huge issue with Tzeentch as Wanderers(albeit with a Gryph Hound or two on the field as well). Couple of Glade Captains with Battle Standards to provide umbrellas for my Glade Guard against spells, Waywatchers to go hero-hunting, and a couple of Gryph-Hounds in the list to make them have to either bottle themselves up or move around where they pick to summon.

I'm not saying that it's going to be a cakewalk to beat, but let's chill out a bit eh? If a Slann is building up points--they're not casting. If an Astrolith Bearer is camped back in safety--he's not buffing.
Also, it's now been stated (can't confirm 100%) that if your General is slain in matched play, you can't pick a new one. That means an assassination run on a Slann CAN be a viable tactic.

Except that every intelligent player knew that wasn't true and put their summoners deep in a corner and out of reach surrounded by screens. Ranged attacks in this game don't have the range to get across the table and into the corners, you have to push your way over there, and in four or so turns of trying to get to the corner, they've had that many turns to generate free points while keeping their summoners and accessories like astrolith bearers out of your range.

I feel this is a bit disingenuous from you. You were one of the people arguing against me when it came to me mentioning that I hoped to see something to buff ranged units since they can now be locked into combat(a thing that didn't exist before), implying that ranged units had some kind of definitive ownership of the tables. Now you're arguing they really didn't?

Some armies like stormcast or (lol other seraphon) can teleport wherever they want so that is not *as* much of an issue, but a lot of armies don't have that ability.

A lot more armies have that ability than don't. We've gotten a lot of heroes/units that have a way to start off the board now. For my Idoneth, as an example, I can use Soulscryers(amusingly enough--they saw a 20pt reduction!) to bring in some units with Fly and just say screw it to any screen that someone has. It's certainly a more extreme example as I don't know a whole lot of armies that can do the trick plus bring in units that have Fly to avoid screens, but I'm sure that some exist.

What Summoning abilities aren't tied to casting? I feel like Summoning would have been way worse had the Unbinding range still been 18" and not the 30" it is now.

Don't the summoned dinos have to be place close to the banner? So if that banner is hiding in the corner, the dinos you summon will be in that same corner. Those "500+ points" aren't going to do you much good if they're not holding or taking an objective.

 EnTyme wrote:
Don't the summoned dinos have to be place close to the banner? So if that banner is hiding in the corner, the dinos you summon will be in that same corner. Those "500+ points" aren't going to do you much good if they're not holding or taking an objective.

You can either;

1) spend a few turns saving up and then teleport him up and summon away

or

2) Teleport him up turn 1 to a good position in hiding and summon off of him

It's hard to flat stop the summoning. And generally you'll get back the value from your summoners because of their natural abilities. It's not game breaking but it's definitely good.

I feel this is a bit disingenuous from you. You were one of the people arguing against me when it came to me mentioning that I hoped to see something to buff ranged units since they can now be locked into combat(a thing that didn't exist before), implying that ranged units had some kind of definitive ownership of the tables. Now you're arguing they really didn't?

Ranged units not being able to reach across the entire table to tag a hero hiding and summoning is not the same as ranged units not being powerful because they are in range to nail the rest of the army.

I don't consider ranged units not having the ability to go corner to corner on the table as making them weak or not owning tables. I consider that if I want to hide a single summoning hero behind a screen and away from ranged units, that I can do so for a few turns to benefit from my free points. That does not mean ranged units were not king.

 jreilly89 wrote:
What Summoning abilities aren't tied to casting? I feel like Summoning would have been way worse had the Unbinding range still been 18" and not the 30" it is now.

From what's been seen so far, the ability to "Summon X" is being flatout removed as a spell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
Don't the summoned dinos have to be place close to the banner? So if that banner is hiding in the corner, the dinos you summon will be in that same corner. Those "500+ points" aren't going to do you much good if they're not holding or taking an objective.

Yes. They have to be placed within 9" of the banner, which can't be placed within 9" of an enemy via the method Hulksmash suggests.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:

I feel this is a bit disingenuous from you. You were one of the people arguing against me when it came to me mentioning that I hoped to see something to buff ranged units since they can now be locked into combat(a thing that didn't exist before), implying that ranged units had some kind of definitive ownership of the tables. Now you're arguing they really didn't?

Ranged units not being able to reach across the entire table to tag a hero hiding and summoning is not the same as ranged units not being powerful because they are in range to nail the rest of the army.

I don't consider ranged units not having the ability to go corner to corner on the table as making them weak or not owning tables. I consider that if I want to hide a single summoning hero behind a screen and away from ranged units, that I can do so for a few turns to benefit from my free points. That does not mean ranged units were not king.

Again, this is still being disingenuous IMO. If ranged units don't have the damage output to tear through the screens to get at the casters for summonfarms--then they clearly aren't "king".

Certainly some ranged units have been overperforming but most ranged units have been lackluster.

If you feel that if ranged units can't perform everything and beat everything that they aren't king, so be it. Thats your definition of what makes a strong unit.

To me thats not the case. And thats certainly backed up by a solid chunk of power cheese featuring as much shooting as they can get their hands on because why would you never.

So no dis ingenuity, simply a difference in opinion on what a term means.

auticus wrote:
If you feel that if ranged units can't perform everything and beat everything that they aren't king, so be it. Thats your definition of what makes a strong unit.

To me thats not the case. And thats certainly backed up by a solid chunk of power cheese featuring as much shooting as they can get their hands on because why would you never.

So no dis ingenuity, simply a difference in opinion on what a term means.

You argued that ranged needed to be able to be 'locked down' because otherwise it can delete units from the board.

You specifically argue that, while having only been really talking about Skyfires and a select few Stormcast ranged units(nobody's going to be upset by a bunch of Vanguard with their hand crossbows for example). It's disingenuous at best, straight up nonsense at worst considering your statements here.

I, personally, feel that dedicated ranged units for the most part are overpriced considering most of their statlines. The weapons just don't have the weight of fire, the capability for Mortal Wounds, or the Rend to justify their prices. Do you really want to argue that Namarti Reavers are worth the same as Thralls? That a Waywatcher at 120 pts is worth the same as a similar CC character?


I get that it all comes down to opinion--but I've never really seen an all-ranged list that a good melee centric army can't beat. The lack of a Stand and Shoot/Overwatch mechanic ensures that. Now with the caveat of ranged units having to shoot units that are in their face, chaff suddenly means something more than "a screen I might have to shoot through".

Ranged units being able to delete units off the board has nothing to do with being unable to pick out a caster purposely hiding in the opposite corner of the table out of range.

I've already done a complete math analysis of the entire game twice now to know that a good chunk of ranged units are by far and away not overpriced. A lot sit on the bell curve which is fine, but a unit being priced correctly or near correctly does not make it over priced because a solid 20% of the game is underpriced. It means that GW fails to balance their game for the 20% of the game that is underpriced, which includes a good chunk of units with ranged options. (the exact number sitting ABOVE the average bell curve was 18%)

The ranged units that I see day in and day out are usually the ones that sit above the bell curve of power, meaning that they are under cost for what they do.

I've already done several threads on dakka about this very topic several times now over the past three years. If you have some kind of math that shows the majority of ranged units are overcost, please present it because I'd like to see it.

auticus wrote:
Ranged units being able to delete units off the board has nothing to do with being unable to pick out a caster purposely hiding in the opposite corner of the table out of range.

I've already done a complete math analysis of the entire game twice now to know that a good chunk of ranged units are by far and away not overpriced. A lot sit on the bell curve which is fine, but a unit being priced correctly or near correctly does not make it over priced because a solid 20% of the game is underpriced. It means that GW fails to balance their game for the 20% of the game that is underpriced, which includes a good chunk of units with ranged options. (the exact number sitting ABOVE the average bell curve was 18%)

The ranged units that I see day in and day out are usually the ones that sit above the bell curve of power, meaning that they are under cost for what they do.

And that's the rub. What ranged units are those? Complete listing of the ones you see "day in and day out".

I've already done several threads on dakka about this very topic several times now over the past three years. If you have some kind of math that shows the majority of ranged units are overcost, please present it because I'd like to see it.

I don't care about the math, to be honest. The simple fact that a Waywatcher is now 120pts speaks for me.