A disconnect in GW's team?

[AaronWilson]

3 minutes ago, ianob said:

If you listened to our cast on it you'll know we were massively confused by the BoC book too. After 4 books of doing mini-battalions and/or battalions with no real benefits and/or battalions that dont let you get your drop count too low, suddenly we're back to uber-battalions where you can use what you like and be 1 drop.

Also dont get me started on Enlightened.

Yeah Ian your last podcast really discussed it as well, couldn't agree more with you on all points you made in regards to the randomness of battalion points cost and the glaringly cheap one that is one drop which seems totally out of character. 

[Overread]

Honestly I'm of a mind that command points and Battalions should almost be under their own points system rather than rolled into the core points of the game. 1K points should mean you take 1K worth of models (and associated upgrades) and then buy command points and battalions from a pool of say 3 or 4 points. So you go for 1 battalion and 3CP for example.

Right now I feel that you've got everything coming out of points which can favour some armies over others, but which overall means that taking less models can be a benefit which seems daft. You want to be putting more of your collection on the table, rather than leaving behind large chunks for a battalion or two or for the command point bonus. 

[Nos]

Broadly speaking for a game with asymmetrical factions to work, there needs to be an equality in function but difference in realisation or specialisation of each army, team or what have you. If there isn't that equality there needs to be a very specific but incredibly carefully implemented advantage in other areas to offset this. 

If you look at AOS you can see this is all over the shop. Many armies can summon entirely new units, quite a few can't. Many armies can redeploy or teleport units once a game had started, many can't. Some armies can almost guarantee a charge in the first turn, lots can't. The reason for this is because armies are designed to reflect their lore, and for the sake of theme and fun, I love these unique rules.

Fundamentally in a game predominantly about optimum model placement though it's insane to suggest there is anything "Matched" between an army that can spawn and move units great distances with ease versus one that can't, even if it can do other stuff well, it's irrelevant in comparison. 

For Matched Play to truly reflect a Matched contest, the rules should facilitate that. If you think about sport, sure one side might favour offence over defence, or conditioning and athleticism and stamina etc and a long game approach etc, there's plenty variety. But the rules of engagement are the same. Players aren't allowed to jump into a car and drive down the field or call a second team on simultaneously etc, which is the equivalent of what AOS permits in its Matched Play. Factions without summoning or repositioning capability need to be given a wildcard ability to permit it once a game or a similar equivalent, to force the player on the opposite side to actually have to consider playing the same scenario. 

If all armies had at least access to what you need to actually reliably win, even if it was limited access, it would make many more of them plausible at a stroke, and make the game in general vastly more tactical 

[JPjr]

Honestly I feel like trying to 'balance' this game is in many ways a fool's quest.

After all if you really, truly wanted it to be balanced then surely there's only one option, introduce a 4th version of play, 'Tournament Play', where all standard warscrolls are discarded and instead every single army gets to choose from a selection of units - Warriors, Archers, Scouts, Artillery, Heroes, etc - that may look different but have identical abilities. Along with that there's a standard set of 'Tournament Play' spells, abilities, artefacts, that again may be skinned differently to add flavour but do the exact same thing.

So everyone no matter what faction, species, or whatever gets exactly the same options. After all play in something like an EA FIFA tournament and whatever team you pick all the stats are the same.

Not saying that would be good at all, and IMHO would go against everything that I think GW want this game to be, but anything else you're just kidding yourself about it being balanced.

 

[Dead Scribe]

I think that there are definitely issues with the armies and their balance, but I'm ok with that.  The weaker armies they produce I won't ever touch and then they produce things like beastmen which seem to be written by a tournament player and speak to me in their optimization.  

I know I'm not after balance really in the game.  If the game was balanced it would be boring.  Just like I don't want magic the gathering to be balanced.  Its fun to find the broken army lists and decklists and smash people with them.  Because they should be trying to do the same.

[EMMachine]

30 minutes ago, JPjr said:

Honestly I feel like trying to 'balance' this game is in many ways a fool's quest.

After all if you really, truly wanted it to be balanced then surely there's only one option, introduce a 4th version of play, 'Tournament Play', where all standard warscrolls are discarded and instead every single army gets to choose from a selection of units - Warriors, Archers, Scouts, Artillery, Heroes, etc - that may look different but have identical abilities. Along with that there's a standard set of 'Tournament Play' spells, abilities, artefacts, that again may be skinned differently to add flavour but do the exact same thing.

So everyone no matter what faction, species, or whatever gets exactly the same options. After all play in something like an EA FIFA tournament and whatever team you pick all the stats are the same.

Not saying that would be good at all, and IMHO would go against everything that I think GW want this game to be, but anything else you're just kidding yourself about it being balanced.

 

We actually See this point with "The 9th Age" were most decisions were made because of Balance (mostly on the top players instead) and tournanents. There was much stuff cut , many themed armies illigalized by restrictions and the Fluff players got alienated by only listening to tournament players for years.

The main problem in AoS is that rules aren't on the same Level (1.0 Warscrolls in a 2.0 ruleset) and bookstructure is changing during an edition. But with a main focus on balance we would have other problems.

[zedatkinszed]

1 hour ago, JPjr said:

Honestly I feel like trying to 'balance' this game is in many ways a fool's quest.

After all if you really, truly wanted it to be balanced then surely there's only one option, introduce a 4th version of play, 'Tournament Play', where all standard warscrolls are discarded and instead every single army gets to choose from a selection of units - Warriors, Archers, Scouts, Artillery, Heroes, etc - that may look different but have identical abilities. Along with that there's a standard set of 'Tournament Play' spells, abilities, artefacts, that again may be skinned differently to add flavour but do the exact same thing.

So everyone no matter what faction, species, or whatever gets exactly the same options. After all play in something like an EA FIFA tournament and whatever team you pick all the stats are the same.

Not saying that would be good at all, and IMHO would go against everything that I think GW want this game to be, but anything else you're just kidding yourself about it being balanced.

 

Again totally agree here.

The whole "balanced" thing is a nonsense in and of itself. War isn't balanced. Warhammer could actually be considered more realistic than Chess because it includes the inherent imbalance involved in combat. Look at almost any historical conflict between any force. It is rare for both sides to be the same and act in the same way. Seriously that's Chess. 

Here's just a few examples:

The battle of Cressy in the 100 Years war was won because low-born longbowmen killed noble knights and French considered that to be bad manners. Anybody could have done this for years but the tacit rules of chivalry prevented it, so when the English did it - the French and allies were massacred (now, I'm being reductive but it's not far off.)

The 7 weeks war in the 1800s was won by Prussia because they had rifles that reloaded more efficiently and a comprehensive train system that moved more troops than the massive Austro-Hungarian Empire could cope with in the time-frame (despite them having a more massive army).

Culture and society impact combat and so does technology. All forces are just not made equal. And sometimes a better equipped, technologically advanced, better-trained force can be held at bay by a ragtag militia just because of the terrain and the organization of the forces (e.g the battle of Mogadishu or the War of the 1st Coalition during the French Revolution)

Seriously if you want 100% balanced games then play a board game like Chess, Draughts or Connect 4. The skill in playing matched play AOS or 40K is overcoming the inherent advantages the enemy has and the inherent disadvantages your team has (which TBH is quite like real life).

 

Also look at the recent success of Double Dragonhost Order Draconis armies - they don't even have faction abilities and they're doing OK. Sure there are a number of mess-ups (clown car, change host) that created skewed lists and imbalanced match-play games but at least we have a  GHB every year now. It used to take almost half a decade for these things to be fixed,

[kenshin620]

3 hours ago, Nos said:

If all armies had at least access to what you need to actually reliably win, even if it was limited access, it would make many more of them plausible at a stroke, and make the game in general vastly more tactical 

I think though then you run into the problem of "what is the PURPOSEFUL WEAKNESS of an army" vs "what is the army MISSING".

For example SCE don't have a cheap chaff unit (unless you ally in freeguild or something). Should SCE have a cheap chaff unit like "SCE Initiates"? Or is that the purposeful weakness of them?

Should undead have access to undead archers? Or is that the purposeful weakness of them?

Actually wait SCRATCH THAT LAST ONE please give me back my skeleton archers!

 

Don't get me wrong, it sucks not having a tool for the job without going "well thats what the ally system is for".

I think some armies without proper summoning could use a "reinforcement" system, especially destruction. In fact they DID have a "reinforcement" rule under Stoneklaw's Gutsompas (technically still 2.0 legal!"). Orruks drawing in more Orruks through battle has always been a part of 40k and fantasy, why not give it then!

The wizard issue is a problem, for many 1.0 tiny armies they can easily make a new wizard. For something like Dispossessed, I think they need to make it so that Runelords can unbind endless spells post cast (they never fixed that right?)

 

But I do think there has to be uniquness in army strategies in terms of what a faction is good at. If you're running freeguild, I think you shouldn't have access to turn one alpha strike. If you're running ironjawz, don't expect to have a magic phase close to tzeentch.

I know it is a very controversial quote, but to quote Syndrome from Pixar's The Incredibles "If everyone's super, then no one is". In warhammer terms, if everyone had a wizard, if everyone had summoning, if everyone had a priest, if everyone had turn one alphas, if everyone had regenerating units, if everyone had flyers, if everyone had bravery 8-10, if everyone had ways to vomit out MW or ignore MW, if everyone had access to deep strikes, then I don't think you could have more than 3-6 factions.

 

That said there are steps gw can take to alleviate "problematic" strategies. In 40k they have shown this when they addressed Flyer Only armies, Psychic Smite Spam, Deep Strike Alpha Strike armies, people bringing 7 flying hive tyrants.

I think for tournament and other competitive players, they should really wait to see the Big FAQ gw says they're suppose to be doing every 6 months (or whenever).

 

1 hour ago, zedatkinszed said:

Again totally agree here.

The whole "balanced" thing is a nonsense in and of itself. War isn't balanced. Warhammer could actually be considered more realistic than Chess because it includes the inherent imbalance involved in combat. Look at almost any historical conflict between any force. It is rare for both sides to be the same and act in the same way. Seriously that's Chess. 

 

To be fair though, war is terrible. Warhammer is suppose to be fun so thats not exactly a proper argument.

If warhammer was like actual war, I should set my opponents Travel Bag on fire so his army is dead before they even hit the table!

 

I think another comparison is Dawn of War 3 vs Dawn of War 1 (with all expansions)

Is Dawn of War 1 close to being balanced? I don't think so with all those factions and units they have stuffed in. DoW3 was probably built from the ground up to be a competitive online game since it only focused on 3 factions with a clear in game goal in mind.

However which game was funner to the community? Which game to this day is still being played by hundreds if not thousands of people with wonderful modding communities?

Which game flopped so hard at launch that they had to revamp the entire multiplayer system and even have annoying pop ups when you try to uninstall the game?

 

[zedatkinszed]

52 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

Which game flopped so hard at launch that they had to revamp the entire multiplayer system and even have annoying pop ups when you try to uninstall the game?

1

I know you mentioning DOW but there's an implicit notion that AOS will fail in your argument. And honestly given the numbers we should be past the argument that AOS is going to fail. It's been a HUGE success and helped revitalize GW and the community - this site is just one example of that.

52 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

To be fair though, war is terrible. Warhammer is suppose to be fun so thats not exactly a proper argument.

If warhammer was like actual war, I should set my opponents Travel Bag on fire so his army is dead before they even hit the table!

5

Warhammer whether AOS, WHFB, or 40K are war games. Part of wargaming is the combination of strategic and tactical planning - i.e. overcoming your weakness and the enemy's strength. If you want total balance in a game your search ends with Chess. And by the way your above is the very definition of a strawman. Warhammer is a war game - it simulates war between fantasy factions. It's not designed to be a chess-like game and it never was. If that was actually a problem GW wouldn't have been able to do this for 30+ years , and wouldn't until X-Wing came out be the most successful company in the wargaming world 

[Kirjava13]

Nobody needs to have everything- indeed, nobody should have everything- but every army needs at least some way to interact in every phase of the game. It's no fun to be on the receiving end of something and have it just happen to you. So fine, specialisations are cool, characterful and give Warhammz a lot of its flavour, but it is, at its core, an interactive game, so it needs to make sure it gives its players adequate ways of interacting.

[Nos]

1 hour ago, kenshin620 said:

I think though then you run into the problem of "what is the PURPOSEFUL WEAKNESS of an army" vs "what is the army MISSING".

For example SCE don't have a cheap chaff unit (unless you ally in freeguild or something). Should SCE have a cheap chaff unit like "SCE Initiates"? Or is that the purposeful weakness of them?

Should undead have access to undead archers? Or is that the purposeful weakness of them?

Actually wait SCRATCH THAT LAST ONE please give me back my skeleton archers!

 

Don't get me wrong, it sucks not having a tool for the job without going "well thats what the ally system is for".

I think some armies without proper summoning could use a "reinforcement" system, especially destruction. In fact they DID have a "reinforcement" rule under Stoneklaw's Gutsompas (technically still 2.0 legal!"). Orruks drawing in more Orruks through battle has always been a part of 40k and fantasy, why not give it then!

The wizard issue is a problem, for many 1.0 tiny armies they can easily make a new wizard. For something like Dispossessed, I think they need to make it so that Runelords can unbind endless spells post cast (they never fixed that right?)

 

But I do think there has to be uniquness in army strategies in terms of what a faction is good at. If you're running freeguild, I think you shouldn't have access to turn one alpha strike. If you're running ironjawz, don't expect to have a magic phase close to tzeentch.

I know it is a very controversial quote, but to quote Syndrome from Pixar's The Incredibles "If everyone's super, then no one is". In warhammer terms, if everyone had a wizard, if everyone had summoning, if everyone had a priest, if everyone had turn one alphas, if everyone had regenerating units, if everyone had flyers, if everyone had bravery 8-10, if everyone had ways to vomit out MW or ignore MW, if everyone had access to deep strikes, then I don't think you could have more than 3-6 factions.

 

That said there are steps gw can take to alleviate "problematic" strategies. In 40k they have shown this when they addressed Flyer Only armies, Psychic Smite Spam, Deep Strike Alpha Strike armies, people bringing 7 flying hive tyrants.

I think for tournament and other competitive players, they should really wait to see the Big FAQ gw says they're suppose to be doing every 6 months (or whenever).

 

 

To be fair though, war is terrible. Warhammer is suppose to be fun so thats not exactly a proper argument.

If warhammer was like actual war, I should set my opponents Travel Bag on fire so his army is dead before they even hit the table!

 

I think another comparison is Dawn of War 3 vs Dawn of War 1 (with all expansions)

Is Dawn of War 1 close to being balanced? I don't think so with all those factions and units they have stuffed in. DoW3 was probably built from the ground up to be a competitive online game since it only focused on 3 factions with a clear in game goal in mind.

However which game was funner to the community? Which game to this day is still being played by hundreds if not thousands of people with wonderful modding communities?

Which game flopped so hard at launch that they had to revamp the entire multiplayer system and even have annoying pop ups when you try to uninstall the game?

 

Oh no I completely agree with the purposeful weakness thing. But an inability to freely manouveur or reinforce in a game all about manouveur and reinforcement against an army who can't at all is not a case of purposeful weakness. It's more limbless Black Knight from Monty Python offering up a duel.

Im not proposing make all armies the same. I'm proposing don't give some armies objectively absolutely massive advantages from the Off.

I stress this is just for Matched Play. I love GW games for their theme and narrative pay off and models personally. It's just I can tell that a system with that in mind as priority dosent  translate well at all to the competitive sphere.

[kenshin620]

50 minutes ago, zedatkinszed said:

I know you mentioning DOW but there's an implicit notion that AOS will fail in your argument. And honestly given the numbers we should be past the argument that AOS is going to fail. It's been a HUGE success and helped revitalize GW and the community - this site is just one example of that.

 

You misunderstood, my DoW argument meant the opposite.

DoW3 was an attempt to making a hyper competitive, small faction focused game. But people didn't want that. They didn't want a 40k MOBA-RTS with clicks per second or pre-selecting elite units. They wanted variety, choice, flavor.

 

Imagine if Age of Sigmar only had SCE, Khorne Bloodbound, Ironjawz, and Nighthaunt. All other factions are gone. Would AoS be far more balanced? Yes! Would it be as interesting as what we have now? By Sigmar it would be awful!

Thats not to say they shoudn't try to make things fair, they should try to not repeat the mistakes of WFB. 7th edition was terrible with MSU Alpha Strikes and Fear and 30 power dice tzeentch, whereas 8th edition had buses for days and every other army having a level 4 wizard and a BSB as standard issue.

 

Also coincidentally today on warhammer community they just posted the preview for 40k's big FAQ.