Is Competitive AoS Backing Itself into a Corner?

[kozokus]

12 minutes ago, Nico said:

I think the Vanguard Wing fix is going back to the old 20 Liberator model cap - fewer grand hammers and no discount for them - plus no stacking of Lantern +1 to save with itself and no stacking of Bless Weapons with itself.

I would have guesst more something like "all liberators have to be within X" from the prosecutors"

 

8 minutes ago, Nico said:

almost as sneaky as Skaven

I think your name is in the G-Book now.

 

[Requizen]

27 minutes ago, Nico said:

 

Bloodletters hordes are strong - I lost to Dan Ford on his road to victory at Blackout - a great @Chris Tomlin event. I lost because of his clever use of unbinding. Plenty of armies can outdrop Bloodletters and kill 17+ models in two units that are already in the middle of the table with a Battleshock largely doing the rest. Then you’ve got a good chance of winning.

Uh, how do you outdrop a 1drop Murderhost with 3 max Bloodletter units? 

[Dave Fraser]

38 minutes ago, Nico said:

I genuinely don’t understand how you can simultaneously nerf the Balewind (again - it has been nerfed twice already); and then immediately nerf the the things that the Balewind is most often taken to deal with. 

Tzeentch don’t take Balewind as they want to, they take it because they HAVE to - because of the horde meta. There are better options for teleporting in casters or summoning them for sniping purposes, but the Balewind GS combo is the only answer to hordes in the army (especially after multiple nerfs to the Windthief Charm).

It's very simple, loads of people hate it and yes Tz need the gaunt summoner to deal with hordes (assuming they are taking something like the changehost) but the balewind allows them to do this at a range which makes it relatively risk free.  It reinforces the requirement for hordes to be either a) able to traverse the table in 1 turn or b) set up off the table. 

Also note that I'm not generically nerfing hordes, I'm only removing the points buff from the units that overly benefit from it to the point of being non-choices because it makes them just too efficient.

Tz have access to other options for dealing with hordes, they're just not optimal within the current game setup,  take their own unit of 30 tzaangor or fighting with  skyfires/enlightened.  But it's also worth considering the balance of the game.  Tz can currently dominate low model count elite armies with their spells, if they can also dominate horde armies with their combat output (and not just tie them up with horror spam/regrowth - this going straight into combat shouldn't be prevented by the way) then where is their weakness to keep them  balanced, if it is only to Alpha strike shooting armies then I think that is too Rock/Paper/Scissors to make the game fun.

Order & chaos get round the balewind problem through:

1) Movement tricks - Stormcasts dropping in, fireslayers tunelling up, seraphon teleporting, Sayl Slaves to darkness teleport, skaven warp grinder. KO drop boat/re-deployment

2) Shooting off the wizard - Chaos: Skyfires, WLC, Other skaven pew pew ORder: Judicators/venator/KO/many other options

 

Remove the balewind and you remove one of the harshest beatdowns upon Destruction & Death.

 

Death and destruction, that I can recall, do not have significant access to those movement trick with large units (nighthaunt, tomb scorpions, summoning can't drop a unit of 40 on you with possibly the exception of nagash).

Shooting - Death have catapults & Ushabti with bows, Destruction have bolt throwers & rock lobbas plus the thundertusk snowball.

 

It further polarises the game into the have's and the have nots is why I think the balewind needs to be a far more significant decision.

 

[Dave Fraser]

7 minutes ago, Requizen said:

Uh, how do you outdrop a 1drop Murderhost with 3 max Bloodletter units? 

Because most murderhosts aren't 1 drop because only having 1 character for the scenarios where you need to score with characters isn't a good plan.  Plus they love taking the bloodsecrator so you can't kill them with battleshock.

[svnvaldez]

26 minutes ago, Dave Fraser said:

Remove the balewind and you remove one of the harshest beatdowns upon Destruction & Death.

As a destro player I don't even consider running any 1 wound models because of the balewind. It's challenging because when I want to incorporate a horde of grots I know it will be battleshocked turn 1 and I should just stick to 2 wound models.

Whats the best 2 wound model? Arrowboys. Then I feel like the list wrote itself and I'm running a kunning rukk.

I don't feel like I can consider my moonclan till the gaunt summoner on balewind is removed from the game.

[Nico]

On 05/01/2018 at 2:02 PM, Requizen said:

Uh, how do you outdrop a 1drop Murderhost with 3 max Bloodletter units? 

Because a 1 Drop Murderhost is a junk army. You might want a Bloodsecrator oddly enough ?

Dan’s List is 3 drops so it gets a non-melt hero for Duality and uses a Chaos Allegiance for Cunning Deceiver - which is a pretty clear indication of how overpowered Cunning Deceiver is. Sorry for ambiguity.

[Keldaur]

58 minutes ago, Requizen said:

Uh, how do you outdrop a 1drop Murderhost with 3 max Bloodletter units? 

I don't see 1 drop murderhosts, and to be honest, if they are not bringing a bloodsecrator, or a DP or chaos lord on daemonic mount, i would be a happy camper.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, kozokus said:

40K has his own daemons.

-Paying IMPERIUM is like playing unbound with 2/3 of the mini range, piling auras and having an overwhelming reroll-all shooting phase.

-Poorly written character rules (not for long maybe)

-The return of the unkillable chaos lists, no matter what you bring.

-The HQ regiment.

What kills me when i compare both game is that there are veryyy similar barring the wound table except for one big thing : in AoS 24" range shooting weapon is considered longrange and prised. In 40K 36" range is a minimum to be considered worthy and going to 48-72" range is common. Unthinkable in AoS.

I don't really know what you mean by unbound but yes, all is crazy in 40K too. In my opinion I think the character rule is indeed the massive flaw in 40K but other as Smite spam (fix also incomming maby) there is little that's really going wrong.

Chaos is as 'unkillable' as Imperium is. The moment Xenos will recieve their Codeci I have no doubt they too join this party. What makes it "work" is that everybody has acces to similar strategies with similar strenghts and Stratagems. I personally think that like Battalions shouldn't generate armies that Detachments shouldn't generate CP. What it indeed leads to is that factions with cheap HQ choices spam those Detachments. It's the same issue just with shifted importance of points.  The arguable best way to fix it is to have 1K armies have 3 CP (standard) and 2K armies 6 CP etc. As this way obtaining CP isn't linked to costs.

Prime reason why 40K has insane ranges is it being a sci-fi shooting game partially and it has designs to play on massive scales. Why this is kept is only thanks to FW having Titans and stuff to sell  

Sorry for the offtopic response. But yeah 40k is soupey. I personally don't mind it because it's completely in line with the narrative. Just like I don't mind Blades of Khorne covering mortals, bloodbound and daemons or Firestorm Battalions mixing multiple Order units in armies.

[FractalRain]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

They are probably acting in character for the army (almost as sneaky as Skaven). ?The KO chat thread is practically one long celebration of how broken they are and how easily you can take off a Mirror Shield Stardrake and the other supposedly tough heroes turn one. 

The Thunderer nerf is largely an irrelevance as they have focussed on Clown Car and also reduced drop count. Gary Percival is going to do well at the Masters with his one drop Clown Car.

I would not say this is quite accurate, especially about the thread being a long boast.  Some people boast, but I'd suggest most of us have closer games.  KO can be good at assassinating a key unit, but you still have to deal with the rest of the army and we have limited tools.  I think your post even makes the point that KO have limited options, particularly in a competitive setting and that is why we see the current lists as they are at the GTs.  Especially since KO only have two army battalions and they are terrible.  I will admit, I have not taken my KO to any competitive event, so my list tends to be more well-rounded and my perspective is a bit different. I just hope KO will get some more options in the future!  Though I suspect every player hopes that for their army.

[Nico]

@Dave Fraser

Death are so bad right now that I consider them to be a non-competitive army by definition - thstvshoukd be addressed this year of course.

[Sooner than expected - awesome.]

Destruction can do 1 drop with the Ironjawz Battalions which makes them competitive if not tier 1. Rock Lobbas can deal with Gaunt Summoner and GS isn’t a great tool vs 2 Wound Models like Ardboyz.

I don’t think anyone wants to see 180 Grots on the table either.

[Killax]

Well to give some sort of thought of the day, I know some few that certain factions can't do well because they have no Battalions or terrible Battalions.
In all honesty (and I'm happy I do have good Battalion options) I still think the way Battalions work right now is actually quite terrible for the game.

If we had the option I'd rather see a Stratagem like system imported because it keeps all units relevant where now armies are indeed judged by their acces to good Battalions. Way more as their unit choices, artefact choices etc. 

From the bottom of my soul it just still feels very wrong to have a rule interact this drastically by being able to create a 1-3 drop army and automatically have that first turn. It just chokes the game more than it adds. The only advantage I see in it is saving set up time but in reality this is a non-issue.

[chord]

What if we moved away from whoever finishes deploying first , to a random dice roll?   (for matched play).  Then it would move away from number of drops

[Killax]

6 minutes ago, chord said:

What if we moved away from whoever finishes deploying first , to a random dice roll?   (for matched play).  Then it would move away from number of drops

I would personally like that.

In addition, just as above I love the additional abilities the Battalions grand you but I think ALL those abilities can be transfered into Stratagems also. What I mean by this is that when you remove the cost and forced drops as being such a game changer more and more units become relevant. The line-breaker ideas on page 2 are allready in the game but never or seldom seen unless there is a Battalion for that.

Now this isn't me saying I dislike the current state of the game! I love AoS but what has occured to me as a factual limitation to it's current design is that there are some competitive checks taken and you either are part of that or not. Those being:
1. Does your army have Allegiance abilities? Of those usually half are relevant.
2. Does your army have relevant Battallions? Of those ideally three or more are relevant.
3. Does your army have good ranged attacks/speed/teleportation/mortal wound acces? Of those you ideally have acces to two or more of the four.

Then if you have a yes to the above awnsers the same rundown applies to units actually useful for this competitive top.
4. Does your unit benifit from a particular Allegiance ability very well?
5. Does your unit have relevant Battalion bonusses?
6. Does your unit shoot well/is fast/teleports or mortal wound?

This double filter snowballs into common competitive lists but also filters about every army to 20% usefullness and 80% fat.

[chord]

3 minutes ago, Killax said:

I would personally like that.

In addition, just as above I love the additional abilities the Battalions grand you but I think ALL those abilities can be transfered into Stratagems also. What I mean by this is that when you remove the cost and forced drops as being such a game changer more and more units become relevant. The line-breaker ideas on page 2 are allready in the game but never or seldom seen unless there is a Battalion for that.

Now this isn't me saying I dislike the current state of the game! I love AoS but what has occured to me as a factual limitation to it's current design is that there are some competitive checks taken and you either are part of that or not. Those being:
1. Does your army have Allegiance abilities? Of those usually half are relevant.
2. Does your army have relevant Battallions? Of those ideally three or more are relevant.
3. Does your army have good ranged attacks/speed/teleportation/mortal wound acces? Of those you ideally have acces to two or more of the four.

Then if you have a yes to the above awnsers the same rundown applies to units actually useful for this competitive top.
4. Does your unit benifit from a particular Allegiance ability very well?
5. Does your unit have relevant Battalion bonusses?
6. Does your unit shoot well/is fast/teleports or mortal wound?

This double filter snowballs into common competitive lists but also filters about every army to 20% usefullness and 80% fat.

No idea what a Stratagems is (assuming it's 40k?)   But sounds more complicated then just saying for matched play roll a dice to determine who goes first.  But maybe if I had experience with Stratagems I would feel different.

Or go crazy and remove battalions completely from Matched play!  

 

[Red]

10 minutes ago, Killax said:

I would personally like that.

In addition, just as above I love the additional abilities the Battalions grand you but I think ALL those abilities can be transfered into Stratagems also. What I mean by this is that when you remove the cost and forced drops as being such a game changer more and more units become relevant. The line-breaker ideas on page 2 are allready in the game but never or seldom seen unless there is a Battalion for that.

Now this isn't me saying I dislike the current state of the game! I love AoS but what has occured to me as a factual limitation to it's current design is that there are some competitive checks taken and you either are part of that or not. Those being:
1. Does your army have Allegiance abilities? Of those usually half are relevant.
2. Does your army have relevant Battallions? Of those ideally three or more are relevant.
3. Does your army have good ranged attacks/speed/teleportation/mortal wound acces? Of those you ideally have acces to two or more of the four.

Then if you have a yes to the above awnsers the same rundown applies to units actually useful for this competitive top.
4. Does your unit benifit from a particular Allegiance ability very well?
5. Does your unit have relevant Battalion bonusses?
6. Does your unit shoot well/is fast/teleports or mortal wound?

This double filter snowballs into common competitive lists but also filters about every army to 20% usefullness and 80% fat.

Why not just have abilities you can buy with points for various units (like war gear and equipment) rather than having these abilities granted by army composition and bundled into deployment / artefacts?

 

edit: apparently I quoted Killax instead of chord, and I don't know how to change the quote

[Killax]

3 minutes ago, chord said:

No idea what a Stratagems is (assuming it's 40k?)   But sounds more complicated then just saying for matched play roll a dice to determine who goes first.  But maybe if I had experience with Stratagems I would feel different.

Or go crazy and remove battalions completely from Matched play!  

 

Well Stratagems are currently limited use abilities. They have a Command Point cost, you have a limited number of Command Points and in order to use or boost an ability through a Stratagem you need to spend Command Points on that. 

What it for example could lead to is that the ability in Gore Pilgrims who let's you re-roll Blood Blessings is transfered to a 1 cost Stratagem that does that instead. Means you have more limited time to benifit but at the same time it also means that there is no Battalion army build restriction. You have acces to all the benifits in another limited way.

[chord]

Just now, Killax said:

Well Stratagems are currently limited use abilities. They have a Command Point cost, you have a limited number of Command Points and in order to use or boost an ability through a Stratagem you need to spend Command Points on that. 

What it for example could lead to is that the ability in Gore Pilgrims who let's you re-roll Blood Blessings is transfered to a 1 cost Stratagem that does that instead. Means you have more limited time to benifit but at the same time it also means that there is no Battalion army build restriction. You have acces to all the benifits in another limited way.

What if we removed all things not already granted in the warscrolls?  

[Killax]

4 minutes ago, Red said:

Why not just have abilities you can buy with points for various units (like war gear and equipment) rather than having these abilities granted by army composition and bundled into deployment / artefacts?

Because the issue with adding things to costs is the prime reason why Battalions either really matter or not at all. 

You can't put a cost on something that isn't specific yet covers bonusses for multiple units. It's the same reason why I like no costs on Artefacts currently. If you would than balance wise the Artefact should be cheaper on a weaker hero as a stronger hero.

2 minutes ago, chord said:

What if we removed all things not already granted in the warscrolls?  

I don't think that adds the character that the narrative of AoS describes.

The issue with removing essentially Allegiance Abilities is that then everything is just vanilla. We then go back to the default GH2016 setting where you likely want to go Grand Allegiance and pick the best units every Allegiance has to offer.

I like how GW now rewards restricted armies.

[Red]

Just now, Killax said:

Because the issue with adding things to costs is the prime reason why Battalions either really matter or not at all. 

You can't put a cost on something that isn't specific yet covers bonusses for multiple units. It's the same reason why I like no costs on Artefacts currently. If you would than balance wise the Artefact should be cheaper on a weaker hero as a stronger hero.

How do you factor in things like the bloodsecrator who buffs multiple units then? It clearly has a points value.

 

You mean like a hero can have a 50 point magic item, and a lord can have 100 point magic item? That sounds great!

[chord]

5 minutes ago, Killax said:

The issue with removing essentially Allegiance Abilities is that then everything is just vanilla.

The issue with removing essentially Allegiance Abilities is that then everything is just vanilla. We then go back to the default GH2016 setting where you likely want to go Grand Allegiance and pick the best units every Allegiance has to offer.

I like how GW now rewards restricted armies

What is wrong with vanilla?  Combine that with roll for first , might get things back to more variety and less about 1 drops, etc

I don't think that will happen, as batteline's require you to choose more specific allegiances unless you want some of the generic battelines. 

[Killax]

4 minutes ago, Red said:

How do you factor in things like the bloodsecrator who buffs multiple units then? It clearly has a points value.

 

You mean like a hero can have a 50 point magic item, and a lord can have 100 point magic item? That sounds great!

You can't factor in things like the Bloodsecrator because there is no set ammount of models it will effect. Which is why it's just costed at 120.

In reality having a 50/100 point Magic Item failed in WFB as much as it would in AoS.

In addition there is allready a limitation thus cost to Artefacts, which is why it works so well.
- 1 per army
- 1 additional per Battalion

This could also easily become:
- 1 per 1000 points

3 minutes ago, chord said:

What is wrong with vanilla?  Combine that with roll for first , might get things back to more variety and less about 1 drops, etc

Lack of character leads to unpopular games. Again it would be a step backwards into AoS' lifespan. People like custom characters because then they make it their own. 

 

[Red]

2 minutes ago, Killax said:

You can't factor in things like the Bloodsecrator because there is no set ammount of models it will effect. Which is why it's just costed at 120.

In reality having a 50/100 point Magic Item failed in WFB as much as it would in AoS.

Lack of character leads to unpopular games. Again it would be a step backwards into AoS' lifespan. People like custom characters because then they make it their own. 

 

WFB didn't have a 50/100 point magic item, they had a 50./100 point magic item LIMIT: the items still costed the same whether you had it on a necromancer or a vampire lord. WFB died because they didn't test any of the magic weapons, special characters, or most magic spells.

 

I think they need more levers to change points values to match things. Currently, AOS is balanced like power level is in 40K: it puts most competitive things in good buckets, but leaves many things unpowered. If they can put an unlimited buff on something like the Bloodsecrator and point it at 120 points, then they can part out the extra wound you heal from the thunderquake star host.

 

(insert Total Warhammer skaven video of the new test mode)

[Killax]

3 minutes ago, Red said:

WFB didn't have a 50/100 point magic item, they had a 50./100 point magic item LIMIT: the items still costed the same whether you had it on a necromancer or a vampire lord. WFB died because they didn't test any of the magic weapons, special characters, or most magic spells.

I think they need more levers to change points values to match things. Currently, AOS is balanced like power level is in 40K: it puts most competitive things in good buckets, but leaves many things unpowered. If they can put an unlimited buff on something like the Bloodsecrator and point it at 120 points, then they can part out the extra wound you heal from the thunderquake star host.

Items got tested, they where as before not balanced well because their cost wasn't adapted to said character. It matters very little however, I feel the way Artefacts in their own limitation in AoS work way and way better. There is no real reason to attach costs to abilities if everybody gets a similar bonus.

Points are just a form of limitation and most certainly not the best ones. This example is highlighted in giving 'correct' costs to Battalions. In reality you can't do this because the units that are part of it are variable in size, choice etc.

What I think you should check again is the AoS FAQ, as per GH2017 the Bloodsecrator is not an unlimited buff.

[chord]

16 minutes ago, Killax said:

Lack of character leads to unpopular games. Again it would be a step backwards into AoS' lifespan. People like custom characters because then they make it their own. 

I don't see many custom characters (except color wise),  its mostly the same few generals running around with the same few artifacts.  

[Killax]

Just now, chord said:

I don't see many custom characters (except color wise),  its mostly the same few generals running around with the same few artifacts.  

As before, in the mayority of the cases this is the after effect of Battalions only boosting/wanting particular Generals for armies.