AoS Warhammer Weekly NPE Discussion

[Carnikang]

@LordBaconBane thanks for your input. You make a lot of good points, especially about the timing of some of the data. People might have recalled previous Seraphon summoning earlier, and assumed it similar, or thought back to early Tzeentch when it was new in the old meta then.
Things have changed quickly. I think @Putzfrau made some good points earlier on in the thread as well, and I think it may just be finding a compromise on fixing us to be less oppressive. I don't particularly want to see the warscrolls of the skinks fundamentally changed, but I also don't want to see them get too expensive because of what they CAN/MIGHT do because of hero buffs.
Perhaps just making baseline skinks less apt to be buff worthy? The extra attack is a big culprit I think (just my thought after playing a few games with units of 20), since it triggers at 15+ sizes.
Maybe move it up to sizes of 20+ to make it somewhat harder to maintain?

It's still rough going to repositories of info online and seeing the legitimate dislike/salt about Seraphon.

 

[LordBaconBane]

@LordBaconBane thanks for your input. You make a lot of good points, especially about the timing of some of the data.

Thanks! So one big point that Vince makes is that 50% of npe's come from shooting. I think reducing size/numbers of shots helps but ultimately is a bandaid to a big problem. If shooting so oppressive in AoS (which the data seems to support), reducing unit sizes isn't a catch all, it's a bandaid unfortunately. For example, you can't reduce the size of single entities. Here are some ideas I have:

• You cannot shoot into melee. If you're engaged in melee, you can't shoot. There could be a special rule that some units could shoot into melee, but only into 3" as it currently stands
• In LOTR shooting is really weak but that is due to a S/T table. I don't know if you could implement something similiar in AoS, but it would make shooting far less damaging.
• Divide warscrolls into shooting/non-shooting variants. Good example is skinks. You could make shooting skinks more expensive.

Maybe not the best ideas, but I'm throwing out stuff and seeing how it sticks.

 

[Putzfrau]

Dude, relax. I didn't shit on everyone that plays TTS and I'm sorry if it came off that way. I simply pointed out some flaws in Vince's data which is:

1. It doesn't take into account the differences in play from TTS to tabletop (Clunky physics, bugs, models getting tossed by accident, base scale might not be perfect between mods causing interaction problems, lack of inperson dialogue (most of human communication is body language)). People may take a bad experience with TTS the system and add that onto a bad experience when playing against an army of a certain type.
2. It is a well documented fact that people are more likely to be toxic online. (I mean, you getting upset over my innocuous comment is a prime example. I never shat on TTS once, just simply pointed out some potential problems that could factor into npe). You may not have experienced any online toxicity (which is good) but we need to accept the possibility that there are things people may say or do on TTS they wouldn't do on TT (or vice versa) that could impact Vince's data.

I have played online and it was a negative experience, but not due to the armies I was facing against. It was bland, boring, and not fun (I have friends here that think the same). The physics of the models is clunky, you lose the magic of rolling the dice yourself, there is a lot of fun in looking at your opponents army and seeing it all painted and junk. And again, if you like it, then great! I wouldn't ever want to poop on your fun, that's not my intent. Just pointing out what I think.

If you didn't want to insult people online you shouldn't have said tts players are more likely to be shitty than tabletop players with no experience of that, then doubled down by insulting me in the process.

If your comment was innocuous, I'm not sure how my comment came across as me needing to "relax."

And just to clarify, people aren't dicks on tts because the people playing on tts are the same people that are playing on the tabletop. It's not anonymous for the most part and the community is incredibly welcoming.

I'd suggest you try it out before trying to convince others that the experience and community "contributes to negative play experiences."

 

[LordBaconBane]

You went out of your way to say people are shitty online and then pointed out you yourself never experienced people being shitty online on tts.

No, I said people are more likely to be shitty online. (Also, I only played with friends). This is a well documented fact. To quote myself exactly:

you're more likey to be a dick online then in person.

Again, this is a fact of life. And you have to treat this data like a flow chart. Are people more likely to be toxic online, yes or no? Are there mechanical problems (physics, inconsistent base sizes, etc), yes or no? Are there human differences in TTS vs TT, yes or no? How many games of the npe's reported were played online? What would would it mean if 75% of npe's were found on TTS and only 25% were found in TT, or if it was flipped, or dead even? Can we correlate TTS npe vs TT npe, yes or no?

This is a (potentially) huge factor that is missing from Vince's data, which is one of the reasons why I'm critical of his two year timeline. It introduces too many wild cards, like 2018 rules, TTS, two different generals handbooks, battletome updates between factions, etc.

Also,

You 100% bad talked people that play tts and then doubled down by saying I was a "prime example of people being toxic online."

I never once said anything bad about people that play TTS. I said, and I'll quote again, you're more like to be a dick online then in person. This is a documented fact of life on the Internet.

 

[LordBaconBane]

If you didn't want to insult people online you shouldn't have said tts players are more likely to be shitty than tabletop players with no experience of that, then doubled down by insulting me in the process.

If your comment was innocuous, I'm not sure how my comment came across as me needing to "relax."

And just to clarify, people aren't dicks on tts because the people playing on tts are the same people that are playing on the tabletop. It's not anonymous for the most part and the community is incredibly welcoming.

I'd suggest you try it out before trying to convince others that the experience and community "contributes to negative play experiences."

Again, I never once said people on tts are dicks. I said people online are more likely to be dicks. This does not mean people on TTS are dicks, it means that the online presence means it's more likely to occur (but that does not mean it will occur). If you keep assuming this, I'll keep reposting my quote.

you're more likey to be a dick online then in person

Also, I repeatedly said that mechanical factors in TTS could lead to more npe. Bad physics, potentially inconsistent base sizes, etc. Also, lack of the human factor, but I've already repeated this.

 

[Putzfrau]

Again, I never once said people on tts are dicks. I said people online are more likely to be dicks. This does not mean people on TTS are dicks, it means that the online presence means it's more likely to occur (but that does not mean it will occur). If you keep assuming this, I'll keep reposting my quote.



Also, I repeatedly said that mechanical factors in TTS could lead to more npe. Bad physics, potentially inconsistent base sizes, etc. Also, lack of the human factor, but I've already repeated this.

Yeah dude on Xbox live maybe, but this ain't that. You said it yourself it's due to anonymity and you're not any more or less anonymous doing TTS tournaments than real ones.

Just feels weird to tell other people you think TTS could play a part in the negative experiences because people are shittier online without ever experiencing that specific online community. Feels even weirder to get all defensive when someone points out thats not necessarily fair and you continue to double down (while also personally insulting me in the process.)

I'm not misrepresenting anything you said. People are shittier online, thus people on TTS are probably shittier. That contributes (among other things) to TTS having a higher than normal negative play experience.

None if that is super flattering to the community that plays aos on TTS. Do you think it is?

 

[LordBaconBane]

Yeah dude on Xbox live maybe, but this ain't that. You said it yourself it's due to anonymity and you're not any more or less anonymous doing TTS tournaments than real ones.

Just feels weird to tell other people you think TTS could play a part in the negative experiences because people are shittier online without ever experiencing that specific online community. Feels even weirder to get all defensive when someone points out thats not necessarily fair and you continue to double down (while also personally insulting me in the process.)

Whether or not it's on Xbox Live, FaceBook, TTS, TWWH2, doesn't matter, people are more likely to be shittier to one another online then in person. I cannot stress how much of a fact this is. You might not like it because your bias lies towards the TTS community, which is fine, but you cannot ignore the fact that people are more likely to be shittier online then in person, which can potentially lead to more npe. Take for example the TWWH2 community. Great community, very welcoming, very friendly. Are there assholes on it? Yup.

I'm not misrepresenting anything you said. People are shittier online, thus people on TTS are probably shittier. That contributes (among other things) to TTS having a higher than normal negative play experience.

Also, you are misrepresenting what I'm saying. I never once said anything bad about the TTS community. I never once said people there are dicks. You came to that conclusion all on your own. I explicitly left it out in the open as something that should be considered and you took it as an attack on the community. I even said "What would would it mean if 75% of npe's were found on TTS and only 25% were found in TT, or if it was flipped, or dead even" leaving it completely open to the idea that i could be wrong and npe could go down.

EDIT SECTION HERE:
As I keep stating as well, there are mechanical/human communication problems with TTS that could cause or (for lack of a better term) enhance someone's npe during a game.

None if that is super flattering to the community that plays aos on TTS. Do you think it is?

I don't care if it is or isn't. What I care about is npe in AoS and if there is the possibility that a simple survey could answer the question of if people are having more or less npe online, then why not ask?

SECOND EDIT SECTION:

This is essentially my point, I'll requote it.

And you have to treat this data like a flow chart. Are people more likely to be toxic online, yes or no? Are there mechanical problems (physics, inconsistent base sizes, etc), yes or no? Are there human differences in TTS vs TT, yes or no? How many games of the npe's reported were played online? What would would it mean if 75% of npe's were found on TTS and only 25% were found in TT, or if it was flipped, or dead even? Can we correlate TTS npe vs TT npe, yes or no?

 

[Putzfrau]

Whether or not it's on Xbox Live, FaceBook, TTS, TWWH2, doesn't matter, people are more likely to be shittier to one another online then in person. I cannot stress how much of a fact this is. You might not like it because your bias lies towards the TTS community, which is fine, but you cannot ignore the fact that people are more likely to be shittier online then in person, which can potentially lead to more npe. Take for example the TWWH2 community. Great community, very welcoming, very friendly. Are there assholes on it? Yup.



Also, you are misrepresenting what I'm saying. I never once said anything bad about the TTS community. I never once said people there are dicks. You came to that conclusion all on your own. I explicitly left it out in the open as something that should be considered and you took it as an attack on the community. I even said "What would would it mean if 75% of npe's were found on TTS and only 25% were found in TT, or if it was flipped, or dead even" leaving it completely open to the idea that i could be wrong and npe could go down.



I don't care if it is or isn't. What I care about is npe in AoS and if there is the possibility that a simple survey could answer the question of if people are having more or less npe online, then why not ask?

edit: Sorry for coming on strong dude. Didn't feel like you were asking much off a question, came across like an assertion. An assertion that didn't exactly match up with my own experience with that specific online community.

As you said, sometimes tonality comes across differently in type and thats my bad.

cheers.

 

[LordBaconBane]

I think we've gone over it enough and I don't really want to talk about it anymore. Sorry if anything I said came off as a personal insult, I didn't mean it that way.

What I would like to divert back to is something @Carnikang mentioned which is fixing skinks & the salt towards lizards. While I do think Seraphon are OP and we could talk about that until the End Times, what I really want to focus on is that Vince found around 50% of all npe had to do with shooting. While you can certainly look at toning down shooting in the top factions, point increases only go so far. I believe this is more of a mechanical problem in AoS that could be tempered with by the core game rules. Something I stated earlier (and that I'm now expanding on):

• If you're engaged in melee, you can't shoot. There could be a special rule that some units could shoot into melee (KO boats or Oldblood carno, for example), but only into 3" as it currently stands (sorry warp lighting cannons).
• In LOTR shooting is really weak but that is due to a S/T table. You can pour in a bunch of shots, but you'll rarely do damage. I don't know if you could implement something similar in AoS, but it would make shooting far less oppressive
• Speaking on LOTR, they have shared phases which makes the game far more interactive. I don't know if you'd want to shake up AoS that much, but it's something to think about.
• Divide warscrolls into shooting/non-shooting variants. Good example is skinks. You could make shooting skinks more expensive vs melee skinks. Imagine melee skinks are 60 and boltspitters are 80? Just a thought.
• Remove double turn. A solid shooty faction can do massive damage on a double turn. If you remove double turns, well you reduce the potential oppressiveness of shooting.

 

[Putzfrau]

I think we've gone over it enough and I don't really want to talk about it anymore. Sorry if anything I said came off as a personal insult, I didn't mean it that way.

What I would like to divert back to is something @Carnikang mentioned which is fixing skinks & the salt towards lizards. While I do think Seraphon are OP and we could talk about that until the End Times, what I really want to focus on is that Vince found around 50% of all npe had to do with shooting. While you can certainly look at toning down shooting in the top factions, point increases only go so far. I believe this is more of a mechanical problem in AoS that could be tempered with by the core game rules. Something I stated earlier (and that I'm now expanding on):

• If you're engaged in melee, you can't shoot. There could be a special rule that some units could shoot into melee (KO boats, for example), but only into 3" as it currently stands (sorry warp lighting cannons).
• In LOTR shooting is really weak but that is due to a S/T table. You can pour in a bunch of shots, but you'll rarely do damage. I don't know if you could implement something similar in AoS, but it would make shooting far less oppressive
• Speaking on LOTR, they have shared phases which makes the game far more interactive. I don't know if you'd want to shake up AoS that much, but it's something to think about.
• Divide warscrolls into shooting/non-shooting variants. Good example is skinks. You could make shooting skinks more expensive vs melee skinks. Imagine melee skinks are 60 and boltspitters are 80? Just a thought.
• Remove double turn. A solid shooty faction can do massive damage on a double turn. If you remove double turns, well you reduce the potential oppressiveness of shooting.

Yeah, shootings in a tricky spot. I think they had it right when it was fairly limited, but they've totally flooded the game with it now. Maybe an extra +1 save against shooting attacks? Moving and shooting means you hit on -1?

They could just go in and hack ranges down too, that might help.

I'm curious if people think the rumored smaller 40k-sized tables will help?

 

[Carnikang]

Yeah, shootings in a tricky spot. I think they had it right when it was fairly limited, but they've totally flooded the game with it now. Maybe an extra +1 save against shooting attacks? Moving and shooting means you hit on -1?

They could just go in and hack ranges down too, that might help.

I'm curious if people think the rumored smaller 40k-sized tables will help?

Board size change did make the game more cagey and did give melee a second wind. How it would turn out in AoS is up for grabs depending on if shooting is adjusted at all.
Perhaps a simple fix is just adding minimum ranges to ALL ranged weapons. Those units that generally had shorter ranges could be prime candidates to be those who could shooting into their own melee but not others.

Shooting into combat as of now just gas no downsides. I'd honestly take a rule like "On an unmodified roll of 1 for a shooting attack targeting an enemy unit in combat with a friendly unit, the friendly unit suffers a Mortal Wound/a wound roll is made with the weapon against the friendly unit"

Wordy, and open to adjustment, but it would make there be some risk to shooting into combat.

 

[Carnikang]

@LordBaconBane in splitting the Skink scroll, that could leave room to make Red Crested skinks a thing again, making them more melee centric. I know there is someone who's made two handed weapons.stl files for skink fighters.

 

[Jason839]

As far as shooting goes, the problem with shooting in AoS is people dont use enough LoS blocking terrain. You need to have at minimum 4 LoS blocking pieces of terrain per table. Most tables I see have maybe 1 or 2. Kroaknado isnt that strong when he doesnt have LoS. Then you have to decide if you want to waste a teleport, cancel the balewind and walk, or leave kroak in place and teleport something else. Skink shooting can be oppressive, but if you have giant los blocking terrain, it suddenly becomes much less effective. It makes the whole army more balanced over all. The best shooting armies KO and lumineth have rules to ignore terrain and I am ok with that as they sacrifice much to be good at shooting.

I would like to see more games with higher terrain count. It would make the game drastically different to block LoS and grant more people cover bonuses.

 

[Dread Saurian]

Limiting the number a pack of skinks can have, means nothing as you can just add another pack for the same cost... in regards to the statement to that the most common soldier you'd see on the lizardmen/seraphon wouldn't be the skinks. It would definitely be saurus (if we're talking fluff wise) since they're spawned en masses

 

[Kilvakar]

eah, shootings in a tricky spot. I think they had it right when it was fairly limited, but they've totally flooded the game with it now. Maybe an extra +1 save against shooting attacks? Moving and shooting means you hit on -1?

I'd actually be quite in favor of a -1 to hit when a unit moves and shoots.

I'm curious if people think the rumored smaller 40k-sized tables will help?

Board size change did make the game more cagey and did give melee a second wind. How it would turn out in AoS is up for grabs depending on if shooting is adjusted at all.

I think smaller board sizes would be a pretty bad thing unless they reduced the number of extra movement shenanigans that a lot of armies have. In 40k the smaller sizes and shift to AoS-like objective rules *really* wrecked a lot of armies. Shooty armies like Tau and Imperial Guard are getting steamrolled by melee armies. Of course, Space Marines are just OP this edition so far, but that's another discussion entirely.

If they were to shrink the board size for AoS, suddenly any army with a decent movement speed is going to get in your face turn 1, not just "speedy" factions like Orruks and Idoneth. Now without the chance to weaken them with shooting and magic, melee hordes are going to be wrecking everyone in the same way that shooting armies are dominating now. Of course, armies with good shooting *and* movement shenanigans like KO, possibly Fangs of Sotek (if they have enough command points turn 1), etc. are going to still have an advantage, just not as much as they do now.

Remove double turn. A solid shooty faction can do massive damage on a double turn. If you remove double turns, well you reduce the potential oppressiveness of shooting.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing the double turn mechanic go away. I know it's unique and a lot of people like the randomness it adds, as well as the strategy if you win the roll-off if you want to go first and risk getting double-turned, or go second and hope for the double-turn yourself. But AoS, just like 40k currently, rarely goes to turn 5 because a significant number of games are decided in turn 2 or 3. It's not always this way, but a lot of the time the double-turn is so significant that it either swings a game that was going in your favor to you getting totally crushed, or has you get more than half your army wiped out in turn 2 because your opponent got 2 turns in a row of pounding your forces.

Maybe move it up to sizes of 20+ to make it somewhat harder to maintain?

Yeah. I definitely wouldn't like them to reduce the number of Skinks you could take, unless they decided to fix Saurus to make them a better melee horde. I also think taking away their extra attack makes them too weak. Lots and lots of other units have buffs for having above a certain number of models in the unit, and I think it's perfectly fair for Skinks to have it too. But bumping their horde bonus up to 20+ would be fair, imo.

 

[Grotpunter]

I think we would be in agreement that it's pretty much only Fangs of Sotek that are so oppressive to play against? I don't hear anyone complaining about going up against Dracothion's Tail or any Coalesced list.

I think it is Seraphon in general. The FoS ability is certainly “annoying” to play against but FoS is actually the least tournament winning subfaction currently when looking at TTS data.

It is difficult to see just how good you have it when playing Seraphon, but it becomes very apparent the moment you flip sides and start playing against Seraphon with another army. It is incredibly frustrating to play against an army that have so many tools at their disposal. Deployment and movement etc almost dont matter when you have so much range (hell even multiple abilities are boardwide, leaving 0 counter play), teleport/redeployment with little restrictions and buffs/abilities that are almost all automatic and often cost nothing (or a ressource that is in surplus).

Im far from the best but would define myself as pretty reasonable at warhammer, but it very much feels like you have to work much, much harder than your Seraphon opponent because deployment, movement, positioning etc matters little. It is rare you get punished by doing these things, at least in a shooty/magic variant of Seraphon. Due to the threat range of Bastiladons/Skinks/Kroak it is also very easy to get punished by Seraphon, but it doesnt feel like it goes both ways, at least for many armies.

Halving the unit size of Skinks would do alot, since 1) It becomes easier to cut off the bonus attack above 15, and 2) You would need double the Skink heroes to achieve the same damage output and twice the CPs when buffing/using FoS CA.

 

[Dread Saurian]

I think it is Seraphon in general. The FoS ability is certainly “annoying” to play against but FoS is actually the least tournament winning subfaction currently when looking at TTS data.

It is difficult to see just how good you have it when playing Seraphon, but it becomes very apparent the moment you flip sides and start playing against Seraphon with another army. It is incredibly frustrating to play against an army that have so many tools at their disposal. Deployment and movement etc almost dont matter when you have so much range (hell even multiple abilities are boardwide, leaving 0 counter play), teleport/redeployment with little restrictions and buffs/abilities that are almost all automatic and often cost nothing (or a ressource that is in surplus).

Im far from the best but would define myself as pretty reasonable at warhammer, but it very much feels like you have to work much, much harder than your Seraphon opponent because deployment, movement, positioning etc matters little. It is rare you get punished by doing these things, at least in a shooty/magic variant of Seraphon. Due to the threat range of Bastiladons/Skinks/Kroak it is also very easy to get punished by Seraphon, but it doesnt feel like it goes both ways, at least for many armies.

Halving the unit size of Skinks would do alot, since 1) It becomes easier to cut off the bonus attack above 15, and 2) You would need double the Skink heroes to achieve the same damage output and twice the CPs when buffing/using FoS CA.

I guess my argument against you would be it depends on the army you're playing as vs seraphon. I run the bloodthirster bonanza BOK vs a lot of seraphon players I know and I tend to not have to worry too much due to the sheer number of MWs I do with outrageous carnage vs their hordes and well BOKs dueling heroes do work son

 

[Jason839]

Let me play devils advocate for a moment. This is something I have ruminated on a lot and want to get off my chest. As a super competitive person, I feel that a lot of the complaints against us are made from a casual perspective.

A lot of people have armies they love and have invested a lot of time into. Its what they want to play and love playing. Sometimes they take these armies to tournaments and do really well. I know this feeling myself, I understand it, and I appreciated it. However, from an ultra-competitive mindset, this is not a competitive stance.

No army at a competitive event should ever feel oppressed by another army, because everyone should be bringing ultra competitive armies with a good shot at winning. Thats why people should play in competitive tournaments. To win. If a person feels oppressed playing against seraphon, their army is not competitive and should not be taken to tournaments.

I understand this is a sore point for many people. Many people feel that every army should be viable, and that every warscroll option should be a good one to take. I understand this a lot. I want this too, but its not a realistic expectation. There is no way to perfectly balance a game and some armies will always rise to the top of the competitive scene. Its the nature of games. And in this competitive environment, if you are not following the trends, finding what is competitive and what is not, and swapping armies to keep up with these trends, then you are not being seriously competitive. Competitive play is pay to win. It requires expensive investments into multiple armies and it is often full of heartbreak and nerfs. Its the price you pay for chasing the W. Its not for everyone and the people who do play this way, take it seriously.

At the moment I would say, Disciples of Tzeentch, Seraphon, DoK, Fyreslayers, Lumineth, KO and IDK are the competitive choices. Each one of these armies has the tools necessary for victory, albeit in different ways. Each are fully capable of beating any of the others. Games between these armies will be close intense games that reward preparation and skill, and the best player should win. If I go to a competitive event, I do so with the mindset that all 50 players are bringing the best of the best from these factions. So I bring a list to compete in this competitive arena. I build lists to go 5-0 or 6-1, or 7-0 if I get lucky. My goal is to win. I have a lot of fun of course, and have great games with people and make friends, but there is an expectation that the opponent is of the same mindset. That we all want to win and understand that the other person feels the same.

So when I watch videos on many of the podcasters and the youtubers talk about oppressions and win rates I get frustrated. Its obvious they are not approaching tournaments from this same mindset. Then when you look at the statistics of tournaments they present, only maybe 10 of the 50 people at the tournament were playing competitive armies and of those 10, maybe 3 had ultra competitive super refined lists. These people are playing a totally different game than everyone else, so of course its going to feel oppressive and lead to feel bad moments.

So as an ultra-competitive player I would say wait for real data. Wait for in person tournaments to start again. Wait for people to have to spend money on models and paint. Wait for people to have to shell out 40 and 50 bucks on entry fees to weed out casual armies. Then look at real ultra competitive data, and see where we are.

 

[LordBaconBane]

Halving the unit size of Skinks would do alot, since 1) It becomes easier to cut off the bonus attack above 15, and 2) You would need double the Skink heroes to achieve the same damage output and twice the CPs when buffing/using FoS CA.

I respectfully disagree with halving the unit size of skinks. I view this as taking a mallet to a problem that may require a scalpel. If you halve the skink unit size, you're doing a few things:

1. Inadvertently punishing melee skinks. Less staying power, less damage, higher risk for lower reward.
2. This could very easily be an overswing. You may possibly kill the unit like this.
3. It ignores that shooting overall (according to Vince's data) is the #1 cause of npe. Yes, skinks shoot, but it's not that skinks are the problem, it's shooting. Skinks just so happen to be good at it.

To solve this, you need to work on shooting, not necessarily skinks. You could 'fix' skinks but all of the underlying problems of shooting still exist.

 

[LordBaconBane]

So as an ultra-competitive player I would say wait for real data. Wait for in person tournaments to start again. Wait for people to have to spend money on models and paint. Wait for people to have to shell out 40 and 50 bucks on entry fees to weed out casual armies. Then look at real ultra competitive data, and see where we are.

This is a huge sticking point I talked about earlier with Vince's data. The two year timeframe and potential issues that arise with TTS makes a lot of his data questionable