Stacking the Same Ability

[WoollyMammoth]

Some tournaments an local organizers have started to adopt the rule that multiple abilities from the same source do not stack.

The first thing that comes to mind for most of us is the Bloodsecrator. For anyone who's played in a competitive environment, you are sure to run into 2+ of these guys in a lot of your games. The ability to add an attack is very powerful , combine that with adding an attack everyone within 18", and/or to powerful attacks like Bloodletters or Skullreapers, and it becomes the most popular combo in the game.

I'm not arguing against this combo, in fact Khorne Bloodbound is designed to be a synergy-heavy army. My main complaint is that it's not very original, you see it over and over so its kind of repetitive and boring.

But the issue with stacking the same ability is much more of a broader issue. This issue becomes very prevalent with artefacts. Currently, there is nothing preventing the same hero from taking two of the same artefact. This means death could take two Cursed Books for -2 to hit, or two Oaken Armor to make a Treelord a natural 1+. There are many examples. 

Now with the new stormcast book, you have a new issue; two command abilities are allowed. This means you can take two cheap Lord-Celestants and give your whole army +2 to hit. This is obviously going to become the norm real fast.

Personally I think the new handbook should add a 4th rule of 1 to prevent abilities from stacking with themselves, if for no other reason than to see more varied interesting lists at tournaments. 

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

As far as I'm aware you can only have one artefact on any hero and only one command trait on your general. 

[WoollyMammoth]

The same model cannot have more than one artefact, but you could have two heroes standing next to each other with the same artefact.

you can only have one command trait, but I didn't mention anything about that.

[BaldoBeardo]

Then it's not multiple 'from the same source', and the examples you gave require two artefacts on the same model.

Limiting stuff like this won't make lists more varied anyway.
People take these because they are felt to be the most effective option for the points.
Remove this option, then you'll get list variety for about 3 months until the next best option becomes apparent and then standard.
Having a "best in show" combo for a force is actually a good thing IMO, because it means prepping for tournaments is a far more considered exercise, as people have an idea of what to be ready for.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[hobgoblinclub]

In previous incarnations of Warhammer, there was a need to tweak the game for the tournament scene. In a world where General's Handbooks exist and GW are constantly uodating the game based on community feedback, I'm not sure there's such a need to create rulings.

Matched play is designed specifically for competitive games. If something is wrong, fair enough, but if the GHB2 doesn't change something and a tournament organiser does, it smacks of 'I know best'. 

I'm not saying tournaments shouldn't try to be distinctive, but stand out by creating narratives or custom battleplans, don't try to fix what ain't broken. 

...or I won't be able to double whip my rat ogors and hellpit with my packmasters.

[RuneBrush]

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

I'm not arguing against this combo, in fact Khorne Bloodbound is designed to be a synergy-heavy army. My main complaint is that it's not very original, you see it over and over so its kind of repetitive and boring.

Funnily enough I'm currently considering adding a second Bloodsecrator to my Bloodbound.  One of the issues I've found is that it's very easy to have individual characters snipped off or find "dead" areas on a 6x4.  The Bloodsecrator is pretty much a critical cog in their whole synergy so taking two gives a much larger field of coverage.  Can't disagree that it's predictable though.

[Arkiham]

Yeah you have two as one always dies, khorne isn't strong enough tbh without stacking attacks, that's kinda it's thing, mass attacks with little rend doing 1 damage , take that away and he does nothing against most armies 

Not everyone has the hitting power of stormcast, ironjawz or beast claws 

[WoollyMammoth]

@RuneBrush
a lot of armies don't have a "snipe" option. Death can try and summon and get a lucky charge, but a Bloodsecrator can be protected from this. Sure some armies can shoot but many cannot. Talk about having chars easily sniped, bloodsecrator is 3+. A courtier ghoul is also needed for synergy, and he is 5+ with 4 wounds. At LVO there was no Khorne player with less than 2 bloodsecrators. 


@hobgoblinclub
I've heard of tournaments that are already adopting a ban on stacking synergy from the same source. Tournaments will likely adopt house rules, its enviable. GW has only just started to care about balance and there are a lot of flaws in the system. Some may be addressed in GH2 but not likely all. One example is that, the did away with Warrior Brotherhood, but per the FAQ you can use any scroll, so you can still use Warrior Brotherhood. Another example is that, if FW keeps making rules to sell, FW is likely going to get banned in tournaments as well.

@BaldoBeardo
If two heroes have the same artefact, that would be the same source. 

 

[hobgoblinclub]

I'm sure tournaments will. I just think some of them dive in with rules changes with potential to cause more imbalance than they fix. Not all armies have the ability to stack. The armies that do obviously suffer more if you ban it. 

The current FAQ does allow all scrolls. Old FAQs will become outdated with the new GHB though. At some point I imagine we'll see a ruling that 'only scrolls pointed in the GHB are legal in matched play'. I thought we'd see it this time to kill off compendium but it looks like we'll have to wait. 

[Turragor]

We should have a new rule of 1 for threads about changes to the rules of 1.

On topic - I am sure GHB2 will see a few tweaks.

Personally I think preventing abilities of the same name stacking on the same unit isn't a bad idea.

[RuneBrush]

8 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@RuneBrush
a lot of armies don't have a "snipe" option. Death can try and summon and get a lucky charge, but a Bloodsecrator can be protected from this. Sure some armies can shoot but many cannot. Talk about having chars easily sniped, bloodsecrator is 3+. A courtier ghoul is also needed for synergy, and he is 5+ with 4 wounds. At LVO there was no Khorne player with less than 2 bloodsecrators. 

Agreed, some armies have huge sniping potential and others lack it entirely.  Sadly they're both examples of key components that both armies almost "need".  Personally I'd love see some extra ways of doing the same effects for those armies.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

9 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

[mention=896]RuneBrush[/mention]

a lot of armies don't have a "snipe" option. Death can try and summon and get a lucky charge, but a Bloodsecrator can be protected from this. Sure some armies can shoot but many cannot. Talk about having chars easily sniped, bloodsecrator is 3+. A courtier ghoul is also needed for synergy, and he is 5+ with 4 wounds. At LVO there was no Khorne player with less than 2 bloodsecrators. 

 

The very fact that some armies do have a snipe option means you want to have that redundancy in your list, because if you don't and you do face that list, it will be no contest.

 

Most top end lists are built to beat other common top end lists and to be able to survive/draw/not lose against the fringe power lists.

 

Quote

[mention=34]hobgoblinclub[/mention]

I've heard of tournaments that are already adopting a ban on stacking synergy from the same source. Tournaments will likely adopt house rules, its enviable. GW has only just started to care about balance and there are a lot of flaws in the system. Some may be addressed in GH2 but not likely all. One example is that, the did away with Warrior Brotherhood, but per the FAQ you can use any scroll, so you can still use Warrior Brotherhood. Another example is that, if FW keeps making rules to sell, FW is likely going to get banned in tournaments as well.

 

Talk of banning things is always the worst way to solve a situation, all it does is cover up an issue it doesn't solve that actual problem.

 

If the tournament organiser or player doesn't like how armies are built for their tournament then add your own campaign/narrative rules that influence a more suitable army selection.

 

Look at the Clash or SCGT for good examples, the Battleplans and objectives make the players want to take more balanced armies but still allow the more extreme ones to be taken like@Ben Johnson four star drake list

 

Quote

[mention=234]BaldoBeardo[/mention]

If two heroes have the same artefact, that would be the same source.

 

That's quite literally incorrect. Two separate heroes, two separate artefacts, two separate sources. Just because they have the same effect doesn't make them the same source.

[Sleboda]

10 hours ago, hobgoblinclub said:

if the GHB2 doesn't change something and a tournament organiser does, it smacks of 'I know best

A-freakin-men.

 

Also, on the topic of stacked bonuses, why does +1 Bravery for 10 models not draw ire when you get to 20 models and +2?

With all this "let us limit bonuses to +1" chatter lately, I'm sorta surprised ppl are letting this one slide. 

[Squirrelmaster]

46 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Also, on the topic of stacked bonuses, why does +1 Bravery for 10 models not draw ire when you get to 20 models and +2?

With all this "let us limit bonuses to +1" chatter lately, I'm sorta surprised ppl are letting this one slide. 

Because +1 Bravery (for battleshock only, I might add) is no-where near as big a deal as +1 attack, or +1 to hit, wound, or save. Or -1 attack, -1 to hit, wound, save. It's a really minor bonus, even if you do stack it.

Plus, you need a lot of models in one unit before it really starts to become relevant, which carries some severe tactical limitations.

[Squirrelmaster]

For me though, the biggest problem is stacking -1 to hit (or wound, but that's less common).

Think of it this way: If you hit on a 6+, then a +1 to hit is a 100% bonus. Another +1 to hit is only a 50% bonus, the one after that is only a 33%, then 25%, then nothing. Effects that grant +1 to hit do not synergise well with each other — you are usually better off trying to combine +1 to hit, +1 to wound, and +1 attack.

-1 to hit on the other hand, goes in the other direction. If you're normally on a 2+, a single -1 only drops your hitting power by 20%. The next one, 25%. Then 33%, then 50%, then 100% when you can no longer hit at all. The effect gets bigger with each bonus. (Incidentally, +1 to save is the same, but rarer and more easily bypassed with mortal wounds).

[Criti]

Organizers are free to do what they wish with their events, of course... but GW is aware this comes up and even addressed it in the FAQ:

Just noting.

[Arkiham]

50 minutes ago, Criti said:

Organizers are free to do what they wish with their events, of course... but GW is aware this comes up and even addressed it in the FAQ:

Just noting.

Games workshops way of saying it's key to the game. 

[WoollyMammoth]

@Arkiham
not necessarily; rulings change. They are likely to change the ruling on scrolls so that you must use the newest, otherwise the changes to the scrolls in the new SCE book was pointless.

@The Jabber Tzeentch
if i have two vampire lords giving -1 to hit from their cursed book, that means that two of the same artifacts are stacking. Because you gave them the artifact does not create a different scenario than a hero who has an artifact innately, such as a Bloodsecrators Portal of Skulls. The point of limiting ability stacking means you would limit a unit from being affected by more than one Portal of Skulls in the same way you would limit a unit from being effected by more than one Cursed Book. The point of this thread is an argument against allowing two of the exact same things to stack. In all cases two of the same artifacts would be the same thing. The fact that you can even take two of the same artifacts seems like an oversight.

[Arkiham]

The faq does recommend you use the newest warscroll. 

Unless they change the rule in the next ghb they obviously don't want to.

 

You're severely hampering some armies by doing so.

[KevenM]

Why not simply prevent an artifact from being taken several times in the same list? - because by definition they aren't you know... common?

[Nico]

Quote

Some tournaments an local organizers have started to adopt the rule that multiple abilities from the same source do not stack.

I'm hoping that this will be cut out of the SCGT pack - it's wording that was included in the pack last year (before the rules of one) and is not needed anymore. Including this ban crushes Bloodbound and arbitarily nerfs particular armies (including Fyreslayers) for no good reason. None of the perceived "filth" at the moment is relying on stacking the same buff.

The rule of one for spells has (thusfar at least) elegantly solved the previous problems.

Banning armies from repeating artefacts is going to nerf Sylvaneth again (who have already taken about 6 nerfs to the face in the last 6 months, only one of which was in any way justified); and Death (who have already taken about 12 nerfs to the face in the last 3 months and are in no way competitive at the moment). It will make it slightly harder for Mixed Beastclaw to go double Stonehorn (one will have to tank with Talisman of Protection), but that's not even perceived as being the strongest build they can do.

 

[Nico]

not necessarily; rulings change. They are likely to change the ruling on scrolls so that you must use the newest, otherwise the changes to the scrolls in the new SCE book was pointless.

I agree. They phrased this as a "should" in (I believe) the "rules" section of the FAQ as opposed to the General's Handbook section - one might think that they were catering for people who want to use the old scrolls for narrative purposes - they are admirably opposed to closing the door on options - play it your way and all that.

That said, for Matched Play - cherry picking from old and new versions of the same set of Warscrolls (the old Abhorrent Ghoul King plus the new Terrorgheist) at an event is not great form; arguably a breach of the rules anyway if the points could be said to only refer to the new version; and really should not happen.

It's not much better than showing up with the Azyros/Vexillor at the new cost, but with the old warscroll and expecting to be taken seriously - I'm sure no-one would dream of doing that.

You could probably make a case for using all the old Warscrolls for the Ghouls (but none of the new ones). 

It should be a house rule (or an unwritten rule) that you must use the newest version of a Warscroll for a Matched Play event (this is completely separate from the Compendium units debate).

[rokapoke]

Quote

I'm hoping that this will be cut out of the SCGT pack - it's wording that was included in the pack last year (before the rules of one) and is not needed anymore. Including this ban crushes Bloodbound and arbitarily nerfs particular armies (including Fyreslayers) for no good reason. None of the perceived "filth" at the moment is relying on stacking the same buff.

"No good reason" is in the eye of the beholder. What you feel is arbitrary may not be so to the tournament organizers defining the rules for their events.

[WoollyMammoth]

@Arkiham
A suggestion doesn't mean anything. It needs to be a clear rule or people will abuse it. If a tournament does not directly tell people they can't use the old Knight-Azyros scroll, you can be sure people will show up planning to use it. 

@KevenM
They could, but why make multiple rules that do the same thing? A rule that the same effect dosen't stack in all cases fixes all the issues without going into every case.

@Nico
Exactly. SCGT,
- The first major tournament for AoS ever
- The largest in the world I believe? 
- The tournament that GW is officially going to demo the new point costs
- The tournament who's house rules are said to have influenced/shaped matched play
This tournament has a few house rules - one being Persisting effects & Spells with the same name do not stack.

Its published and its not changing, and the fact that it is here means that it has a likely chance of appearing in the GH2. Like the points demo they are probably trying to demo this rule and seeing if it works.

How is Sylvaneth nerfed in any way? What are these 6 nerfs you speak of? The only thing I can think of is that Wyldwood can only be up to 3 and has to be 'clumped' together. This is not a nerf so much as a bit of sanity. Regardless they are still the most successful tournament army to date. Limiting persisting effects will not change this - having to choose +1 save and -1 to hit your general instead of two of either does not exactly break the army..(Oaken Armor+Briarsheath).

In order for death to need two artefacts, there would have to be at least one reasonable battalion in the entire alliance. The only time that you would do this is in a Settra+Chariot list, which you can not even buy since the models are discontinued, so its kind of a moot point. Regardless TK is getting a massive point increase to kick death while they are down. The main issue with death is that the only time they stop neglecting the alliance is when they decide to give it a new nerf. There are a lot of issues with death as a result of being out of date. Eventually they will get a new tome to be brought up to speed. Until then the Mourngul band-aid keeps them competitive, there were many death players that did well at LVO. I was in 13th place with my Neferata+FEC list going into game 6 when I hit a steamroll Bloodbound list + a ton of horrible luck.

BCR as you say will be fine.

A note about Bloodbound - they will also be totally fine with only one boodsecrator. You can take two to make sure everyone gets +1 attack and nobody gets to enjoy their spells. You can still get attacks from a lot of other things, as well as +1 to hit from a bunch of things, lots of good battalions, etc. - this rule does not break Bloodbound at all.  
--

Some people would think they are being clever by taking the old Azyros scroll. Some people don't get that this would offend people (As @rokapoke points out). A lot of people "rules lawyer" to take the best army. I've seen first hand people exploit rules to win games. Some people don't get that it's not "cool" to do these things. Its all fun till you are playing against someone with two old Azyros scrolls. You can tell them you feel like what they did was "not cool" but its not going to change the fact that you were robbed of a good game.

This is why we need rules, and the suggestion that is currently in the FAQ is not a rule. A house rule or a unwritten rule is not a rule either. The simplest rule would be to say, to use a scroll in Matched Play it must be the one that is still available in the app.






 


 

[Arkiham]

They also banned compendium stiff but then retconned it, so not everything is set in stone