AoS Warhammer Weekly NPE Discussion

[Carnikang]

This reminds me of something I've been thinking about. What if combat was shared? So if my Saurus are fighting clanrats, both the opponent and I roll our combat dice and do damage at the same time. This might not work very well for multi-unit engagements, but i suppose a player could choose to fight with an opponent or save their unit to attack another. It could create dome interesting situations. Maybe units that charge skways do damage first, so it would be like a charge bonus in TW.

This may go against the simplicity pillar for designing the game, but could be interesting

It might be a good idea, but does complicate some of the melee centric portions of the game.
"Always fights first" could be "Damage is done before the enemy strikes"
"Always strikes last" could be "Damage is done after all other units damage has been done"

But that should be experimental after there is some sort of adjustment to the shooting focus of the meta. That might even make the shooting meta worse in a way. I do like that idea though. It's interesting.

 

[Putzfrau]

This reminds me of something I've been thinking about. What if combat was shared? So if my Saurus are fighting clanrats, both the opponent and I roll our combat dice and do damage at the same time. This might not work very well for multi-unit engagements, but i suppose a player could choose to fight with an opponent or save their unit to attack another. It could create dome interesting situations. Maybe units that charge skways do damage first, so it would be like a charge bonus in TW.

This may go against the simplicity pillar for designing the game, but could be interesting

Apparently 40k apoc does something where all the damage is basically "held" until the end of the battle round. It's an interesting solution. I wonder a lot how age of sigmar would handle any big shake up to the basic turn structure.

 

[Dread Saurian]

Apparently 40k apoc does something where all the damage is basically "held" until the end of the battle round. It's an interesting solution. I wonder a lot how age of sigmar would handle any big shake up to the basic turn structure.

Pretty sure it would be exactly the same as apocalypse.Also since apocalypse is supposed to have close to something bonkers like 10k points a player you'd probably see higher quality of units instead of "spam the most cheap units and pray our slann(s) can nuke em all within turn 1 and 2". Plus a lot of dinosaurs (well from me) I mean a lot of dinosaurs

 

[Erta Wanderer]

over all i agree with you but since we are dealing with my math i need to clear a few things up. first paladors are terrible. like just the worst why would any one take them? storm cast have better cav units

That example was heavily slanted in the favor of the palladors. We were using waves of 10 saurus receiving the charge. It doesn't get worse for us in that example.

yep it was in no way a fare comparison and i said so at the time. although even with us charging we lost 20-40 guys still if you are using warriors like that you deserve to loose.

A unit of 20 saurus, completely unbuffed with only their club attacks does around 9 damage to palladors assuming they swing first.

i used spears over clubs as you would not get 20 1" guys in but yes 20 saurus were one of the ones i said could do it.

A similarly costed unit of palladors does just over 6 damage to warriors assumimg it swings first and shoots with its pistols.

Even if only 75% of the saurus can get in, it's pretty damn similar damage.

my math wasn't based on damage but who would win on average (as that was the question). i took into account the likely hood of making charges at 9"(teleporting) and who struck first diminishing models over multiple rounds of combat and battle shock looking to see who had a 66% chance to win or better.
remember that if a unit didn't do 5 damage to the paladars they would still be swinging with full strength and a lot of our guys have less then a 50% chance to drop a model every turn and take far more in return. and paladors can't shock off the table.

So did we really show what you said we did? Or is the situation a little more nuanced then "we don't have a single unit that can outfight palladors".

it is far more nuanced. the question in the first place is bad as just holding the line for a turn or 2 is more then enough to deal with the problem but over all most of our stuff would fail to kill them.

 

[Putzfrau]

over all i agree with you but since we are dealing with my math i need to clear a few things up. first paladors are terrible. like just the worst why would any one take them? storm cast have better cav units

yep it was in no way a fare comparison and i said so at the time. although even with us charging we lost 20-40 guys still if you are using warriors like that you deserve to loose.

i used spears over clubs as you would not get 20 1" guys in but yes 20 saurus were one of the ones i said could do it.

my math wasn't based on damage but who would win on average (as that was the question). i took into account the likely hood of making charges at 9"(teleporting) and who struck first diminishing models over multiple rounds of combat and battle shock looking to see who had a 66% chance to win or better.
remember that if a unit didn't do 5 damage to the paladars they would still be swinging with full strength and a lot of our guys have less then a 50% chance to drop a model every turn and take far more in return. and paladors can't shock off the table.

it is far more nuanced. the question in the first place is bad as just holding the line for a turn or 2 is more then enough to deal with the problem but over all most of our stuff would fail to kill them.

Totally, no disrespect to the math done previously. I know we were working under different assumptions at the time.

I was just using damage as it's a nice easy general comparison. I think all the units listed were all roughly 150-180 points, 15ish (kind of) wound units that have between 8 and 12 inch move and do around 6ish damage in melee. Some had a little more wound efficiency but less movement, some had slightly more movement but less wound efficiency, some had less both but were way less expensive but without getting into the truly nitty gritty, I was just trying to imply that its all within a certain realm of similarish haha.

 

[Canas]

it is far more nuanced. the question in the first place is bad as just holding the line for a turn or 2 is more then enough to deal with the problem but over all most of our stuff would fail to kill them.

The question isn't bad, it simply discusses a design problem you don't care about. Namely that stalling is our only option in a situation like this, even if our forces are supposedly (roughly) equally matched, and whenever stalling isn't a viable option (for whatever reason) it's a guaranteed lost cause.

I mean, it's fine that you don't care about the problem but that doesn't suddenly mean it doesn't exist. It just means you don't care.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

The question isn't bad, it simply discusses a design problem you don't care about. Namely that stalling is our only option in a situation like this, even if our forces are supposedly (roughly) equally matched, and whenever stalling isn't a viable option (for whatever reason) it's a guaranteed lost cause.

I mean, it's fine that you don't care about the problem but that doesn't suddenly mean it doesn't exist. It just means you don't care.

you are right you should always be able to win at everything all the time. no need to prevent cases like that happening in the first place no call for having weeknesses in a army. every one needs to be able to punch it out

 

[Canas]

you are right you should always be able to win at everything all the time. no need to prevent cases like that happening in the first place no call for having weeknesses in a army. every one needs to be able to punch it out

That's not even remotely what I'm saying....

 

[Erta Wanderer]

That's not even remotely what I'm saying....

it really is

 

[Canas]

... it really isn't...
I'm saying that in a straight up brawl, 2 equally sized forces should be (roughly) equally matched.

How do you even manage to go from that to "I should always win and have no weaknesses"?

 

[Erta Wanderer]

... it really isn't...
I'm saying that in a straight up brawl, 2 equally sized forces should be (roughly) equally matched.

and we are if you don't stack the deck. we are a synergy army our base scrolls are crap because we are rarely without buffs

How do you even manage to go from that to "I should always win and have no weaknesses"?

because you have spent that last month arguing that you should win a worst case scenario in the exact way you want to and ignoring every thing else.
i agree our base warscrolls are crap but that is intentional. if you are cought flat footed by a army that does deep strikes as it's main gimmick and have neither a solid fighting unit or a buff character to deal with it that is your own fault. and NO having to take that into account and hold units in reserve is not a hardship it's a normal part of the game every one has to do it, especial when they are fighting us.
you are expecting a tempo counter army to stand up to a combat army in a strait up fight, we aren't supposed to.

 

[Canas]

we are a synergy army our base scrolls are crap because we are rarely without buffs
...snip..
i agree our base warscrolls are crap but that is intentional.

Which I deem bad design. The presence of buffs should not have such a large impact that you go from crap to top tier. That is far too swingy. Doing it intentionally doesn't make that better.

because you have spent that last month arguing that you should win a worst case scenario

Are you seriously saying that 150-200 points of seraphon vs 150-200 points of opponent is a worst case scenario? That's a simple brawl over a remote objective, or a slight skirmish done by an harrassing flanking force. That seems like rather a low bar to for a "worst case scenario" and if something that minor is already a worst case scenario than imho something is deeply wrong.

if you are cought flat footed by a army that does deep strikes as it's main gimmick and have neither a solid fighting unit or a buff character to deal with it that is your own fault. and NO having to take that into account and hold units in reserve is not a hardship it's a normal part of the game every one has to do it, especial when they are fighting us.

It's 1 unit, and not even a particularly good or an expensive one. If 1 mediocre unit potentially deepstriking/flanking is already enough to require a significant reserve force something is again, rather wrong... It's not exactly like you got caught flat footed with half his army deepstriking into your backlines. 1 unit of palladors should be a relativly minor threat all things considered

 

[Erta Wanderer]

Which I deem bad design. The presence of buffs should not have such a large impact that you go from crap to top tier. That is far too swingy. Doing it intentionally doesn't make that better.

there are a lot of things you deem "bad design" that aren't so this does not move me.

Are you seriously saying that 150-200 points of seraphon vs 150-200 points of opponent is a worst case scenario?

no im saying letting that happen and then not accounting for it is. also the question is a bit disingenuous as skink priests are 120 but would flat out die in combat with any thing of the same cost. different units have different rolls

That's a simple brawl over a remote objective, or a slight skirmish done by an harrassing flanking force. That seems like rather a low bar to for a "worst case scenario" and if something that minor is already a worst case scenario than imho something is deeply wrong.

being cought out unprepped un buffed and with nothing within range to deal with a problem out side of token units seems to be about as bad as it gets for us or really any one. it depends on you having played badly built your list badly and left a critical OB point ungraded(don't know why you would do that but ok.) some thing is only deeply wrong if you let said problem happen. if you have no response to a problem then don't let that problem happen cities doesn't let people charge their gun line KO doesn't let people envelop them in melee so just know your armies weakness and account for it, and to be fair having the weakness that min sized unbuffed units cant wipe a unit isn't that big a deal

It's 1 unit, and not even a particularly good or an expensive one

then ignore it it's only 3 models it will take them a turn to ewven clear off a 10 man to clam a OB

If 1 mediocre unit potentially deepstriking/flanking is already enough to require a significant reserve force.

it's not but the other half of the army in the clouds is and if you are preped for them you can deal with a dinky palador unit

something is again, rather wrong... It's not exactly like you got caught flat footed with half his army deepstriking into your backlines. 1 unit of palladors should be a relativly minor threat all things considered

you're the one letting them deep strike you. you do know there are ways to prevent or account for this right? the problem shouldn't have ever gotten to your scenario. even then holding on or blocking for 2 even 1 turn is usually enough to take win even if you ignore the problem, or you take the loss and win else where. this isn't as big a deal as you are making it

 

[Canas]

no im saying letting that happen and then not accounting for it is. also the question is a bit disingenuous as skink priests are 120 but would flat out die in combat with any thing of the same cost. different units have different rolls

I was under the impression it was implied that for two forces to be "equal" they also needed to consist of similar troop-types. But sure, we can make it explicit. I am not expecting a non-combat unit like a starpriest to defeat a combat unit like palladors.

So for clarity: whenever i'm talking about two "equivalent" forces I'm assuming both similar point values & similar unit-types.

To give some examples:

• I'm not expecting a CoS gunline to stand against a dedicated close combat unit in melee, but I am expecting it to be able to fight with another ranged unit.
• I'm not expecting a starpriest to beat dedicated combat unit in melee, But I am expecting it to be able to stand up against say a necromancer or grey seer.

being cought out unprepped un buffed and with nothing within range to deal with a problem out side of token units seems to be about as bad as it gets for us or really any one. it depends on you having played badly built your list badly and left a critical OB point ungraded(don't know why you would do that but ok.) some thing is only deeply wrong if you let said problem happen. if you have no response to a problem then don't let that problem happen cities doesn't let people charge their gun line KO doesn't let people envelop them in melee so just know your armies weakness and account for it, and to be fair having the weakness that min sized unbuffed units cant wipe a unit isn't that big a deal

then ignore it it's only 3 models it will take them a turn to ewven clear off a 10 man to clam a OB
it's not but the other half of the army in the clouds is and if you are preped for them you can deal with a dinky palador unit

you're the one letting them deep strike you. you do know there are ways to prevent or account for this right? the problem shouldn't have ever gotten to your scenario. even then holding on or blocking for 2 even 1 turn is usually enough to take win even if you ignore the problem, or you take the loss and win else where. this isn't as big a deal as you are making it

You're missing the point... The point isn't that winning the game as a whole is difficult/impossible, or that our army is disfunctional, or even that mistakes have consequences, or even that those consequences are impossible to deal with.

The point is that this focus on strong synergies with weak base warscrolls leads to a consistent stream of local match-ups that often aren't fun for one of the two players. Because basically all local match-ups will fall in one of two categories:

1. We have a local force with proper synergies. This can easily punch above its weight and compete with top-tier stuff, and beats a lot of opponents, even if the opponent is supposed to be "equivalent"
   
2. We don't have proper synergies, and our local force consists of rather bad base warscrolls. This performs badly and usually gets defeated by "equivalent" opposition.

In the first situation our opponent suddenly finds he performs very badly, despite having an "equal" force.
In the second situation we perform very badly despite having an "equal" force.

Either way one of the two players will most likely face a frustrating & hopeless local loss, despite the two forces being "equal" on paper.

This is a big part of what results in our reputation of being unfun to play against, because when we are properly supported we perform extremely well. Resulting in frustrated opponents who see that unit of skinks consistently punching above its weight. At the same time it's also what leaves seraphon players frustrated because whenever we aren't fully supported we perform extremely poorly, and we get to watch all our unsupported stuff die in a hopeless fight. There are weirdly few situations where we simply perform "normally", and neither side will feel like they are massively outclassed despite the local match-up supposedly being fair as the two forces are supposed to be "equivalent".

And essentially this means our army is frustrating by design for at least one player in most local situations. And that is bad design....

 

[LordBaconBane]

Apparently 40k apoc does something where all the damage is basically "held" until the end of the battle round. It's an interesting solution. I wonder a lot how age of sigmar would handle any big shake up to the basic turn structure.

Yeah it's a nice thought experiment. I wouldn't implement it, but something like LotR turn sharing could help. Regardless, just thinking outloud.

 

[Putzfrau]

The point is that this focus on strong synergies with weak base warscrolls leads to a consistent stream of local match-ups that often aren't fun for one of the two players. Because basically all local match-ups will fall in one of two categories:

1. We have a local force with proper synergies. This can easily punch above its weight and compete with top-tier stuff, and beats a lot of opponents, even if the opponent is supposed to be "equivalent"
   
2. We don't have proper synergies, and our local force consists of rather bad base warscrolls. This performs badly and usually gets defeated by "equivalent" opposition.

I don't think it's fair to make the assumption that i highlighted.

You're jumping to too many conclusions and using too many faulty assumptions to come to those conclusions.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how something like "strong synergies with weak base warscrolls" (even if i dont agree on the "weak" part of that) plays on the battlefield. The game just functionally does not come down to "if your synergies work you win and its bad for your opponent. if they dont you lose and its bad for you."

That's just not a factual assumption. It's not representative of how the game actually plays in my experience.

Is that genuinely an experience you find yourself having?

 

[Kilvakar]

Sorry for the long post, I always feel like I get too long-winded when I'm writing stuff online, but I have a hard time explaining my thoughts without going into detail

"if your synergies work you win and its bad for your opponent. if they dont you lose and its bad for you."

Is that genuinely an experience you find yourself having?

I know I wasn't the target of this question, but just to give an example of my personal experience as a very mediocre player at best, this happens for me quite a lot. Not all the time, but in a very general sense I would say that that's how it works for me a lot of the time. If I get all (or most of) the buffs off on a key unit they will perform extremely well, at least for that turn and barring terrible dice rolls. While the small group of people I've played with don't complain a lot about Seraphon, they still don't enjoy having key units obliterated by a fully-buffed Skink horde, Carnosaur, Stegadon, etc. For example, in my most recent battle report I told how I was finally able to legitimately win a battle against the Ironjawz with Gordrakk.

However, in situations where I'm forced into an engagement without any buffs, such as when Orruks or Idoneth have repeatedly been able to charge me turn 1, or when your buff heroes have been sniped after turn 1-2 by shooting armies, I can personally say that against any units designed to hold their own without buffs, or against comparable units who do have their buffs up, they die in droves. Even Saurus. And unlike a lot of other armies that die easily, we don't have any abilities that punish enemies for just charging and fighting us. No mortal wounds dealt or fighting upon death, no participation in activation wars, so we basically just wither unless we A: get our buffs up and B: get to hit first.

So in general, if I'm running an infantry-heavy list and I don't get my buffs off before getting into combat, I generally have a bad time. If am able to both get my buffs going and get into combat first, I generally do quite well, although generally no so well as to cause my opponent to feel like we're totally OP.

So I do agree that overall we have *relatively* weak warscrolls because they were intentionally designed to be buffed. HOWEVER, there are some units that actually do very well without buffs. In my personal experience, units that I never have good luck with unless fully-buffed are:

Skinks, Saurus Warriors, Saurus Knights, Carnosaurs, Terradons, Ripperdactyls.

Units that I've seen able to perform quite well without any buffs are:

Salamanders, Stegadons, Bastiladons, Chameleon Skinks. I would also place Kroxigors in this category if it weren't for the fact that they need their one +1 to hit buff from being near Skinks to do well. When just near Skinks, with that +1 to hit they dish out a surprising amount of damage and aren't all that easy to kill. They're basically our only "elite" infantry option, comparable to Orruk Brutes (arguably better) but unfortunately not battleline. I think more people should consider taking them

In summary: I've found that our battleline units have pretty bad warscrolls and don't do well without their buffs, but with buffs they do quite well. I generally agree with the opinion that Seraphon have weak base warscrolls but get pumped up to crazy levels with all the buffs we can stack on them. However, this isn't true for the entire army. As for whether we're not fun to play against, I really think it's just the very specific Fangs of Sotek build with tons of magic, teleporting Skink hordes that also get overwatch and have a chance to retreat from a charge, and Salamanders waiting to nuke your backline if you don't play defensively that people complain about. I've won games with Thunder Lizards and Dracothion's Tail that were quite close and no one complained about those lists, even when I had Lord Kroak. I have yet to win a game with Koatl's Claw, though. Non-teleporting Saurus just seem bad, as much as I would prefer to play them that way. I haven't used a Knight spam list yet.

But I personally think that the AoS gameplay style is mostly to blame for shooting/teleporting armies being so un-fun to play against. Whenever someone asks how to deal with a powerful or annoying unit or army, the answer the pros give 99% of the time is "ignore them, run from them, win on objective points, just let their good stuff kill your units and hope you can rack up enough objective points by running away elsewhere."

If the different battleplans were less about "sit a unit on this part of the map to score points" and more about accomplishing a specific goal during the game then I think you would see both a lot more list diversity and a lot more variety in which armies are doing well. I know that objectives are a core part of Warhammer gameplay currently, and I can't say that's really a bad way to play, but it certainly does mean that being able to stay *out* of combat and control the board is almost always better than being good *in* combat, which to me just doesn't sit quite right with the idea of a wargame with armies of miniature soldiers who are supposed to, you know, fight each other. If your army is stuck marching forward trying to claim ground while your opponent can just pop up here, there, and everywhere, shooting your units down while taking little damage in return, you're going to be very frustrated.

 

[LordBaconBane]

But I personally think that the AoS gameplay style is mostly to blame for shooting/teleporting armies being so un-fun to play against.

Maybe it's because teleporting is like a cheat code. It's often free for factions (remember when we had to roll to teleport?), allows for optimal positioning, and can get you some really cheesy snipes.

It's not like fast movement, extra charge movement, or teleporting for units where it makes sense (chameleons disappearing for example), it's 'point and click' movement without cost. I know I've given npe's to my buddy that plays Skaven just be porting over a bunch of rippers and saying sup

Maybe bringing in mandatory 3+ for faction teleporting? (Note, for all factions not just Seraphon). For example, teleporting from being Starbrone would be 3+ but chameleons are free teleport. You could apply this to all factions. At least provide some risk, just spitting ideas

 

[xoid]

As a mediocre player myself one thing I've noticed about teleporting is it can really help you recover from a mistake in deployment or positioning. It can almost be used as a do-over button for a unit.

 

[Kilvakar]

So here's Vince's latest meta chart:

So apparently he thinks that Nurgle is the most balanced book in the game? I really don't think this chart is really that accurate, especially since he still ranks Idoneth so highly (They are still really good, don't get me wrong, but KO, Tzeentch, Lumineth, etc. are all doing better than they are right now).

Also, how the heck is Lumineth rated below DoK and Fyreslayers? Lumineth are rapidly climbing to be one of the most competitive and *definitely* the most unpleasant army to play against, so they really should be far to the right and honestly just below KO on the design quality scale