Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
kenshin620

GW is asking for advice on GHB 2019

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, PJetski said:

I do not agree that units need to be balanced across different grand alliances. It's a bad comparison because there are different buffs and unit synergies to consider.

Liberators are not worth their points in a Stormcast army and they are not worth their points in an Order army. They can't be used in a Chaos army, so why does it matter how they compare to Chaos Warriors?

It matters because in the long run everyone wants their points to mean the same thing across other armies. 500 points of LoN being roughly equivilant to 500 points of Everchosen for example. Basically if we don't all use the same yardstick then balance can end up right out the window as each codex can basically play it's own game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2018 at 11:34 AM, Skreech Verminking said:

edit: There are 2 reasons why I believe Stormvermins should get a point decrease.

firstly they are being described in the small fluff and lore we have right now, as a horde unit and not a elite one.

fighting against a verminus army should be against tons of clanrats and especially Stormvermins.

Secondly if we are looking in a more competive way,  Stormvermins cost as much or more than units which are more than just better then them.

there is no reason why Stormvermins of all units should cost as much as Namartis thralls  which will exceed in the combat phase and have a similar save. Same goes with Bestigors.

they got such a massively great update and cost 20points less then their counterparts the Stormvermins.

I hope this doesn’t sound to aggressive😅

 

Out of curiosity, I ran those three units through the provisional gunkulator to see what it had to say:

  • Stormvermin 141points (GHB18 140)
  • Bestigors 166 points (GHB18 120)
  • Namarti Thralls 143 points (GHB 140)

Results suggest your concern re: the Bestigor comparison is correct, though the solution might not be. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

Out of curiosity, I ran those three units through the provisional gunkulator to see what it had to say:

  • Stormvermin 141points (GHB18 140)
  • Bestigors 166 points (GHB18 120)
  • Namarti Thralls 143 points (GHB 140)

Results suggest your concern re: the Bestigor comparison is correct, though the solution might not be. 

Thanks for running those units through your gunkulator, its a real relief to see that they are somewhat ok with the points although I still find them too high

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, PJetski said:

I do not agree that units need to be balanced across different grand alliances. It's a bad comparison because there are different buffs and unit synergies to consider.

Liberators are not worth their points in a Stormcast army and they are not worth their points in an Order army. They can't be used in a Chaos army, so why does it matter how they compare to Chaos Warriors?

 

20 minutes ago, Fulkes said:

It matters because in the long run everyone wants their points to mean the same thing across other armies. 500 points of LoN being roughly equivilant to 500 points of Everchosen for example. Basically if we don't all use the same yardstick then balance can end up right out the window as each codex can basically play it's own game.

I agree with PJetski in terms of the final end state.  My concern, however, is with the method of getting there.  Right now when people are disputing points values or proposing tweaks it could be a problem with synergies and buffs, it could be a problem with unique abilities that are costed wrong, it could be a problem where the basic fundamentals are just costed wrong, or it could be any combination of the three.  That makes changes needlessly complicated, and it also introduces way too many unintended ripple effects when changes are made.

I think the foundation should be consistent, and then you layer in customization on top of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Thanks for running those units through your gunkulator, its a real relief to see that they are somewhat ok with the points although I still find them too high

You're definitely welcome.  Its interesting for me to take people's thoughts and test them out.  Helps me build up a sample list of units to leverage to continue to try and puzzle through the problem.

And whether things are costed too high or too low is all relative.  Definitely too high if you compare to Bestigors for example.  But if you compare to other units, they might look more correct.  The problem is less to do with Stormvermin per se, then the dramatic inconsistencies between points values of units (*cough* Morrsar Guard *cough*).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it causes some ripples, the point was more that the base metric used to determine points should be the same for everyone, which should lead to a roughly equivalent outcome from army to army instead of drastically different balancing between army to army. I mean look at the Bestigor example above when we look at their points cost. That should basically never happen if the game uses the same metrics to determine points across the board. We may see a little up and down between units but if everyone is using the same yardstick, it's going to be a lot closer than stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Fulkes said:

It matters because in the long run everyone wants their points to mean the same thing across other armies. 500 points of LoN being roughly equivilant to 500 points of Everchosen for example. Basically if we don't all use the same yardstick then balance can end up right out the window as each codex can basically play it's own game.

I agree that armies should be (roughly) balanced against each other... but that doesn't mean units should be equal across different factions. 

If you put the same Warscroll in two different factions they could use them in totally different ways. You need to balance around the actual game state rather than the simulation, because your model is never going to be accurate enough.

The end result of balancing units against each other is a chess-like state where each unit has an identical unit on the other team. Symmetry is boring.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, PJetski said:

I do not agree that units need to be balanced across different grand alliances. It's a bad comparison because there are different buffs and unit synergies to consider.

Liberators are not worth their points in a Stormcast army and they are not worth their points in an Order army. They can't be used in a Chaos army, so why does it matter how they compare to Chaos Warriors?

Yep, I agree.  The idea of Marine or Guard equivalent is worth x amount of points is an antiquated way to balance a game system, and doesn't really work with so many different factions, abilities, and variables.  

It's more important to have an internally interesting army, with a variety of options and tools for specific situations.  Then, imbalance across factions can be fought and adjusted on a meta level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PJetski said:

I agree that armies should be (roughly) balanced against each other... but that doesn't mean units should be equal across different factions. 

If you put the same Warscroll in two different factions they could use them in totally different ways. You need to balance around the actual game state rather than the simulation, because your model is never going to be accurate enough.

The end result of balancing units against each other is a chess-like state where each unit has an identical unit on the other team. Symmetry is boring.

I'd argue not armies but equivilant points of units. If I bring 400 points of skeletons your 400 points of Chaos Warriors should feel about the same in terms of power. That's what a standard metric gives us. Basically I'm saying every model (when you go that low) should have a points cost that is based on the same guidelines and then you multiple that for units and we naturally come to more balanced factions from there.

It doesn't mean every unit becomes identical as different abilities and synergies can lead to outcomes, but there would be less obvious losers in the game who can't bring a proper game to the table because what they get for their points isn't as much as what every other army gets for the same points (KO for example).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fulkes said:

I'd argue not armies but equivilant points of units. If I bring 400 points of skeletons your 400 points of Chaos Warriors should feel about the same in terms of power. That's what a standard metric gives us. Basically I'm saying every model (when you go that low) should have a points cost that is based on the same guidelines and then you multiple that for units and we naturally come to more balanced factions from there.

It doesn't mean every unit becomes identical as different abilities and synergies can lead to outcomes, but there would be less obvious losers in the game who can't bring a proper game to the table because what they get for their points isn't as much as what every other army gets for the same points (KO for example).

AOS is not a game where two equal point blocks of units fight each other simultaneously. You have to take positioning, unit size, buffs, debuffs, synergies, and much more into account. 

You can't balance a game with spreadsheets alone. They are a useful tool, but just one of many.

Edited by PJetski
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fulkes said:

I'd argue not armies but equivilant points of units. If I bring 400 points of skeletons your 400 points of Chaos Warriors should feel about the same in terms of power. That's what a standard metric gives us. Basically I'm saying every model (when you go that low) should have a points cost that is based on the same guidelines and then you multiple that for units and we naturally come to more balanced factions from there.

It doesn't mean every unit becomes identical as different abilities and synergies can lead to outcomes, but there would be less obvious losers in the game who can't bring a proper game to the table because what they get for their points isn't as much as what every other army gets for the same points (KO for example).

13 minutes ago, PJetski said:

The end result of balancing units against each other is a chess-like state where each unit has an identical unit on the other team. Symmetry is boring.

Rest assured that a "chess-like" state of symmetry will never happen, for the same reason that it's doubtful 400 points of one unit will always feel the same as 400 points of another unit.

Points are theoretical, and unfold over large sample sizes.  Tabletop experiences are concrete and subject to tons of variance.

Simple example.  Your high-rend army will be effective over-costed fighting against a Nighthaunt army because the points cost of that rend is effectively worth zero in this context.  Your night haunt army will be over-costed fighting an army with no rend, since the point costs of it's ethereal ability is effectively worth zero.

Further, good generals will always look for ways to unlock additional value out of their units, or remove value from their opponents units.  If I have a unit that gets bonuses on the charge, that should be accounted for in the points cost.  If you prevent me from actually getting a charge off, you are effectively making my unit over-costed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Click5 said:

Yep, I agree.  The idea of Marine or Guard equivalent is worth x amount of points is an antiquated way to balance a game system, and doesn't really work with so many different factions, abilities, and variables.  

It's more important to have an internally interesting army, with a variety of options and tools for specific situations.  Then, imbalance across factions can be fought and adjusted on a meta level.

See, I feel like people are making a mistake here. I'm not saying that is how we should balance the game. I was thinking more that they'd go about it with something like:

+1 for every inch the model has in it's movement, +2 instead if the model can fly special rule
+1 for wound the model has
+1 for every point of save the model has above "-", +2 instead if the model is ethereal
+1 for every point of bravery the model has over 5
+1 for every attack the model has
+1 point for every point the model has to hit ( example: +1 for a 6+, +2 for a 5+, ect)
+1 for every inch of range the attacks have
+1 point for every point the model has into the to wound roll on an attack
+1 for every point of rend for each attack
+1 for every point of damage the attack does, +2 instead if the attack can sometimes do mortal wounds, +3 instead if it always does mortal wounds (for random damage take 1/2 of max damage rounded up and multiple that by the modifier listed before)
+25 if the model is a wizard, additionally +25 for each spell the model can cast/unbind past the first
+50 if the model is a hero, instead +100 if the model is a unique character
+100 if the model is a behemoth

I mean this is just a very rough outline and isn't even close to being complete, but it's what I mean about using the same metric. You'd sit down and assess a single model in a unit to get the points cost (if you can take multiple different weapons that replace each other, for example swords and spears average the points cost between them) and that gives us a better metric to balance the game around then every book doing its own thing all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PJetski said:

AOS is not a game where two equal point blocks of units fight each other simultaneously. You have to take positioning, unit size, buffs, debuffs, synergies, and much more into account. 

You can't balance a game with spreadsheets alone. They are a useful tool, but just one of many.

While true, throwing out the spreadsheet just because you can't use it by itself is even sillier. I've been talking about the baseline points cost of things in a vacuum. Synergy costs would likely need to get baked into the heroes they stem from to balance the forces as a whole, but at the end of the day it'd do the game more good to have a foundation in math and not just feelings on how something should be costed. We can make small adjustments down the road, but the majority of the work should be based on a consistent metric that allows for a fair game so no one ever feels like their toys aren't worth the money they spent on them when played against someone else's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, PJetski said:

You can't balance a game with spreadsheets alone. They are a useful tool, but just one of many.

Agree 100%, but that's not the point.  

It's not about balancing the game as a whole (at least to me), but about balancing the pointing system.

I would much rather the game focus more on rewarding smart synergies, good list building, meta-gaming, and great tactics on the tabletop, and focus less on just putting as many obviously under-costed units on the table as possible.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • LOVE IT! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

Agree 100%, but that's not the point.  

It's not about balancing the game as a whole (at least to me), but about balancing the pointing system.

I would much rather the game focus more on rewarding smart synergies, good list building, meta-gaming, and great tactics on the tabletop, and focus less on just putting as many obviously under-costed units on the table as possible.  

Exactly where I'm coming from as well. I just feel like the way things are points costed from one book to the next just doesn't line up the way it should. I won't claim math solves everything, but in a game that has basis in statistical deviation and math (basically rolling dice and comparing stats) we should have a math basis in the game which can be tweaked further for when stuff doesn't quite mesh perfectly where the math says it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that anyone want it to become so balanced that its chest, it will always be more of a rock paper scissors scenario where Army A is weak against , but strong against C.  That's fine.  

 

@PJetski out of curiosity, why do you feel liberators are over costed? Personally, I think 100 points seems fair based on there role and profile.  They dont hit the hardest, but they are solid defensively and seem to synergize well with SCE.  Also, despite low bravery, having 5 2 wound models v. 10 1 wound models means they are less likely to run.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my perfect world, GW would blow up their whole system -which I think it actually far closer to the spreadsheet formula system where x=y then people want to believe- and take a top down approach.  Something like:

Consider most decent size competitive AoS events are five rounds and 2k points, that's your baseline.  Create five different scenarios that are relatively balanced but slightly reward a specific type of strategy.  For example, maybe a Siege type scenario or zone control will favor a tankier army a bit more.  A Supply Raid scenario favors a fast elite army, so and so forth...

Now take your factions and have some number of "shells" or archetypes for each of them.  You could probably break this up into Tanky, Balanced, and Glass Cannon or something along those lines.  How this manifests in the game is where they get to be creative.  Stormcasts tanky shell is from good armor saves and defensive buffs, whereas Death keeps their horde alive by summoning.  

Now you say this shell is going to good at objectives 1 and 2, it'll be okay at objective 3, and weak at objective 4 and 5.  Now Shell B can be good at objectives 2 and 3, okay at 4, and weak at 5 and 1... This is where the vast majority of balancing should take place

Then you take your pile of models and say, "How can I get the most variety of cool stuff on the table"  and you start shoving it in different shells through different battleline or Hero requirements or restrictions, incentives and synergy.  Whatever point cost a unit or model arrives at to fit in an archetype at this point is mostly arbitrary on a macro level, but still allows for some micro adjustments to be made, but your actual game balances comes from an adherence to defined objectives and scenarios and rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock type approach of macro balance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PJetski said:

I do not agree that units need to be balanced across different grand alliances. It's a bad comparison because there are different buffs and unit synergies to consider.

Liberators are not worth their points in a Stormcast army and they are not worth their points in an Order army. They can't be used in a Chaos army, so why does it matter how they compare to Chaos Warriors?

The fact that different factions DON'T generally get different buffs/debuffs is actually a complaint i had when i first started playing, and in fact until very recently the range of available buffs has been quite narrow; reroll 1/6s, +/- 1 to hit or wound etc... everybody gets these to a greater or lesser extent. When i found a few units that halved other units move speed i got very excited! And then i found out they only halved the basic move profile, with randomized movement being uneffected. 😓

I think Deepkin is the first army to really get it's own exclusive buff/debuff in the tides and targeting restriction mechanics, so I'd argue that the points for liberators and chaos warriors are in fact linked, because despite being in different factions, they are mirror units by deliberate design.

If we're talking army-wide special rules like the tide though, then i fully agree; the rules should be unique to each faction, with internal balancing to reflect that, and the whole faction balanced vs other factions that way. However if we're talking balance by role, such as light, medium, and heavy infantry, then GW already has a pricing methodology that is range-wide:

Light; 60pts

Medium; 80-100pts

Heavy; 90-140ish points.

I honestly think the 3-consideration method suggested earlier is what they actually do though. It's what I'd do. ✌

Edited by Waiyuren
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Click5 said:

In my perfect world, GW would blow up their whole system -which I think it actually far closer to the spreadsheet formula system where x=y then people want to believe- and take a top down approach.  Something like:

Consider most decent size competitive AoS events are five rounds and 2k points, that's your baseline.  Create five different scenarios that are relatively balanced but slightly reward a specific type of strategy.  For example, maybe a Siege type scenario or zone control will favor a tankier army a bit more.  A Supply Raid scenario favors a fast elite army, so and so forth...

Now take your factions and have some number of "shells" or archetypes for each of them.  You could probably break this up into Tanky, Balanced, and Glass Cannon or something along those lines.  How this manifests in the game is where they get to be creative.  Stormcasts tanky shell is from good armor saves and defensive buffs, whereas Death keeps their horde alive by summoning.  

Now you say this shell is going to good at objectives 1 and 2, it'll be okay at objective 3, and weak at objective 4 and 5.  Now Shell B can be good at objectives 2 and 3, okay at 4, and weak at 5 and 1... This is where the vast majority of balancing should take place

Then you take your pile of models and say, "How can I get the most variety of cool stuff on the table"  and you start shoving it in different shells through different battleline or Hero requirements or restrictions, incentives and synergy.  Whatever point cost a unit or model arrives at to fit in an archetype at this point is mostly arbitrary on a macro level, but still allows for some micro adjustments to be made, but your actual game balances comes from an adherence to defined objectives and scenarios and rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock type approach of macro balance.

 

Cool idea, and completely compatible with a rational pointing system.  In fact, I'd say it would be better enabled by one in a very simple two-step process.  Something like:

  1. Vanila universal formula for consistent pointing.  This is the foundational backbone.
  2. Modify key formula variables based on shell
    • For example, the points value of wounds and saves might be tweaked down for units in the TANKY shell
    • Points value for wounds and saves might be tweaked up for GLASS CANNON, while points value for damage output tweaked down

That way, if, say, the game devolves into a TANKY meta, you don't need to go through and arbitrarily adjust things on a unit by unit, trial and error basis.  You could just tweak the tweaks you made to the TANKY shell.

And I totally agree about the value of using the objective game to help balance things.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, CentralKarma said:

 

@PJetski out of curiosity, why do you feel liberators are over costed? Personally, I think 100 points seems fair based on there role and profile.  They dont hit the hardest, but they are solid defensively and seem to synergize well with SCE.  Also, despite low bravery, having 5 2 wound models v. 10 1 wound models means they are less likely to run.  

After playing a lot of games in second edition I think Sequitors are fine at 120 (cost/impact ratio is comparable to other units) and Liberators are significantly worse. 

Liberators have not been worth their 100 points for a long time outside of the Vanguard Wing, and that battalion is deader than the Tomb Kings.

In this particular case I think that the issue is better resolved by reducing Liberators to 80 or 90 (and reducing the max unit size to 20) rather than increasing the cost of Sequitors.

Edited by PJetski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

Out of curiosity, I ran those three units through the provisional gunkulator to see what it had to say:

  • Stormvermin 141points (GHB18 140)
  • Bestigors 166 points (GHB18 120)
  • Namarti Thralls 143 points (GHB 140)

Results suggest your concern re: the Bestigor comparison is correct, though the solution might not be. 

How are you factoring in base sizes? Stormvermin on 25mm bases have a huge advantage  (attack in 2 ranks) compared to the other two, which are on 32mm bases.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, decker_cky said:

How are you factoring in base sizes? Stormvermin on 25mm bases have a huge advantage  (attack in 2 ranks) compared to the other two, which are on 32mm bases.

I'm not currently factoring it in at all.

But on that note, I am going to open a separate thread specifically for anyone who wants to help crowdsource the effort.  I've had a couple of fine fellows reach out via PM to offer assistance, which is amazing.

I'm just going through right now and trying to clean up and organize things a bit, and list out definitions and formulae, etc., to make it all more accessible.  Once I get it sorted and posted up, if you want to swing by and help us noodle through it all, please do.  The more brains we can throw at the problem, the better.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

I'm not currently factoring it in at all.

But on that note, I am going to open a separate thread specifically for anyone who wants to help crowdsource the effort.  I've had a couple of fine fellows reach out via PM to offer assistance, which is amazing.

I'm just going through right now and trying to clean up and organize things a bit, and list out definitions and formulae, etc., to make it all more accessible.  Once I get it sorted and posted up, if you want to swing by and help us noodle through it all, please do.  The more brains we can throw at the problem, the better.  

I am just afraid it will be a huge effort for no return since people will stick to GW Poont costs anyway.

Edited by JackStreicher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

I am just afraid it will be a huge effort for me return since people will stick to GW Poont costs anyway.

That's true, for me it's more for personal satisfaction as I am a massive maths nerd.

The second benefit is that you could use the tool to work out which units are (theoretically) under/overcosted and build an army around that.

If you're into number crunching that is

Edited by Retro
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Retro said:

That's true, for me it's more for personal satisfaction as I am a massive maths nerd.

The second benefit is that you could use the tool to work out which units are (theoretically) under/overcosted and build an army around that.

If you're into number crunching that is

Gunkulator points project thread is up now.  Spreadsheet and definitions and blah, blah posted there.  Your brainpower and positive attitude are needed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...