Stacking the Same Ability

[WoollyMammoth]

@Mirage8112
There was a whole thread before we started talking about mathhammer where I (as well as several others) addressed the thread topic. I'm not going to repeat my points because you claim I haven't made any. Your comments have mostly been inappropriate and insulting to me and others. This is the last time I will address you in this thread or any other. 

I apologize to anyone who has wasted their time reading this drivel. 

@rokapoke
My point is that it doesn't matter what the percentage is. In your first 50 games you play a 2+ save model, you are as likely to have failed 40% of the time or 20% or maybe you got lucky and it was only 5%. But after you have played 2000 games, the law of averages sets in and you will end up failing the statistical 17% overall. I have a 66% chance to get off my Relictors prayers, I still failed 4 times in a row last game, so I'm at 20% for something that is supposed to be over three times more likely. But I expected as much.

 @darkelf
Welcome. I have had several discussions along this line. Note that this would not affect the number of attacks, since this is more rolls, not a roll modifier. I don't mind that some armies can stack buffs in different ways, but I feel it would be better if they only limit the same exact buff stacking.

The reason being is, when a unit is the best thing in the book, people take 4x of that one thing instead of mixing it up. Some key synergy element like a Lord-Celestant or a Treelord is very often the most important and first thing on people's lists. When these things can stack, then you often want multiple of them. Lists get bogged down with these models that are far to high value not to take as many as you can. If all of these things simply didn't stack, you no longer feel a need or desire to stack them, which opens up your list to try various other options, creating more balance and more varied lists. 

Overall I don't see a lot of issues with this, but as far as anything I've seen or any counterpoint I have heard so far, it would just be a nice rule of 1 to keep things more balanced. If an army would be really hurting due to this rule, then I would hope they would also receive some counterbalance in a points change or new book. 

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, darkelf said:

easy fix for GHB2.0 include a new additional rule of 1:

when more than one modifier would apply to a dice roll the player making the roll may choose what one modifier applies, all other modifiers are ignored.

 

should go a long ways towards clearing out a lot of the trash in the meta that no one likes anyways.

Noooooooooo.... (says Darth Vader).

AoS is fundamentally based on the idea of stacks, mounds, piles, and oodles of buffs/debuffs.  Mess with that at great risk of peril.

 

IMO.

[Captain Marius]

5 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Noooooooooo.... (says Darth Vader).

AoS is fundamentally based on the idea of stacks, mounds, piles, and oodles of buffs/debuffs.  Mess with that at great risk of peril.

 

IMO.

Agreed - going back to the bloodbound example, while id be happy for bloodsecrator buffs to only apply once, id be gutted if i lost my other bonus attacks from dark feast slaughterpriest/wrathmongers/khorne cares not/warshrine totem etc! Getting all that stuff lined up is fun and to me feels more creative than spamming the same hero 3 times.

Another one that bugs me is taking multiple frostlords. It might be fine for a special scenario but in a representative beastclaws army it just feels lame.

I notice I'm on a bit of a tangent here, but for me the issue is i dont like the unfluffy spamming of stuff in matched. Disallowing stacking from multiple sources with the same name might go some way to achieving this. Or it might not, what does everyone think?

[WoollyMammoth]

@Captain Marius @Sleboda
To be fair the idea from @darkelf is that, when making a dice roll, you have to pick only one modifier.

- The bloodsecrator only adds more dice, not a modifier.
- Slaughterpriest does not add buffs/debuffs.
- Wrath-flails get +1 to hit on the charge so would have to pick only if they had modifiers from other sources.
- Khorne Cares not is also extra attacks I think.
- The Warshrine gives re-rolls to hit.

So technically the only time this would come into effect is if the Wrathmongers charged and you had to choose between +1 to hit or re-rolls to hit from the shrine. Probably not going to ruin your list.

personally I like the concept. Its a simple way to limit the +/- to hit war that competitive is quickly becoming. I think it would go well in addition to the blanket rule that effects with the same exact name do not stack.

The core concept behind most of these ideas is that, you take the power away from the list and move it into the hands of the player, so games are determined by tactics and strategy instead of power lists. You cant combo your +3 or -3 to hit so your opponent cant do anything. Unfortunately none of these rules address some of the nastiest things like, the thundertusk healing or a double kunnin rukk, so one might argue you need to be able to get your +3 attacks and +3 to hit to be able to deal with the insanity sometimes. 

[Captain Marius]

9 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@Captain Marius
To be fair the idea from @darkelf is that, when making a dice roll, you have to pick only one modifier.

- The bloodsecrator only adds more dice, not a modifier.
- Slaughterpriest does not add buffs/debuffs.
- Wrath-flails get +1 to hit on the charge so would have to pick only if they had modifiers from other sources.
- Khorne Cares not is also extra attacks I think.
- The Warshrine gives re-rolls to hit.

So technically the only time this would come into effect is if the Wrathmongers charged and you had to choose between +1 to hit or re-rolls to hit from the shrine.

Sorry, the dark feast slaughterpriest gives the battalions reavers +1 attack as does a warshrine as it is a totem, while the wrathmongers give everyone in 3" +1A. I like bloodreavers!

I like that by just affecting dice rolls that sidesteps the attacks issue... but this doesnt solve the bloodsecrator spam issue!

[WoollyMammoth]

@Captain Marius
This list gives a lot of bonuses from multiple sources and would still be fine under all the supposed rule changes in this topic. I haven't really seen this list because, everyone just takes 3 bloodsecrators instead.

Bloodreavers are awesome .. for as long as they live. These guys love to bleed for Khorne.

[Mirage8112]

12 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

There was a whole thread before we started talking about mathhammer where I (as well as several others) addressed the thread topic. I'm not going to repeat my points because you claim I haven't made any. 

I read through the thread. It was mostly you complaining about Khorne bloodbound. A lot. You mention several times that you don't want abilities to stack but you still haven't given a reason why other than you think GW "made a mistake": 

On 2/20/2017 at 6:09 PM, WoollyMammoth said:

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.

On 2/22/2017 at 3:43 PM, WoollyMammoth said:

The glaring one that most people don't like is the bloodsecrator... Hes clearly designed not to stack, and two of his 3 effects cant stack. They just didn't think anyone would get two of them. I'm not saying that it is essential that they nerf him, I'm just saying its fairly obvious that a quarter of everyone showing up for the tournaments having 2-3 bloodsecrators was an oversight.

Wild speculation does not prove your point (what is your point anyway?). If it was an oversight they would have errata'd or FAQ'd it in one of the three updates since the game was released. In fact it's gone the other way, GW has specifically gone out of its way to say abilities of the same name DO stack. a fact which TWO posters have clearly mentioned:

On 2/20/2017 at 0:42 PM, 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.

It's funny, because when I read your arguments, you're clearly ignoring the fact that you can't give reason why a rule should be changed other than "trust me, it's an oversight" or "trust me, it's bad for the game". In fact your argument seems to have nothing to do with "stacking" being overpowered. It's more that you keep seeing this combo and are tired of playing against it because its powerful: 

On 2/21/2017 at 4:12 PM, WoollyMammoth said:

Perhaps the most important point of limiting stacking is that its simply not as cool to see people take 3+ of the same thing just because its rules are good, its more fun to see more varied and interesting models on the table. 

Seeing something frequently is not an argument for changing game mechanics across dozens of different armies. 90% of Sylvaneth players take a TLA because they are good. AS such, you will see a TLA in nearly every competitive Sylvaneth List. Maybe we should remove those from the codex too? No. that's crazy. It's also lazy. If you have a problem beating Khorne bloodbound then come up with a better list. Come up with better tactics. Please for the love of god stop pretending this is a problem unless you can show that it is, in fact, a problem. 
 

12 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Your comments have mostly been inappropriate and insulting to me and others. 

If by inappropriate and insulting you mean actually showing how game mechanics work and supporting my arguments than sorry; I am guilty as charged. You clearly know you want the mechanic to change, but you STILL haven't given a concrete reason why (exactly what is your problem with this?) despite me asking, now, for the 5th time. 
 

12 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

This is the last time I will address you in this thread or any other. 

I apologize to anyone who has wasted their time reading this drivel. 

You really should have apologized in your OP, because the last 5 pages have been physically painful to sift through. Trying to get a rational argument with supporting evidence out of you has been like trying to get my 3 year old not to take her pants off in public; difficult and exhausting and ultimately unproductive. 

As to "not responding to me", you're not really responding to me now. You've ignored all my pointed questions, you can't give evidence or examples, you can't refute the facts I've presented and you've even tried going off the rails on minor side points trying to distract from the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.

So truthfully if you stop "responding" I'm ok with that.

[Squirrelmaster]

19 hours ago, darkelf said:

easy fix for GHB2.0 include a new additional rule of 1:

when more than one modifier would apply to a dice roll the player making the roll may choose what one modifier applies, all other modifiers are ignored.

 

should go a long ways towards clearing out a lot of the trash in the meta that no one likes anyways.

So…

Mystic Shield would no longer work on units in cover.

Blood Knights would no longer benefit from Bloodshields + Mystic Shield (or cover)

Zombies no longer get any benefit from Corpse Carts (unless below 10 models)

Dire Wolves would no longer benefit from Corpse Carts while in cover or under Mystic Shield.

Skeletons, Grave Guard, and Black Knights would no longer benefit from Crypt Shields while in cover or under Mystic Shield.

Double Bloodsecrators would still stack.

Does that sound OK to start with?

[Criti]

 

It's funny, because when I read your arguments, you're clearly ignoring the fact that you can't give reason why a rule should be changed other than "trust me, it's an oversight" or "trust me, it's bad for the game"

Haha.  I had a brain ****** here.  When I read this after my quote I was like, "Bro!  What did I do to you?!" - then I realized this was not directed at me.

I  need a nap. 

[WoollyMammoth]

@Squirrelmaster
That's not what I'm proposing here, but yeah - that sounds good to some people.

Personally I would specify that the stuff built into your scroll doesn't count. For example skeletons get +1 to hit from being near a death hero on their scroll, so they can still get +1 to hit from say, Damned terrain. That would fix most of the issues you are citing. 

Mystic Shield not stacking in cover sounds fine to me. Its similar to the Staunch Defender Command Trait for Stormcast, its +1 save but doesn't stack in cover. With rules like that, the rule that hills are not cover, the rule that monsters can't get cover and the rules of 1 limiting Mystic Shield, you can tell they are trying to make it difficult to stack a ton of bonus saves to make things impossible to kill. Some people think having a 1+ save is cool, some people really hate it, seems like they are really leaning against it.

Overall trying to word this rule is too complicated. 
"When applying modifiers to a dice roll, first apply all modifiers listed on the warscroll. When more than one additional modifier would apply, the player making the roll must choose only one modifier to apply."

That may be a bit much for the nice simple rules of 1, so maybe its best to stick with the topic of limiting multiple effects from the same source only.

[Squirrelmaster]

@WoollyMammoth You'd also need a provision for negative modifiers (-1 to hit, etc.)

With regards to saves, I'd maybe be tempted to rule that a result of "1" after rend, but before any positive modifiers, is an auto-fail. (In other words, saves are capped at 2+ rather than just a natural 1 auto-failing).

But making it so that a unit of skeletons, in a forest, with mystic shield, can't get down to a 3+ vs rend "-"? I don't think anyone complains about stacking mystic shield and cover in that kind of situation. If anything, I'd say that's just smart strategy and making use of terrain.

I would much rather have a game where actually using the terrain affected the battle, far too many strategies seem to be built around a completely open field. Half the time, players don't even want to use the mystical terrain rules (too random, too much to remember, too "weird"), and even when the effects are often either too minor or too random to affect strategy in any way. The +1 save (but you have to be completely in terrain) is significant enough to affect the battle, without being weird and random, and it rewards players who think about how to use it effectively. Being able to stack it with mystic shield is a big part of that.

[WoollyMammoth]

@Squirrelmaster
I don't have a problem with it either way. You could take one unit of skeletons and put them in the forest and the other mystic shield so you have two units of 4+. I don't really have an opinion either way, i'm fine with it both ways. Since no one is really talking about having to pick one modifier I don't think it will end up in the GH2 anyway. 

I use terrain rules every time, and have terrain dice, but I have started to get hesitant since it has had too much effect on games for almost no downside. One game some Kurnoth were on the back of the board with Mysical terrain causing way too many wounds with their shooting. Another game I got blown out by a super khorne deathball with two damned bonuses. One game I tabled a TK player easily because I had 30 ghouls spreading out over mystical terrain. 90 attacks with re-rolls to wound gets real crazy real fast. I wrote a post about how the useless terrain might be improved and the dominating terrain might be weakened in order to make it more useful overall to create strategy without having it be either useless or game-deciding as it often is now.

[Chris Tomlin]

On 27/02/2017 at 4:30 PM, Mirage8112 said:

Sent!

Ok...so whilst I perhaps don't agree with all he says & we got a bit heated earlier, I can for definite say that @Mirage8112 does have a sense of humour and most certainly wins this round!

Touché sir! This is genuinely brilliant. 

[Mirage8112]

1 hour ago, Chris Tomlin said:

Ok...so whilst I perhaps don't agree with all he says & we got a bit heated earlier, I can for definite say that @Mirage8112 does have a sense of humour and most certainly wins this round!

Touché sir! This is genuinely brilliant. 

Those little sods cost me 5 quid too. A small price to pay to show that while I'm occasionally an arrogant ******, I do have a sense of humor. 

[Tokyo Nift]

@Mirage8112 Having skimmed through the thread I think I by and large agree with you. What would you say about the Aether Khemists for Kharadron Overlords? This gives KO easy access to +attacks, where they don't have access to +1 to hit or wound or whatever. Lots of theorycrafted lists are rocking 4-6 Khemists to just drop those buffs on a single unit. 

I don't really think this is a reason to limit stacking in AoS - if it proves particularly problematic Khemists alone could be changed - but I was wondering what your thoughts were in this case where Khemists really do crowd out using any of the other leaders in the book. 

(also well played with the dice)

[Mirage8112]

2 hours ago, Tokyo Nift said:

@Mirage8112 Having skimmed through the thread I think I by and large agree with you. What would you say about the Aether Khemists for Kharadron Overlords? This gives KO easy access to +attacks, where they don't have access to +1 to hit or wound or whatever. Lots of theorycrafted lists are rocking 4-6 Khemists to just drop those buffs on a single unit. 

I don't really think this is a reason to limit stacking in AoS - if it proves particularly problematic Khemists alone could be changed - but I was wondering what your thoughts were in this case where Khemists really do crowd out using any of the other leaders in the book. 

(also well played with the dice)

Thanks mate!

Stacking Khemists doesn't bother me in the same way that the stacking Bloodsecrators doesn't bother me. The units warscroll clearly shows that they are intended to stack, (as opposed to warscrolls where the abates wording shows that they aren't intended to stack). 

The (basic) argument against stacking put forward by some people in this thread @WoollyMammoth among them, is that taking multiple entries of the same unit creates "boring" lists because everybody takes them because they are fairly powerful. But really, there is no core game concept that says "you must build a list with x amount of diversity". Some lists are spammy, some lists are MSU, some lists are deathstars with a couple of support units.

Ultimately what makes or breaks a list is how it performs on the tabletop. Lists that are spammy, or lists that exploit a particular game mechanic by stacking bonuses at the expense of other buffs/debuffs win only if the oppose isn't prepared for such an eventuality. But Khemists stacking a bunch of extra shots onto thunderers isn't exactly a new mechanic in this game now is it? We already have large volume fire in the form of Kunnin Rukk, peasant arrow storm and even now with sky fire spam. Im not entirely sure that Overlords have mechanics that are capable of competing with Kunnin' Rukk shot output (both in volume and points investment) on a shot-by-shot basis. In other words they can do what other armies can do, but not cheaply and at the expense of bringing a list that compete in ALL phases of the game. 

At this point in time, we don't really have enough data to say that this build is "good" enough to crowd out all the other builds available to the army. I suspect that Khemist stacking isn't the pinnacle of KO list construction and is probably one of several builds we can expect do see on the tabletop as the months roll on. 
 
 

[Tokyo Nift]

Thanks for that man, and agreed.