Why SCE is doing even worse in tournaments compared with previous version?

[Nos]

4 hours ago, PJetski said:

Matched Play is a different ruleset layered on top of the basic "narrative" gameplay. The reason it uses these additional rules is so that matched play can be balanced without compromising the narrative gameplay. There is no reason that it can't be a more balanced game, and people obviously want that because AOS was struggling to stay alive before they introduced matched play. It's a huge draw for a lot of people.

Matched Play cannot be dismissed as something made just for "a minority" of players, that is a patently disingenuous argument.

If you look at other systems and games companies and genres that are noted for their competitive strength GE dosent have anything like the heritage or infrastructure or investment required to begin to to achieve it, it's not their focus. Hell Sisters of Battle are going to be their first ruleset put out to Beta in literally decades.  Sure it's getting more balanced, but it's balancing is far outpaced by the things that make it imbalanced (and unique) in the first place, and that's because those are the things that make GW what it is, and so popular.

But Matched Play even at its most balanced right now is patently still not remotley balanced. The way to win at AOS at tournament level is to design something that basically circumvents the rules to prevent the opponent being able to react, ala the old Stormcast strategy. A balanced rule set would never even make that possible. You can't win most balanced games at competitive level in the second turn or a third of the way through.

[Mark Williams]

There’s a fairly large subset of players who play specifically because the game is imbalanced. There’s a type of person attracted to the types of games where you win at the list-building stage, rather than on the table. Most high level tournament games I play are over by turn 2. A large number of people would quit if it were any different, as those kinds of players deep down don’t want an actually balanced game. The thought of playing something like chess bores them to death.

Real life is like that too. Most people spend their lives looking for something they are so good at, that there’s no competition in that area. It’s human nature to just quit if you don’t naturally excel at something.

My point is that I think the key to making a successful tabletop strategy game is to purposefully imbalance it, such that “competitive” minded players can win in the army picking and list building stage. This mirrors real life, and human nature. You see it in video game design too.

[ledha]

11 hours ago, Nos said:

If you look at other systems and games companies and genres that are noted for their competitive strength GE dosent have anything like the heritage or infrastructure or investment required to begin to to achieve it, it's not their focus. Hell Sisters of Battle are going to be their first ruleset put out to Beta in literally decades.  Sure it's getting more balanced, but it's balancing is far outpaced by the things that make it imbalanced (and unique) in the first place, and that's because those are the things that make GW what it is, and so popular.

But Matched Play even at its most balanced right now is patently still not remotley balanced. The way to win at AOS at tournament level is to design something that basically circumvents the rules to prevent the opponent being able to react, ala the old Stormcast strategy. A balanced rule set would never even make that possible. You can't win most balanced games at competitive level in the second turn or a third of the way through.

I played warmachine and other games focused on competitive and balance and it's still unbalanced as hell

[Nos]

1 hour ago, ledha said:

I played warmachine and other games focused on competitive and balance and it's still unbalanced as hell

War machine has the same problem GW does in respect to balancing issues, namely that it is full of multiple different factions and units and stat lines to simulate and balance.

But It's also evidence that even in systems more focussed on balancing than GW is it's really difficult to do, and thus people's expectations around how likely and possible it is for GW to do it are wildly off the mark.

[Nos]

12 hours ago, Mark Williams said:

There’s a fairly large subset of players who play specifically because the game is imbalanced. There’s a type of person attracted to the types of games where you win at the list-building stage, rather than on the table. Most high level tournament games I play are over by turn 2. A large number of people would quit if it were any different, as those kinds of players deep down don’t want an actually balanced game. The thought of playing something like chess bores them to death.

Real life is like that too. Most people spend their lives looking for something they are so good at, that there’s no competition in that area. It’s human nature to just quit if you don’t naturally excel at something.

My point is that I think the key to making a successful tabletop strategy game is to purposefully imbalance it, such that “competitive” minded players can win in the army picking and list building stage. This mirrors real life, and human nature. You see it in video game design too.

This isn't the sort of game I  like to play personally, but I completely agree that it does provide an attraction to a lot of people and is probably what most people look for in Matched Play at a competitive level  and what it consists of,  further illustrating why "balance" is opposed to what GW are going for

[Seraphage]

No idea what’s this post is about to be honest. They are stronger than ever and at top 4 armies at the moment ?

[Mark Williams]

1 hour ago, Seraphage said:

No idea what’s this post is about to be honest. They are stronger than ever and at top 4 armies at the moment ?

There’s a noticeable gap between them and the next 3-4, and they just got a brand new battletome, which means there’s very little hope of closing that gap until next year when the new GHB comes out. Even so, if some of the more annoying flaws and gaps were going to be fixed, we basically missed our chance for another 2-3 years. Nighthaunt got a brand new tome and faired better; in fact it seems like every new tome that comes out fairs better. In addition, its quite possible that they actually got worse than they were. It’s odd, and at least worth a bit of discussion as to why and what happened. It feels like the new tome was only half completed. That’s what the post is about.

[Freejack02]

6 hours ago, Seraphage said:

No idea what’s this post is about to be honest. They are stronger than ever and at top 4 armies at the moment ?

And everyone in this thread will disagree with you.

[Black Blade]

11 hours ago, Mark Williams said:

There’s a noticeable gap between them and the next 3-4, and they just got a brand new battletome, which means there’s very little hope of closing that gap until next year when the new GHB comes out. Even so, if some of the more annoying flaws and gaps were going to be fixed, we basically missed our chance for another 2-3 years. Nighthaunt got a brand new tome and faired better; in fact it seems like every new tome that comes out fairs better. In addition, its quite possible that they actually got worse than they were. It’s odd, and at least worth a bit of discussion as to why and what happened. It feels like the new tome was only half completed. That’s what the post is about.

I think this is a fairly astute summation. I've long held the belief that Stormcast doesn't really hit the top spots precisely because they are so frequently "supported" in addition to being the original Sigmar army. Most of these newer factions that fare so well (nighthaunt, deepkin, daughters, Legions) are for the most part small ranges with tight unit design. Everything has its place and purpose and each faction has been built with the knowledge of what works in the game from before it. Stormcast effectively has three waves, and its first wave was designed for a narrative game devoid of balance and structure this condition follows Even down to the extremis chamber. After this you have the vanguard which most people don't play or have even seen on the board and then you get the sacrosanct which are just better version of the first wave. Stormcast are viable because of specific crutches whereas in the other top armies they have multiple builds that are distinct from each other. In the stormcast you have to take hammers stormhost, you have to take Garviel, you have to take staunch defender if you dont take hammers and then you can finish in the bottom of the top 10. 

TL;DR Stormcast have never been tightly designed on purpose unlike the other top factions, a back door is left open to add more chamber specific units and in some cases the stormcast already have multiple units overlapping roles. They have two army abilities rather than five or six that others get and can buy into another one or two if they agree to forgo useful command traits and artefacts. Also our battalions stuck. 

[Yoshiya]

Don't know why people keep saying Deepkin have a ton of viable builds. Based on what I've seen on here and specifically the discussion thread their competitive armies are just eels, volturnos and soulscryer with a sprinkle of support. The only real differnence is the ratio of morsarr to ishalean.

DoK too don't really have a huge number of builds (mostly due to limited range) and the only truly distrinctness between lists is if they are snake heavy or not.

Even LoN with its huge range is normally just block of skeleton with support. The major differences being if it uses Nagash or not. (May be wrong here, I have a lot less experience with them).

People keep acting like Stormcast is this poor let down faction with only one really strong list compared to this huge variety other factions have and it's just not true (no matter how much I wish it was).

[Mjolnertf]

silly question, I see many people here saying the stormhost and I see no need to use them, that is, you can play gavriel for example and play without stormhost ... or am I wrong?

[Skreech Verminking]

 

Question.

what is exactly the issue with the new battletome your speaking of.

is it not having enough units, having to less good (maybe overpowered) battalions, pointsproblems, no variation between units, or did the allegiance ability get worse?

 

 

[aceytrixx]

1 hour ago, Mjolnertf said:

silly question, I see many people here saying the stormhost and I see no need to use them, that is, you can play gavriel for example and play without stormhost ... or am I wrong?

Gavriel only interacts with hammers of sigmar keyword which you need to be hammers of sigmar stormhost to use. 

[AverageBoss]

1 hour ago, Skreech Verminking said:

 

Question.

what is exactly the issue with the new battletome your speaking of.

is it not having enough units, having to less good (maybe overpowered) battalions, pointsproblems, no variation between units, or did the allegiance ability get worse?

 

 

Abysmal internal balance. Not just for units, but also command traits and even allegiance abilities.
Too many units that fill the exact same roles, so 1 ends up simple being the best.
Stormhosts are just poorly designed in general.
Too many units in the book are flawed from a design standpoint, or overpointed for the current way the game works.
 

[Seraphage]

Guys can't tell about casual gaming but in competitive *and we have seriously competitive meta - one of the players has won GT 5 years ago or so and some other had top 6+ at ETC 3 times* they are extraordinary so far. 

Seraphon, Tzeentch, Nurgle and Death  can compete with them so far only. The rest pretty much lose

[RoyalDachshund]

1 hour ago, AverageBoss said:

Abysmal internal balance. Not just for units, but also command traits and even allegiance abilities.
Too many units that fill the exact same roles, so 1 ends up simple being the best.
Stormhosts are just poorly designed in general.
Too many units in the book are flawed from a design standpoint, or overpointed for the current way the game works.
 

*laughs in Destructionish* 

But yeah, for a poster boys they seems... lacklusting at least

[Nos]

2 hours ago, AverageBoss said:

Abysmal internal balance. Not just for units, but also command traits and even allegiance abilities.
Too many units that fill the exact same roles, so 1 ends up simple being the best.
Stormhosts are just poorly designed in general.
Too many units in the book are flawed from a design standpoint, or overpointed for the current way the game works.
 

It's almost as though they designed them with the hobby gamers in mind who comprise the majority of the games player base or something 

[Skreech Verminking]

48 minutes ago, RoyalDachshund said:

*laughs in Destructionish* 

But yeah, for a poster boys they seems... lacklusting at least

Well if that’s the case, than only one thing can be done.

throw away you Sc army and start playing skaven?.

 

[JackStreicher]

On 9/12/2018 at 10:29 PM, Mark Williams said:

 

Real life is like that too. Most people spend their lives looking for something they are so good at, that there’s no competition in that area. It’s human nature to just quit if you don’t naturally excel at something.

Non of that is true and just saying it is doesn‘t make it true. If you want any value to what you said you‘d need a reliable (scientific) source, otherwise it‘s just empty talk.

I only need to say two words to discredit what you said: Japan‘s Culture.

 

 

back to topic:

overall SCE are fine, only the internal balance is off in heavy favor of all Sacrisanct Models except the Exorcist.

 

 

[Mark Williams]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Non of that is true and just saying it is doesn‘t make it true. If you want any value to what you said you‘d need a reliable (scientific) source, otherwise it‘s just empty talk.

I only need to say two words to discredit what you said: Japan‘s Culture.

 

The irony is that you didn’t really provide any scientific studies or proof either. You just did the same thing I did. What is about Japan’s culture that you feel refutes the idea that purposely building an imbalanced game wasn’t GW’s intension? There’s quite a bit of evidence that games with “imperfect balance” keep players engaged better than trying to balance the system.  More than that, it just seems like a common sense explanation for why SCE are built the way they are - the only other explanation borders on some type  of incompetence, which is possible but seems very unlikely.

 

[JackStreicher]

45 minutes ago, Mark Williams said:

The irony is that you didn’t really provide any scientific studies or proof either. You just did the same thing I did. What is about Japan’s culture that you feel refutes the idea that purposely building an imbalanced game wasn’t GW’s intension? There’s quite a bit of evidence that games with “imperfect balance” keep players engaged better than trying to balance the system.  More than that, it just seems like a common sense explanation for why SCE are built the way they are - the only other explanation borders on some type  of incompetence, which is possible but seems very unlikely.

 

Read what you wrote and re-read what I quoted and wrote(I did not quote the part where you state your opinion), and then use google to find out how logic, and scientificwriting works before you claim that a certain behavior is inherently human, please.?

 

[Mark Williams]

33 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Read what you wrote and re-read what I quoted and wrote(I did not quote the part where you state your opinion), and then use google to find out how logic, and scientificwriting works before you claim that a certain behavior is inherently human, please.?

 

https://www.pokerstrategy.com/news/world-of-poker/Why-you-have-to-let-weaker-players-win-occassionally_101770/

Maybe not the best link, but that’s the scientific basis behind why I said what I said. The short of it is that the game wouldn’t be as profitable for GW if it were a more balanced game, as people who couldn’t win with strategy alone would essentially just quit and not play anymore. The imbalances in the various lists give people who couldn’t win in a chess-like scenario the means and tools to do it at the list-building stage instead.

[Mikosan]

8 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

 

Question.

what is exactly the issue with the new battletome your speaking of.

is it not having enough units, having to less good (maybe overpowered) battalions, pointsproblems, no variation between units, or did the allegiance ability get worse?

 

 

As others have said, internal balance is abysmal. The new chamber pretty much replaces everything that came before, doing the same job better and for the same points or marginally more in the case of sequitors.   Nerfs to units that didn’t warrant any like  tempestors and the foot celestant.  Storm hosts that add flavor and not much else. Battalions that are really non starters in competitive play outside of the phalanx which really just features the two best units out of the whole book. Two center piece models in the Celestant Prime and Tauralon that are junk for the points, seriously I want to use those models but 8 and 10 wounds for 340 points?  I know some folks are touting the immortal Stardrake but having taken that to Nova recently myself it really doesn’t do the damage you need from a quarter of your points and with the plethora of Nagashs out there toting HoD, it is a giant spell and mortal wound magnet. Will it tank stuff and survive? Sure, but if you are chewing through 60 witch elves or 30 tzaangor over 3 turns you may be just winning the battle but losing the war for objectives as I did in a few games, and it still died in 3 of the 6 games even with the 4 up MW save.  Much was made of the S.C. list that came 6th at Nova while glossing over the fact that it used 20 sequitors and 2 units of 10 Evocators, not exactly a showcase for unit diversity.

Now because I want to throw some positives in there to balance things out a bit and matched play isn’t everything I do still like a lot of stuff.  The lore has improved by leaps and bounds. The addition of storm hosts is really cool and fits the narrative well even if the execution is poor. The Relictor and Azyros are great support characters and cheap enough to drop in any list and provide utility. And of course the models are top notch and get better with every release, which they get regularly as another plus.  

I love the Stormcast, have since AoS dropped I just think the new book took away as much as it added in a competitive environment, but if you play narrative games or lots of non battletome armies that’s not really an issue. That’s my two pennies worth anyway.

[Black Blade]

4 hours ago, Mikosan said:

As others have said, internal balance is abysmal. The new chamber pretty much replaces everything that came before, doing the same job better and for the same points or marginally more in the case of sequitors.   Nerfs to units that didn’t warrant any like  tempestors and the foot celestant.  Storm hosts that add flavor and not much else. Battalions that are really non starters in competitive play outside of the phalanx which really just features the two best units out of the whole book. Two center piece models in the Celestant Prime and Tauralon that are junk for the points, seriously I want to use those models but 8 and 10 wounds for 340 points?  I know some folks are touting the immortal Stardrake but having taken that to Nova recently myself it really doesn’t do the damage you need from a quarter of your points and with the plethora of Nagashs out there toting HoD, it is a giant spell and mortal wound magnet. Will it tank stuff and survive? Sure, but if you are chewing through 60 witch elves or 30 tzaangor over 3 turns you may be just winning the battle but losing the war for objectives as I did in a few games, and it still died in 3 of the 6 games even with the 4 up MW save.  Much was made of the S.C. list that came 6th at Nova while glossing over the fact that it used 20 sequitors and 2 units of 10 Evocators, not exactly a showcase for unit diversity.

Now because I want to throw some positives in there to balance things out a bit and matched play isn’t everything I do still like a lot of stuff.  The lore has improved by leaps and bounds. The addition of storm hosts is really cool and fits the narrative well even if the execution is poor. The Relictor and Azyros are great support characters and cheap enough to drop in any list and provide utility. And of course the models are top notch and get better with every release, which they get regularly as another plus.  

I love the Stormcast, have since AoS dropped I just think the new book took away as much as it added in a competitive environment, but if you play narrative games or lots of non battletome armies that’s not really an issue. That’s my two pennies worth anyway.

You've said pretty much everything I wanted to, very nicely wrapped up. I'm kind of tired of the inevitable commenters coming in on this post after one of us makes these points "why are you complaining, you have the most units, they aren't as bad as you say, you should see what other people get for X points" and they totally miss the points were are making about a flagship army in a wargame and the percentage of useful units/battlaions/items/etc eligible To play reasonably competitively.

[Skreech Verminking]

3 hours ago, Black Blade said:

You've said pretty much everything I wanted to, very nicely wrapped up. I'm kind of tired of the inevitable commenters coming in on this post after one of us makes these points "why are you complaining, you have the most units, they aren't as bad as you say, you should see what other people get for X points" and they totally miss the points were are making about a flagship army in a wargame and the percentage of useful units/battlaions/items/etc eligible To play reasonably competitively.

Me, nah I wouldn’t complain (ignoring all of the comments I wrote) 

the only reason I infiltrated your domain, is to find some new skaven players.?