AoS NEW *rumor*

[Kilvakar]

it all depends on the ghb for me. if it comes out with a bunch of unique rules and missions that reward you for taking one ill buy it. if it does not i will stick to my usual lists.

The Season of War: Thondia book comes with it's own battlepack with a new battalion and new grand strategies and battle tactics that focus on the Incarnate. So if you're using that battlepack, it's definitely worth having. However, it seems that the Thondia battlepack is separate from the rest of the Ghur battlepack from the GHB 2021, so whether it gets used competitively or not is yet to be seen.

 

[Canas]

i don't think you can just classify 300+ as god type. that would include things like mawcrushers stone horns the big boats our steg chief and greater deamonds

Not every 300+ model is technically a god-type model obviously, especially if you focus on the fluff (though I would say the incarnate definitly has a god-type rule with it's state-mechanic potentially making the model immortal in certain scenarios).

But in general 300+ point models share a lot of the same design issues, as they try to pour too much power into 1 singular model, and that frequently leads to weird rules/interactions/scenarios. Not all of them are equally problematic of course, some of them are even quite bad competitivly speaking due to not being cost-efficient or simply focusing on the wrong thing (e.g. Teclis & Kroak are only going to be good if magic is good), but that core issue of simply pouring too much power into 1 model remains, and the higher the point-cost goes the more noticeable this gets, as those higher pointcosts mandate that either it has absurd stats, or that it has weird special rules that break established core rules.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

Not every 300+ model is technically a god-type model obviously, especially if you focus on the fluff (though I would say the incarnate definitly has a god-type rule with it's state-mechanic potentially making the model immortal in certain scenarios).

But in general 300+ point models share a lot of the same design issues, as they try to pour too much power into 1 singular model, and that frequently leads to weird rules/interactions/scenarios. Not all of them are equally problematic of course, some of them are even quite bad competitivly speaking due to not being cost-efficient or simply focusing on the wrong thing (e.g. Teclis & Kroak are only going to be good if magic is good), but that core issue of simply pouring too much power into 1 model remains, and the higher the point-cost goes the more noticeable this gets, as those higher pointcosts mandate that either it has absurd stats, or that it has weird special rules that break established core rules.

except most 300+ are as old as AoS and are fine. and even proper "god models" are either fine or really bad and a detriment to your army. even when your god model breaks established rules it doesn't break the game, nor are such things unique to pricy models. there is currently 1 god model that is a problem and it's not due to her breaking the rules(although she does) or having really high stats. it's do to a very strong CA that needs tweeking.
and anyway how is that any different from a blob of expensive guys like blightkings(500 for 10) or phoenix guard(350 for 20)?

 

[Killer Angel]

To add on this. My model is not a god. Nor is it worth the 540 points

your model is severely overpriced.

 

[Canas]

except most 300+ are as old as AoS and are fine. and even proper "god models" are either fine or really bad and a detriment to your army. even when your god model breaks established rules it doesn't break the game, nor are such things unique to pricy models. there is currently 1 god model that is a problem and it's not due to her breaking the rules(although she does) or having really high stats. it's do to a very strong CA that needs tweeking.

The issue isn't necesarly that they dominate games. They might even be very very bad from a competitive point of view and thus never be used in a tournament.

The issue is that they break established rules (which can either be a because of a special ability or because of just having an absurd amount of stats noone else can compete with) & in doing so can create individual cases of degenerate gameplay in particular scenarios. And since it's a big expensive unit this is quite likely, because they need to be given something special to justify, or at least attempt to justify, that high cost.

For example, you can play absurdly aggresive with the incarnate when you're facing a monster. It can't be killed in a single round of combat, and it regains levels whenever it kills a monster, which with its damage output shouldn't be too problematic. After all you got at least 2 turns to kill it and plenty of attacks, after which you can go and hunt down the next target. So simply charging it into all the monsters it can find will probably be fairly effective while posing very little risk to the incarnate, at least in terms of straight up slaughter.

Which leads to an obvious question, what is, for example, a SoB army supposed to do against an incarnate? They don't exactly have many options to deal with that thing, and basicly no options that fit thematicly with the army (e.g. playing the objective while running away from the incarnate might be effective, but it isn't exactly in line with the power fantasy of a SoB army. They're not skaven or goblins that sneak around)

Now, if the incarnate turns out to be too expensive or something, this might not be that important cuz it simply isn't used and thus this question isn't relevant. But if it is used, then this needs a satisfying anwser that fits thematicly with the SoB playstyle. And I'm not sure that with the current tools SoB has there is a good anwser.

and anyway how is that any different from a blob of expensive guys like blightkings(500 for 10) or phoenix guard(350 for 20)?

It isn't, at least not in a meaningfull manner. It can very much lead to the same issues for much the same reasons.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

The issue isn't necesarly that they dominate games. They might even be very very bad from a competitive point of view and thus never be used in a tournament.

cool then there isn't a problem.

The issue is that they break established rules (which can either be a because of a special ability or because of just having an absurd amount of stats noone else can compete with)

the same as any good unit as established by you in your last paragraph

& in doing so can create individual cases of degenerate gameplay in particular scenarios.

just one and again not becouse of god model but a bad CA

And since it's a big expensive unit this is quite likely, because they need to be given something special to justify, or at least attempt to justify, that high cost.

so? if it doesn't break the game(and they don't) why does this matter?

For example, you can play absurdly aggresive with the incarnate when you're facing a monster. It can't be killed in a single round of combat, and it regains levels whenever it kills a monster, which with its damage output shouldn't be too problematic. After all you got at least 2 turns to kill it and plenty of attacks, after which you can go and hunt down the next target. So simply charging it into all the monsters it can find will probably be fairly effective while posing very little risk to the incarnate, at least in terms of straight up slaughter.

monsters are actually fairly rare out side a few armies so this is not as easy as you are making it out to be. on top of that any opponent that just lets the incarnate charge their valuables is a bad player.

Which leads to an obvious question, what is, for example, a SoB army supposed to do against an incarnate? They don't exactly have many options to deal with that thing, and basicly no options that fit thematicly with the army (e.g. playing the objective while running away from the incarnate might be effective, but it isn't exactly in line with the power fantasy of a SoB army. They're not skaven or goblins that sneak around)

they just kill it. the incarnate is incapable of killing a gargant in one round and has less then a 15% chance of killing it in 2 assuming you are using all out attack both times and the giant isn't all out defending. if it does charge 1 of the 4 giants the giant will smack the shit out of it and drop it to lvl 1(reducing it's chances of killing the giant to less then 5%) and then either retreating it out and hitting it with a second giant or just trading damage leaving a 480 point model anywhere from 4-15 health left for a 400 point model being dead.

Now, if the incarnate turns out to be too expensive or something, this might not be that important cuz it simply isn't used and thus this question isn't relevant. But if it is used, then this needs a satisfying anwser that fits thematicly with the SoB playstyle. And I'm not sure that with the current tools SoB has there is a good anwser.

sure i answered said question, thematically even

It isn't, at least not in a meaningfull manner. It can very much lead to the same issues for much the same reasons.

then your argument is untenable as nothing in the game is free from this "criticism"

 

[Canas]

so? if it doesn't break the game(and they don't) why does this matter?

It's bad game design.

And while these type of designflaws might generally be fine for competitive focused players, cuz they only really care about the meta as a whole and are often willing to accept small, or uncommon, individual scenarios where the game breaks down. Especially if those scenarios primarily happen in casual games cuz they often represent sub-optimal gameplay and thus don't really show up in their competitive games anyway (e.g. Nagash breaks the game, no competitive player really cares at the moment cuz Nagash isn't efficient enough to use). But it significantly hurts more casual players who are more willing to use those sub-optimal models (or factions, or stratagies etc.)

Also, it often ends up having a negative effect further down the line as designers now constantly need to work around these extreme outliers (stats or rulewise) whenever they introduce something new. Which can result either in the outliers being broken due to an unforseen/untested interaction (e.g. what happened with certain realm artifacts on certain powerfull monsters...), or cool mechanics being removed (or never implemented) cuz of the outlier (e.g. the changes to range modifiers on endless spells that happend cuz of the old Morathi...)

monsters are actually fairly rare out side a few armies so this is not as easy as you are making it out to be. on top of that any opponent that just lets the incarnate charge their valuables is a bad player.

Case and point. You're counterargument to "X is problematic in scenario A due to it being a massive outlier in terms of Y that can be abused" is to say "A is not that easy to achieve". That doesn't change it's still a problematic scenario. Nor does it change that A will still happen. And the argument it only happens to bad players is just stupid. Minor mistakes happen, bad luck happens, weird and unexpected situations happen. Not to mention that expecting (near) perfect play from every player is just unrealistic. So relying on a design that's only balanced if all players play (nearly) optimally is just kind of absurd.

they just kill it. the incarnate is incapable of killing a gargant in one round and has less then a 15% chance of killing it in 2 assuming you are using all out attack both times and the giant isn't all out defending. if it does charge 1 of the 4 giants the giant will smack the shit out of it and drop it to lvl 1(reducing it's chances of killing the giant to less then 5%) and then either retreating it out and hitting it with a second giant or just trading damage leaving a 480 point model anywhere from 4-15 health left for a 400 point model being dead.

sure i answered said question, thematically even

Right, and this scenario involved a complete idiot using the incarnate by simply charging it in without any support, rolling completly average. And it already maims the gargant pretty badly and takes up at least two turns of combat (the gargant can't retreat given the Incarnate's special rule). Possibly more if it's lucky. That's a pretty decent trade considering it's literally the most stupid possible approach the incarnate player could've taken in this scenario.....

Now pretend the player is halfway capable and provides actual support to the incarnate. Or strategically hunts down the lesser giants first, and only runs at the gargants once they've lost a little bit of health to his other stuff. Or just anything remotely smarter than just "smash incaranate into gargant". Or even if he's just somewhat lucky, after all it's not like a 15% chance represents impossible odds....

then your argument is untenable as nothing in the game is free from this "criticism"

The whole crux of the criticism is that extreme outliers, both rule & stat-wise, are bad design. By definition most of the game should be free of that criticism...

 

[Putzfrau]

The whole crux of the criticism is that extreme outliers, both rule & stat-wise, are bad design. By definition most of the game should be free of that criticism...

This opinion seems to play out quite a but here in various different discussions. IMO its not inherently bad design. I think it's instead your preference of game design. Or your opinion of what constitutes an "outlier" is very broad.

Knowing when and how to break rules is literally what often defines mastery over something. A good artist or writer or game designer knows when to break the principles of the medium they are working in to create a more dynamic and interesting end result without "ruining" it.

The blanket statement of "their shouldn't be outliers" leaves you with a game like Kings of War where most units are just the same. Or feel the same.

For better or worse AoS is not that game and never has been. There are consistent examples of them releasing units that have some unique aspect or ability or something that makes them an extreme outlier in some facet of the game. It's part of this game system. They might be doing a shitty job, but the mere existence of it isn't as inherently damning as I think you are portraying.

/shrug.

 

[Dread Saurian]

your model is severely overpriced.

Facts yo. Facts

 

[Canas]

This opinion seems to play out quite a but here in various different discussions. IMO its not inherently bad design. I think it's instead your preference of game design. Or your opinion of what constitutes an "outlier" is very broad.

Knowing when and how to break rules is literally what often defines mastery over something. A good artist or writer or game designer knows when to break the principles of the medium they are working in to create a more dynamic and interesting end result without "ruining" it.

The blanket statement of "their shouldn't be outliers" leaves you with a game like Kings of War where most units are just the same. Or feel the same.

For better or worse AoS is not that game and never has been. There are consistent examples of them releasing units that have some unique aspect or ability or something that makes them an extreme outlier in some facet of the game. It's part of this game system. They might be doing a shitty job, but the mere existence of it isn't as inherently damning as I think you are portraying.

/shrug.

Hence the qualifier extreme. There is a range which is acceptable to have outliers in, but that range has limits.

And given that in AoS we have units ranging from 50-ish to nearly a 1000 points it's probably a fairly safe bet to claim that we have some extreme outliers. There simply isn't a good way to balance such a broad range of powerlevels, while having the upper powerlevels be true to what they are supposed to represent (e.g. gods, mythical beasts etc.) yet allowing the lower powerlevels to still fight back in a meaningfull manner. If nothing else because at a certain point you simply can't physically fit that many low level cannonfodder into combat with the god-model.

For example, Archaon is worth 870 points, but he's never going to fight 870 points worth of say saurus warriors at once, you simply can't fit in that many saurus, he will always have a significant local advantage and there will for example be turns where he has first strike and kills all the warriors he's in combat with that turn before they ever attack him, giving him what is essentially a free round of combat even if he's supposed to face an "equivalent" force. And that's without going into point-efficiency, special rules or anything else that might give him a significant advantage...

Of course it's up to debate what exactly would be an extreme outlier, as that also depends on what you take as the baseline. But it can't be denied that this 1000-ish point range is a pretty ridiculously large range. I mean the range essentially goes from "1 weak unit" to "something that's equivalent to half an army". There's absolutly no way to balance that in a satisfying manner in a PvP game (in PvE, maybe....)

 

[Erta Wanderer]

It's bad game design.

why? you keep saying it is but you have yet to demonstrate this.

And while these type of designflaws might generally be fine for competitive focused players, cuz they only really care about the meta as a whole and are often willing to accept small, or uncommon, individual scenarios where the game breaks down.

yes this game is very complicated with a lot of moving parts you are going to run into bad match ups you are going to encounter extream outliers. this is true of EVER game. calling some thing bad due to fringe cases is disingenuous

Especially if those scenarios primarily happen in casual games cuz they often represent sub-optimal gameplay and thus don't really show up in their competitive games anyway (e.g. Nagash breaks the game, no competitive player really cares at the moment cuz Nagash isn't efficient enough to use). But it significantly hurts more casual players who are more willing to use those sub-optimal models (or factions, or stratagies etc.)

but he doesn't even in casual games. he is powerful but so is any 1000 points in an army. in fact he is worse in casual since most of the time you know your opponent is taking him and you don't bring wizards.

Also, it often ends up having a negative effect further down the line as designers now constantly need to work around these extreme outliers (stats or rulewise) whenever they introduce something new. Which can result either in the outliers being broken due to an unforseen/untested interaction (e.g. what happened with certain realm artifacts on certain powerfull monsters...),

um no that wasn't a unforeseen balance problem that was a very good artifact that was better then 90% of tome ones. ethereal was good on EVERY ONE not just powerful monsters the 5+ amulet was good on EVERY ONE not just powerful monsters

or cool mechanics being removed (or never implemented) cuz of the outlier (e.g. the changes to range modifiers on endless spells that happend cuz of the old Morathi...)

um yeah and they fixed that. in fact they fixed it in a way that gave them more freedom in the future. the warsong(another pricy not broken unit) uses range buffs and he couldent do that if they didn't make that change.

Case and point. You're counterargument to "X is problematic in scenario A due to it being a massive outlier in terms of Y that can be abused" is to say "A is not that easy to achieve". That doesn't change it's still a problematic scenario.

sure but we don't balance a game around missive outliers. that would be stupid

Nor does it change that A will still happen. And the argument it only happens to bad players is just stupid.

no it's not. bad players make a lot of terrible choices that we don't balance the game around. i've have people charge the nighthaunt coach into melee and just die, i've had bad players charge off of contested OB points to kill random units, i've had bad players pile in to close to a monster and pulling it into combat and geting themselves wrecked. do we balance around that? of Corse we don't that would be stupid, we do not balance a game around bad play.

Minor mistakes happen, bad luck happens, weird and unexpected situations happen.

of course it happens and you get punished for it. mistakes have consequences and bad luck SHOULD put you in a hard spot

Not to mention that expecting (near) perfect play from every player is just unrealistic. So relying on a design that's only balanced if all players play (nearly) optimally is just kind of absurd.

screening your monsters is not "near perfect play" it's the bare basics.

Right, and this scenario involved a complete idiot using the incarnate by simply charging it in without any support

that is literally the scenario you put forward "So simply charging it into all the monsters it can find will probably be fairly effective while posing very little risk to the incarnate"

, rolling completly average.

no it has to do 35 damage and it's probable max is around 22 the first turn and 18 the second you have to roll very well with perfect conditions(your opponent not defending) to kill one

And it already maims the gargant pretty badly and takes up at least two turns of combat (the gargant can't retreat given the Incarnate's special rule). Possibly more if it's lucky. That's a pretty decent trade considering it's literally the most stupid possible approach the incarnate player could've taken in this scenario.....

sure but they are both 400-480 point models they should trade well and charging more into the one guy lets the opponent do whatever he wants with the other 1500 points not generally a good plan with giants. i did forget the no retreat but that hardly matters the giant will win this fight most of the time.

Now pretend the player is halfway capable and provides actual support to the incarnate. Or strategically hunts down the lesser giants first, and only runs at the gargants once they've lost a little bit of health to his other stuff. Or just anything remotely smarter than just "smash incaranate into gargant".

yes they can play cagy with the incarnate but that's just leavening 400 points dead on the board threw the most important rounds of the game(especially againsed giants) and letting the giants run rampent over the rest of your army. and yes as stated before you can over comit to one guy but this lets the gian player take adantage of your out of place army. it's a trade off and it's why this game is so interesting.

Or even if he's just somewhat lucky, after all it's not like a 15% chance represents impossible odds....

um sure you can be lucky but remember the 15% is only if the giant doesn't hit back and even if it was good luck happens. lots of time units do or don't kill things they shouldn't/ should that part of being a dice game. we have much more impactful rolls that are far more likely

The whole crux of the criticism is that extreme outliers, both rule & stat-wise, are bad design. By definition most of the game should be free of that criticism...

Buuut they aren't extreme outliers. the same points of iron drakes will do the same thing the same points of phoenix guard willl do the same thing the same points of pretty much any good unit(let alone broken ones) will do the same thing.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

Hence the qualifier extreme. There is a range which is acceptable to have outliers in, but that range has limits.

and there in lies the problem your tolerance levels are just very very small in comparison to others. just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad game design

And given that in AoS we have units ranging from 50-ish to nearly a 1000 points it's probably a fairly safe bet to claim that we have some extreme outliers.

a few most of them being much weaker then they should be

There simply isn't a good way to balance such a broad range of powerlevels, while having the upper powerlevels be true to what they are supposed to represent (e.g. gods, mythical beasts etc.)

no i think we are fairly balanced at the moment with a few outliers but those are all underpowered monsters or overpowered 240ish multimodal units. kind of breaks your premiss

yet allowing the lower powerlevels to still fight back in a meaningfull manner. If nothing else because at a certain point you simply can't physically fit that many low level cannonfodder into combat with the god-model.

no chaff should NOT be able to fight power houses strait up thats the downside to taking chaff. they both have different jobs that they do very well and having a balance of rolls in your army is important.

For example, Archaon is worth 870 points, but he's never going to fight 870 points worth of say saurus warriors at once, you simply can't fit in that many saurus, he will always have a significant local advantage

yes that is the point of taking monsters you loose out on board control for power application and even with that archy isn't broken or oppressive. and people here have used 300 points saurus to stall archy out for 2-3 ROUNDS making that a very good traid

and there will for example be turns where he has first strike and kills all the warriors he's in combat with that turn before they ever attack him, giving him what is essentially a free round of combat even if he's supposed to face an "equivalent" force.

this is true of every good unit not just god models in fact it's worse with a lot of troop units. striking first is always better.

Of course it's up to debate what exactly would be an extreme outlier, as that also depends on what you take as the baseline. But it can't be denied that this 1000-ish point range is a pretty ridiculously large range.

true but that's why there are only 2 models in the 900 point range about a dozen in 500-600 point range and hundreds lower then that for the overwelmingly large majority of the game the range is 70-350 and considering reinforcements push 100 point units to 300 point units thats about right

I mean the range essentially goes from "1 weak unit" to "something that's equivalent to half an army". There's absolutely no way to balance that in a satisfying manner in a PvP game (in PvE, maybe....)

no it's entirely posable to(and arguably is curently) balance. skinks are the second cheapest unit in the game and they are among the best. better then most monsters better then most gods. they just are good for different reasons then big models are.

 

[Canas]

why? you keep saying it is but you have yet to demonstrate this.

It is bad, amongst other reasons, which I have repeatedly said on here, because of the following:

but he doesn't even in casual games. he is powerful but so is any 1000 points in an army. in fact he is worse in casual since most of the time you know your opponent is taking him and you don't bring wizards.

The fact that the correct response to Nagash (or Kroak, or Teclis) is "Don't bring wizards unless you have a Nagash/Kroak/Teclis/etc. yourself" is bad.
Players should be relativly free to bring what they find fun and be reasonably effective with it. Now don't get me wrong, of course Nagash will beat say a single random chaos sorceror in magical combat. But that sorceror shouldn't be useless to the point even a complete novice realizes it's not worth the effort to bring him anymore.

yes this game is very complicated with a lot of moving parts you are going to run into bad match ups you are going to encounter extream outliers. this is true of EVER game. calling some thing bad due to fringe cases is disingenuous

sure but we don't balance a game around missive outliers. that would be stupid

No its not... finding, and preventing, those outliers is exactly what good design is about because those outliers are what ruin games. Especially competitive games cuz competitive players will be explicitly searching for those outliers so they can take maximum advantage of them and win games efficiently and reliably. That's simply the nature of competitive play, whomever finds the most efficient and reliable route to victory will win.

um no that wasn't a unforeseen balance problem that was a very good artifact that was better then 90% of tome ones. ethereal was good on EVERY ONE not just powerful monsters the 5+ amulet was good on EVERY ONE not just powerful monsters

So you're saying they purposefully created a couple dozen artifacts of which they intentionally made 1 artifact the very best that nothing else can compare to and that lead to already powerfull monsters dominating even more than they already did because it made monsters which where already difficult to kill nigh impossible to kill?

That's worse than it being an unforseen problem...

of course it happens and you get punished for it. mistakes have consequences and bad luck SHOULD put you in a hard spot

If you do something stupid like charge Archaon with your skink priest and expect to win, or just running away an objective for no particular reason. Sure, that should be punished. But small mistakes shouldn't result in the immeadiate collapse of your army. And the issue with constantly designing outliers with extreme performance is that they cause small mistakes to have catastrophic consequences.

It's why you now get have official articles from GW where they show how to absolutly wreck an opponent who is 1/2" out of position using a powerfull unit like the eels and their special abilties to their maximum potential as well as specific pile-in strategies (e.g. piling in in such a way you tag two units). Scenarios like that explicitly need to be explained as a lot of players simply won't realize that it's even an option. Weaker players think they've done their screening properly. Only to then find their opponent does something weird and suddenly they lose 2 units and a hero in a single turn because they were 1/2" out of position. Most players simply aren't anywhere near good enough to avoid stuff like that, even after it's been explained, and expecting players to avoid those kind of mistakes at any but the highest level is a pipedream.

and there in lies the problem your tolerance levels are just very very small in comparison to others. just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad game design

Are you seriously trying to claim that not tolerating a range of a 1000 points for powerlevels of individual units, which represents anything from the most basic of cannonfodder, to a god that's supposedly on par with half an army, and should represent a powerdifference of a factor 20 is low tolerance?

Seriously? Not liking the scale to run from "incapable cannonfodder that has basicly no stats" to "A literal god that equals half an army" is low tolerance?

a few most of them being much weaker then they should be

Like I said. It's impossible to do justice to all power levels when the powerscale is that broad.
Either the expensive stuff is going to be much weaker than they should be, or they're going to ridiculously powerfull and nigh impossible to fight by the lower end of the spectrum due to the inherent advantage of having such overwhelming local superiourity......

no chaff should NOT be able to fight power houses strait up thats the downside to taking chaff. they both have different jobs that they do very well and having a balance of rolls in your army is important.

Yeah no. A 1000 points worth of chaff should be a credible threat against a 1000 points worth of elite troops. Don't get me wrong, the elite troops will probably win, cuz they're primarly focused on being efficient combat troops (whereas the chaff may have paid some points to be a bit faster). But it should be a case of say the elite troops win 7 out 10 fights. Not that the elite troops win 999 out of 1000 times which is what we're currently dealing with with for example with skinks that struggle to wound literally anything, including other skinks.

If equivalent points aren't comparable-ish the whole point system becomes kinda pointless...

yes that is the point of taking monsters you loose out on board control for power application and even with that archy isn't broken or oppressive. and people here have used 300 points saurus to stall archy out for 2-3 ROUNDS making that a very good traid

this is true of every good unit not just god models in fact it's worse with a lot of troop units. striking first is always better.

That is not the point I was trying to make. The point is that if you simply throw a neverending army of Saurus warriors at Archaon round after round until Archaon dies. Archaon will probably kill considerably more than 870 points worth of saurus due to his inherent massive local supremacy and the fact that he's only ever really going to be in combat with say 200 points worth of saurus at once. Which is rather a massive difference compared to his 870 points.

true but that's why there are only 2 models in the 900 point range about a dozen in 500-600 point range and hundreds lower then that for the overwelmingly large majority of the game the range is 70-350 and considering reinforcements push 100 point units to 300 point units thats about right

Taking 300-ish as the "average" that still means the "average" is 4-6 times as powerfull as the weakest options and 3 times as weak as the most powerfull options.... That is still an absurdly large range considering all of them are supposed to be relevant..

If you want to take 300-ish as average, an for the entire range to be relevant, then you probably shouldn't have anything weaker than 150-200. And nothing stronger than 400-500.

no it's entirely posable to(and arguably is curently) balance. skinks are the second cheapest unit in the game and they are among the best. better then most monsters better then most gods. they just are good for different reasons then big models are.

See, this is what happens when all you care about is competitive balance. A unit that has no offense, no defense, no special abilities, that provides absolutly nothing more than it's mere existence and will be instantly killed the moment an enemy so much as touches it, is considered among the best simply because the unit is cheap enough that having them do literally nothing except stand in the way for one turn and then die is efficient gameplay....

It's not a good unit. It's not a unique unit. Nor is it particularly fun. It is merely an efficient unit. And in competitive balance that's ultimatly all that matters....

And that same line of reasoning is why something like Nagash is deemed unproblematic. Nagash is not efficient, and so, from a competitive balance point of view, it simply doesn't matter what else he may or may not be... Same with the eels and the convoluted pile-in where an opponent was 1/2" out of position. He didn't screen effeciently so clearly the blame lies fully on him, no matter how small the actual mistake was or that we're expecting the average player to be aware of the 5 or 6 interworking abilities/mechanics that were needed for the eels to pull this off. Again, clearly his own fault for not understanding advanced Idoneth playstyle perfectly as far as competitive balance is concerned...

And that approach simply doesn't work all that well the moment you stop focusing solely on competitive balancing.

 

[Canas]

Anyway, is there a new rumor yet, before we hijack this topic completly again

 

[Erta Wanderer]

It is bad, amongst other reasons, which I have repeatedly said on here, because of the following:


The fact that the correct response to Nagash (or Kroak, or Teclis) is "Don't bring wizards unless you have a Nagash/Kroak/Teclis/etc. yourself" is bad.
Players should be relativly free to bring what they find fun and be reasonably effective with it. Now don't get me wrong, of course Nagash will beat say a single random chaos sorceror in magical combat. But that sorceror shouldn't be useless to the point even a complete novice realizes it's not worth the effort to bring him anymore.

they aren't useless your points are just better spent elseware

So you're saying they purposefully created a couple dozen artifacts of which they intentionally made 1 artifact the very best that nothing else can compare to and that lead to already powerfull monsters dominating even more than they already did because it made monsters which where already difficult to kill nigh impossible to kill?

no no one is saying that. monsters where terrible in 2nd edition. it wasn't a "unforeseen combination" it was a artifact that was powerful it mixed well with literally everything most good artifacts do.

If you do something stupid like charge Archaon with your skink priest and expect to win, or just running away an objective for no particular reason. Sure, that should be punished. But small mistakes shouldn't result in the immeadiate collapse of your army.

and they don't. not unless you are a very bad player

And the issue with constantly designing outliers with extreme performance is that they cause small mistakes to have catastrophic consequences.

this one doesn't sigvald(another not game breaking guy you complained about) doesn't even nagash(a very long standing punching bag of yours) allows small mistakes with out a #$%^ up cascade

It's why you now get have official articles from GW where they show how to absolutly wreck an opponent who is 1/2" out of position using a powerfull unit like the eels and their special abilties to their maximum potential as well as specific pile-in strategies

um what? you would need to be more the .5" out of position so lett eels in. in fact they have a 3" range of wiggle room for defensive screening.

(e.g. piling in in such a way you tag two units).

this has always been a thing

Scenarios like that explicitly need to be explained as a lot of players simply won't realize that it's even an option. Weaker players think they've done their screening properly. Only to then find their opponent does something weird and suddenly they lose 2 units and a hero in a single turn because they were 1/2" out of position.

and that part of learning the game. happened to me it will happen to every one. you take the loss and learn from it.

Most players simply aren't anywhere near good enough to avoid stuff like that,

um it's fairly basic, my 12 year old sister knows how to do this.

even after it's been explained, and expecting players to avoid those kind of mistakes at any but the highest level is a pipedream.

wow you do not have a high opinion of your fellow players do you?

Are you seriously trying to claim that not tolerating a range of a 1000 points for powerlevels of individual units,

ok no it is not a 1000 point range with 2 exeptions it is a 600 point range

which represents anything from the most basic of cannonfodder, to a god that's supposedly on par with half an army, and should represent a powerdifference of a factor 20 is low tolerance?

yes seeing as how it's almost never a problem and when it is it's been fixed

Seriously? Not liking the scale to run from "incapable cannonfodder that has basicly no stats" to "A literal god that equals half an army" is low tolerance?

i mean yeah. you have problems with a lot of units that are fine because they don't fit your esoteric standards of balanced. see above mentioned sigvald

Like I said. It's impossible to do justice to all power levels when the powerscale is that broad.

no it's not

Either the expensive stuff is going to be much weaker than they should be,

yes but mostly due to being out of date the most resent stuff is generally fine.

or they're going to ridiculously powerfull and nigh impossible to fight by the lower end of the spectrum due to the inherent advantage of having such overwhelming local superiourity......

yes weak units should loose to strong units not everything should be effective agenized every thing. and just so you know low end units kill the god models all the time.

Yeah no. A 1000 points worth of chaff should be a credible threat against a 1000 points worth of elite troops. Don't get me wrong, the elite troops will probably win, cuz they're primarly focused on being efficient combat troops (whereas the chaff may have paid some points to be a bit faster). But it should be a case of say the elite troops win 7 out 10 fights. Not that the elite troops win 999 out of 1000 times which is what we're currently dealing with with for example with skinks that struggle to wound literally anything, including other skinks.

um no . skinks tear the shit out of most things. they are one of our better builds at the moment they just wont do it on their own. blocks take buffs well so with the right set up even chaff can do well but not in a 1 to 1 comparison. this game is more complicated then that.

If equivalent points aren't comparable-ish the whole point system becomes kinda pointless...

seems to be working fine so far there is more to the game then a 1-1 damage and defense comparison

That is not the point I was trying to make. The point is that if you simply throw a neverending army of Saurus warriors at Archaon round after round until Archaon dies. Archaon will probably kill considerably more than 870 points worth of saurus due to his inherent massive local supremacy and the fact that he's only ever really going to be in combat with say 200 points worth of saurus at once. Which is rather a massive difference compared to his 870 points.

we can do the math on that. assuming properly buffed saurus(+1 to hit and star venom) you get around 60 guys if you keep putting them in 20 at a time with your turn going first they will win that fight even if they roll badly(probable damage range is between 4-18 on a full 20 block with the average being 8-15). archy can't even kill 20 guys a turn so that is a solid trade.

Taking 300-ish as the "average" that still means the "average" is 4-6 times as powerfull as the weakest options and 3 times as weak as the most powerfull options.... That is still an absurdly large range considering all of them are supposed to be relevant..

no im saying 70-300 is avrage because the low stuff can scale it's self up to 300 and of corse it's weaker then something that costs 3 times as much. just like it would be weaker then 3 times as many of the same model

If you want to take 300-ish as average, an for the entire range to be relevant, then you probably shouldn't have anything weaker than 150-200. And nothing stronger than 400-500.

this is a straw man i don't think this. the average range is 70-300 NOT 300. and there is like 6 things in the game with higher points costs then 500 they are an extrem outlier.

See, this is what happens when all you care about is competitive balance.

i don't only care about competitive i just find it's a better metric then randos who play one game every 2 months.
also we are talking competitive becouse the model that started all this is only useable in competitive or in games where you are establishing you are playing in ghur before hand. being restricted to one realm is a very heavy limitation

A unit that has no offense,

not true skinks do quite a bit of damage

no defense, no special abilities, that provides absolutly nothing more than it's mere existence

you say that like board presence isn't e very important thing in AoS

and will be instantly killed the moment an enemy so much as touches it,

also not true. i have 10 mans survive all the time.

is considered among the best simply because the unit is cheap enough that having them do literally nothing except stand in the way for one turn and then die is efficient gameplay....

well it is. screens are a part of this game and a very important part. heck they are a part of foot ball basket ball chess American foot ball actual warfare and many more.

It's not a good unit. It's not a unique unit. Nor is it particularly fun. It is merely an efficient unit. And in competitive balance that's ultimatly all that matters....

no skinks are great they are in the top braket for speed on a foot troop, they can work well as screens or a damage blob, and they hold and take OBs well. they are a very good unit.

And that same line of reasoning is why something like Nagash is deemed unproblematic. Nagash is not efficient, and so, from a competitive balance point of view, it simply doesn't matter what else he may or may not be...

what else is he? sure he dinies casting but so do we or any model that can pump up to a +3 dispell(or just SCE atuo unbinds) and a lot of armies can and for a lot less points. or just any amount of snipping.
Heo is not 1000 points durable he does not do 1000 points worth of damage what he does can and is done better in other(and even his own) amries

Same with the eels and the convoluted pile-in where an opponent was 1/2" out of position. He didn't screen effeciently so clearly the blame lies fully on him, no matter how small the actual mistake was or that we're expecting the average player to be aware of the 5 or 6 interworking abilities/mechanics

no but you can always ask your oponent what his army does.

that were needed for the eels to pull this off. Again, clearly his own fault for not understanding advanced Idoneth playstyle perfectly as far as competitive balance is concerned...

he will loss a game with friends and know better for next time. your also assuming a person is bringing his A list to a for fun game. most people don't and those who do are often called out for it

And that approach simply doesn't work all that well the moment you stop focusing solely on competitive balancing.

no it does you just don't seem to think people can get better at this game for some reason.

 

[Canas]

This is getting pointless so I'm only going to reply to two things, the first is the crux of our argument, the second is a correction about the eels example to put into perspective how ridiculously small the mistake in that actually was and how yes, all it boiled down to was a 1/2"

um no . skinks tear the shit out of most things. they are one of our better builds at the moment they just wont do it on their own. blocks take buffs well so with the right set up even chaff can do well but not in a 1 to 1 comparison. this game is more complicated then that.

This is the main issue we're having.

Every. Single. Time. We discuss something you assume every side is playing in (near) optimal scenarios. And since I don't want to type near optimal constantly i'm just going to stick with optimal for the rest of the post, so whereever you see optimal, just pretend it says (near) optimal

Anyway, I mention Skinks having lacking damage, and you immeadiatly counter with the above. And while, yes, in an optimal scenario skinks can do some decent damage, you ignore that more often than not you're not playing under optimal circumstances.

There's myriad of reasons for that. Maybe the player just isn't that good, maybe he made a small mistake earlier that broke the chain of buffs, maybe he got unlucky and the spellcast for a crucial buff failed, maybe he's just stuck in a circumstance were he can't possibly play optimally (e.g. rule of one preventing you from buffing both of your units that are in combat). Or maybe he's simply 3 turns into the game and the progressive losses he has taken over the game have pushed him below a certain treshold of efficiency. Or most common of all, maybe he simply hasn't optimized for this particular scenario, I mean let's be honest 90% of skinks are probably used as cannonfodder who's sole purpose is dying and you're lucky if they manage to do 1 whole wound over the course of the entire game. So if you ever end up in a scenario where those MSU skinks need to do any damage whatsoever you're screwed. No matter how much damage they could theoretically do if they were optimally supported.

Essentially most of the time people are not going to be playing optimally. And balancing as if they constantly are, is rather silly. And if it's balanced like that for long enough, leads to a worse game as you're not balancing for what realistically happens throughout most games for most players. Sure your competitive focused players will be relativly happy, but everyone else will probably suffer for it and leave, until eventually (nearly) all you have left are competitive players. And that generally does not bode well for a game's ability to draw in new players or to retain other types of players.

um what? you would need to be more the .5" out of position so lett eels in. in fact they have a 3" range of wiggle room for defensive screening.
this has always been a thing
and that part of learning the game. happened to me it will happen to every one. you take the loss and learn from it.
um it's fairly basic, my 12 year old sister knows how to do this.
wow you do not have a high opinion of your fellow players do you?

The 1/2" out of position example was the following (or well, I've done my best to approximate it.)



Player 1 has 3 units, A, B & C. C was a high value unit, a hero or monster or something. B is a screen. A is just some random unit.
Player 2 has 2 eels.
Neither of them can reach C as it is both screened and out of range.
Eel 1 can only reach unit A on the charge, but not B. However, it can charge in such a way that it can pile in on B if A gets removed by utilizing it's flying ability
Eel 2 can only reach B on the charge, but can charge in such a way that it can pile in on C by utilizing its flying ability
Also, eel 1 and 2 utilize one of those silly looking congaline formation to make sure they can reach everything (e.g. only 1 eel of the unit eel 2 is actually in combat with B to ensure it can still pile into C effectivly)
Also, these charges only worked because of a support ability, either the tides ability or a nearby support hero, can't quite remember which it was.

What happens is then that Eel 1 uses Biovaltic blast to nuke A into oblivion.
This allows Eel 1 to pile in onto unit B.
Eel 1 then absolutly destroys unit B.
This allows Eel 2 to pile in onto C.
Eel 2 then absolutly destroys unit C.
O, and because C wasn't initially in combat it doesn't get to pile in and thus can't destroy "eel 2" first.

This relied on:
1) Great charges with a bonus to charge
2) Eels being able to fly over the various units to get in optimal positions
3) All units being positioned perfectly for this. For example had unit C been 1/2" further back it would've been out of reach for the eels, if it had been 1/2" further forward it would've been able to pile in and killed "eel 2" first. Similarly, moving A or B 1/2" in the any direction would also make this whole scenario fall apart as the ranges would no longer line up perfectly. This is player 1's only real mistake, or even input in this scenario, all other points are things the idoneth player did/utilizes to leverage this mistake into a massive advantage and kill C.
4) Positioning the eels in in a convoluted congaline to make sure that technically the eels are in range for everything.
5) The ability to pile in after you've charged, even if the initial target has already been killed, for both eels
6) The fact that C doesn't get to pile in and kill the the unit "eel 2" first, so the idoneth don't have to fear any counter-attack.
7) Biovaltic shock annihilating A.
8) Eel 1 being able to annihilate the screen in combat with ease.

Player 1 would've screened perfectly fine and protected C if this was a basic scenario, all he did wrong was that he's 1/2" out of position, and the Idoneth player then used 7 different rules/mechanics/aspects to leverage that 1/2" mistake into killing high value target C. Expecting player 1 to be aware of the cascading effects of 7 different things on 1 small mistake seems optimistic at best.

And don't get me wrong. Very well played from the Idoneth player. But this isn't exactly a basic scenario that we can expect your 12 year old sister to instantly recognize during her 3th game, yet it was presented as a very basic strategy everyone should be aware of. And expecting that, is just a tad silly.

 

[Putzfrau]

Essentially most of the time people are not going to be playing optimally. And balancing as if they constantly are, is rather silly. And if it's balanced like that for long enough, leads to a worse game as you're not balancing for what realistically happens throughout most games for most players. Sure your competitive focused players will be relativly happy, but everyone else will probably suffer for it and leave, until eventually (nearly) all you have left are competitive players. And that generally does not bode well for a game's ability to draw in new players or to retain other types of players.

If players aren't playing optimal then nuanced movement and rules like you're describing have no effect.

You always balance from the top down. Almost every competitive game in existense balances around competitive scenarios and it naturally creates a more balanced game for players who are only leveraging a portion of the strategy a game needs.

Just not sure why advocating a game that has no skill expression is ever a good idea.

 

[Killer Angel]

If players aren't playing optimal then nuanced movement and rules like you're describing have no effect.

You always balance from the top down. Almost every competitive game in existense balances around competitive scenarios and it naturally creates a more balanced game for players who are only leveraging a portion of the strategy a game needs.

Just not sure why advocating a game that has no skill expression is ever a good idea.

I'm on a middle ground on this.
Not all units must be good in terms of damage. Chama skinks are very good because of their deep strike ability, whih forces your opponent to don't leave unguarded obj.

a skinks unit is a very good if employed in a certain way, but you cannot think to them as damage dealers. They don't, they absolutely need horde and support from a couple of heroes (or at least the skink starpriest's staff plus command ability). This fact:
1 - increases their net cost in terms of points and resources needed to make them work. For examples, zombies don't need buffs to deal MWs (even if a VL can double their damage output).
2 - even if your army is designed to have skinks as damage dealers, they need the buffs. Those buffs can be negated by your opponent by sniping the support or attack while the unit is unbuffed.

so yes, skinks are a good unit because of their exceptional battlefield control, but they cannot be trusted as damage dealer, even if you build the list around them.

 

[Canas]

If players aren't playing optimal then nuanced movement and rules like you're describing have no effect.

You always balance from the top down. Almost every competitive game in existense balances around competitive scenarios and it naturally creates a more balanced game for players who are only leveraging a portion of the strategy a game needs.

Just not sure why advocating a game that has no skill expression is ever a good idea.

God I hate how popular e-Sports has made this viewpoint.

Competitive focused balance results in fundamentally flawed games as you're balancing around a playerbase that cares first and foremost about winning, playing efficiently, and the ever lauded skill-expression that can be used to excuse literally everything for some reason. The game actually being fun for everyone involved (especially for the losers) is completly secondary to those three aspects.

Competitive balance is willing to accept the loser being utterly and completly frustrated at what happened, so long as that frustration is a result of the winner's superiour skill. Clearly the loser just has to step up their game as far as they are concerned. The fact that as far as the loser is concerned it was completely unfair and virtually impossible to prevent the loss (or simply unreasonable to expect him to able to prevent it) does not matter.

Competitive balance is willing to accept ridiculous local inbalances, so long as the overall meta is balanced. E.g. the overal 50% winrate is holy, but nobody really cares if it's a 50% winrate against both A & B, or a 75% winrate against A and a 25% winrate against B. The only thing that matters is the overal winrate.

Competitive balance is willing to accept playstyles that utterly toxic, so long as whatever is broken simply isn't efficient enough to become relevant outside of niche situations. And even if it does become relevant it might still be accepted as long as that holy winrate isn't broken.

Competitive balance is willing to accept outright bugs/mistakes in the game design being abused by players, so long as it results in "skill-expression". They might even make them official features.

All of those things are detrimental to good game design, and that's just the obvious stuff that's relativly easy to quantify. But from a competitive balance point of view none of that is ever a problem.

Anyways, first and foremost a good game should balance around fun. A balance approach that focusses on fun will naturally incorperate skill expression, it'll naturally lead to an evolution of a competitive scene. And it'll ultimatly be a healthier game. A balance approach that focusses on competitiveness will not naturally result in fun. More often than not it'll result in the opposite as it simply doesn't care about how the loser experienced the game.

Also, important to note; virtually every game that's actually stood the test of time hasn't been balanced from a competitive point of view. It's always been balanced from a fun point of view. E.g. No rule in football was ever changed because some playstyle was "OP". They were changed cuz something was boring or frustrating to deal with, and sometimes cuz it was simply deemed unsportsman-like and people needed an explicit rule to behave....

I'm on a middle ground on this.
Not all units must be good in terms of damage. Chama skinks are very good because of their deep strike ability, whih forces your opponent to don't leave unguarded obj.

a skinks unit is a very good if employed in a certain way, but you cannot think to them as damage dealers. They don't, they absolutely need horde and support from a couple of heroes (or at least the skink starpriest's staff plus command ability). This fact:
1 - increases their net cost in terms of points and resources needed to make them work. For examples, zombies don't need buffs to deal MWs (even if a VL can double their damage output).
2 - even if your army is designed to have skinks as damage dealers, they need the buffs. Those buffs can be negated by your opponent by sniping the support or attack while the unit is unbuffed.

so yes, skinks are a good unit because of their exceptional battlefield control, but they cannot be trusted as damage dealer, even if you build the list around them.

Imho, the key is to make sure everything is at least decent under reasonable minimal circumstances.
That requires making sure that your weakest units can always realisticly do something of value, beyond merely existing.
But it also requires making sure your strongest units don't just invalidate an opponent.

Ensuring that every unit can always do something of value beyond simply existing, and that no unit can simply invalidate an opponent results in a game that is simply more fun because it reduces the amount of situations where the loser player is just sitting there thinking to himself "The hell was I supposed to do to stop that?" or "Well that's just not fair"

For example it's fine that a MSU of skinks isn't a great damage dealer. But it being so weak that forgetting to attack with them doesn't really matter is silly.
Similarly, it's fine for Nagash to be dominant in the magic phase, but an opposing mage being demoted to paper-weight because it's unable to do anything while Nagash is around is equally silly.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

Competitive focused balance results in fundamentally flawed games as you're balancing around a playerbase that cares first and foremost about winning,

that describes all players not just competitive ones people who tell you they don't care about winning are lying to you

playing efficiently,

just like every game

and the ever lauded skill-expression that can be used to excuse literally everything for some reason. The game actually being fun for everyone involved (especially for the losers) is completely secondary to those three aspects.

being a poor looser is not due to a game balancing around competitive. it sucks to loose in any game and we always want to win.

Competitive balance is willing to accept the loser being utterly and completly frustrated at what happened, so long as that frustration is a result of the winner's superiour skill.

yes just like being completely dominated in any game say chess risk or a fighting game.

Clearly the loser just has to step up their game as far as they are concerned.

pretty much yeah.

The fact that as far as the loser is concerned it was completely unfair and virtually impossible to prevent the loss (or simply unreasonable to expect him to able to prevent it) does not matter.

but it wasn't unfair, it wasn't virtually impossible they just didn't do well enough. just like the runners up in little league didn't do well enough. and remember list building is mart of the skill in playing this game.

Competitive balance is willing to accept ridiculous local inbalances, so long as the overall meta is balanced. E.g. the overal 50% winrate is holy, but nobody really cares if it's a 50% winrate against both A & B, or a 75% winrate against A and a 25% winrate against B. The only thing that matters is the overal winrate.

uh no, no we do care about that and we make mention of it and take it into account when list building. do not put arguments in our mouths. but we also recognize that bad match ups will happen even in games as perfectly balanced as chess where the two armies are exactly the same but white still has a heavy advantage. and most of us enjoy the chalange of a bad match up it's why rock paper scissors is a big part of game design.

Competitive balance is willing to accept playstyles that utterly toxic, so long as whatever is broken simply isn't efficient enough to become relevant outside of niche situations.

toxic to you sure fun to a lot of the rest of us(remember this it will be important latter)

And even if it does become relevant it might still be accepted as long as that holy winrate isn't broken.

you definitely like hammering away at this point don't you? if you have a better measuring stick to use please let us know. until then winrates are ONE of many metrics we use.

Competitive balance is willing to accept outright bugs/mistakes in the game design being abused by players, so long as it results in "skill-expression". They might even make them official features.

noooo we tend to fix those. slower then other games due to how GW does rebalancing but actual bugs(and not things you don't like) do get fixed. and if it's an official feature then it's not a bug it's a rule you don't like.

All of those things are detrimental to good game design, and that's just the obvious stuff that's relatively easy to quantify. But from a competitive balance point of view none of that is ever a problem.

examples would be helpful.

Anyways, first and foremost a good game should balance around fun.

wonderfully objective measuring stick you have there. a lot of things you don't think are fun(and therefor not balanced or toxic) are things the rest of us enjoy(see i told you to remember that) sooo how do you balance that? you have 2-∞ standards of fun to balance around.

A balance approach that focusses on fun will naturally incorperate skill expression, it'll naturally lead to an evolution of a competitive scene. And it'll ultimatly be a healthier game.

ok do you have examples of this working in real life?

A balance approach that focusses on competitiveness will not naturally result in fun.

we have a lot of games that beg to differ. SC2, TF2, dishonored, AoS, the total war games, age of empires 2, yu-gi-ho, pokemon, street fighter, mortal combat, teken, world of tanks, and rainbow seige are all bassed heavily around the competitive seen. most of them are leaders in their genre. and half of them still have massive dedicated player basses after 10 or more years.

Also, important to note; virtually every game that's actually stood the test of time hasn't been balanced from a competitive point of view.

completely untrue see above.

No rule in football was ever changed because some playstyle was "OP". They were changed cuz something was boring or frustrating to deal with, and sometimes cuz it was simply deemed unsportsman-like and people needed an explicit rule to behave....

this is a red haring. sports teams do not play under different rules from each other anything one team has access to the other does as well.