Buffs/Debuffs in the new edition

[Glaurung]

AoS has seen a huge development over the last two years. In particular, in this edition, we start to see that there are increasingly more and more ways an opponent can buff or debuff units. Once a -1 to hit was truly a gift, now many battletomes have access to multiple sources of this and much more. One could have a 1+ save (so 2+ ignoring -1 rend) rerolling 1s, -2 attacks and so on, +3 attacks.
I think that in this edition we are getting to a point that there's too much spam of these and I would like to have a matched paly rule that stated "A unit can't be affected by the same bonus/malus to its to hit, to wound, attacks or save values more than once", (just an example, basically everything except for bravery).
This way I think the discrepancy between some new armies and the older ones would get reduced.
What do you think? Share your opinion!

[PJetski]

I think it's mostly fine. There may be some outliers, but those should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not a sweeping global change to every unit in the game.

[kenshin620]

To be fair 2.0 also introduced Natural 6's.

Many units, especially ones that relied on To Hits of 6+, would find their special abilities canceled by a simple -1 To Hit debuff.

On the other hand this also means positive modifiers don't affect these abilities, much to the dismay of some units like Bullgors (the Doombull's command ability gives +1 To Wound, which doesn't help their ability).

And also Wholly Within Range has cut down the Death Star units or daisy chaining considerably that were very prevalent in 1.0....if of course they changed the range to be Wholly Within.

 

Also as an aside, you seem to be asserting there being a discrepancy between 2.0 Battletomes and 1.0 Battletomes. Theres only been 3 2.0 books, which are SCE, BoC, and NH. I'm not sure if those are the armies people usually are thinking of being the most dominant in buffs and debuffs. Except maybe trying to make SCE unkillable walls with buffed armor.

[azdimy]

Coming up with a rule of one would be much easier than updating the worse one here and there. The one that could stack without breaking the game don tneed to!

[Glaurung]

2 hours ago, kenshin620 said:

To be fair 2.0 also introduced Natural 6's.

Many units, especially ones that relied on To Hits of 6+, would find their special abilities canceled by a simple -1 To Hit debuff.

On the other hand this also means positive modifiers don't affect these abilities, much to the dismay of some units like Bullgors (the Doombull's command ability gives +1 To Wound, which doesn't help their ability).

And also Wholly Within Range has cut down the Death Star units or daisy chaining considerably that were very prevalent in 1.0....if of course they changed the range to be Wholly Within.

 

Also as an aside, you seem to be asserting there being a discrepancy between 2.0 Battletomes and 1.0 Battletomes. Theres only been 3 2.0 books, which are SCE, BoC, and NH. I'm not sure if those are the armies people usually are thinking of being the most dominant in buffs and debuffs. Except maybe trying to make SCE unkillable walls with buffed armor.

LoN and Nurgle can give -2 or more to hit, the first one also has -1 or -2 attacks.
Idoneth can give +4 attacks to 3 units with Volturnos.
Stormcast can have unkillable models with +2 save.

 

If I look at FEC Fireslayers, KO, Sylvaneth, Chaos, they have no things like that and I think that they are becoming too common, you just use them without any tactics. But I understand your point, I just wanted to listen to other opinions.

[PJetski]

9 minutes ago, Glaurung said:

Stormcast can have unkillable models with +2 save.

Rend? Mortal wounds? Kill the support heroes giving them save bonuses?

Nothing is unkillable.

[kenshin620]

34 minutes ago, Glaurung said:

LoN and Nurgle can give -2 or more to hit, the first one also has -1 or -2 attacks.
Idoneth can give +4 attacks to 3 units with Volturnos.
Stormcast can have unkillable models with +2 save.

 

Ahh ok you were referring to the "1.5" books that came slightly before the edition change, thats what I was a bit confused about. 

 

Well to be fair it's less new books are super problematic (except you DoK, I got my eye on you! 🤣) as more so the old books are...old. Many old books at this point are glorified GHB Allegiances.

[King Taloren]

As a note the - hits in nurgle mostly involve taking plaguebearers en mass. And while a fairly tanky unit they don’t really do much else but play anvils. I think there is a spell that also provides a minus one but it is also fairly difficult at times to get it cast.

Volturnos also takes command points which while Idoneth and DoK are very command point efficient if you can force them to spend them by causing bravery tests to cause potentially big losses that can remove a lot of +1 attacks. Outside of Morsarr they are not that tanky and don’t have the highest bravery. Just one model is enough to cause a failure as long as there isn’t a bravery buff nearby.

[Waiyuren]

9 hours ago, kenshin620 said:

Also as an aside, you seem to be asserting there being a discrepancy between 2.0 Battletomes and 1.0 Battletomes. Theres only been 3 2.0 books, which are SCE, BoC, and NH. I'm not sure if those are the armies people usually are thinking of being the most dominant in buffs and debuffs. Except maybe trying to make SCE unkillable walls with buffed armor.

I don't disagree, but just as a point of order, legions, daughters, maggotkin, and idoneth were all written for 2.0 too. So 7 books by my count.

Edit: to clarify, they were written with the 2.0 rules in mind, which were being worked on at the same time.

[Eevika]

Well playing Moonclan I just find it kind of funny how much stuff other armies get and soon I will join those armies!. Just yesterday I was playing against stormcast and it was just insane how every unit has some buffs and re rolls and stuff. Newer armies have really power creeped alot. 

[AaronWilson]

I'd rather things just not stack, I don't mind stacking different named abilities but stacking command abilities (like Waaagh!!!) isn't for me. 

[Glaurung]

12 hours ago, King Taloren said:

As a note the - hits in nurgle mostly involve taking plaguebearers en mass. And while a fairly tanky unit they don’t really do much else but play anvils. I think there is a spell that also provides a minus one but it is also fairly difficult at times to get it cast.

Volturnos also takes command points which while Idoneth and DoK are very command point efficient if you can force them to spend them by causing bravery tests to cause potentially big losses that can remove a lot of +1 attacks. Outside of Morsarr they are not that tanky and don’t have the highest bravery. Just one model is enough to cause a failure as long as there isn’t a bravery buff nearby.

If you consider LoN, they can give you -1 to hit and -1 to your attacks pretty easily (with Nagash, but also with Legion of Sacrament); if they roll a natural 9+, they double it (-2 to hit or attacks). Then, if you play with the realms, they could also have another -1 to hit...

Playing at 1000 points, you can absolutely play with Volturnos and eels: they are fast and can avoid real confrontation. When they charge, they kill what they touch, it's statistical... I am not saying that this is unbeatable, you can play around it, but when I hear that 3 units can have +3 or +4 attacks (on three different profiles) and attack first, I just think "What the hell..."

I think that -1 on a unit is ok, it's a debuff, but when you start to have -2... I saw a unit of Morghast with 1 attack, hitting on 6s... Ok, that was lucky, but is this mechanic taking away the fun of using your own models?
I mean, we all want to move, attack, kill something. I find it frustrating that there are so many debuffs. When they were a rare thing it was ok, but now we have so many sources...
Furthermore, in my opinion that's not easy to balance, because that way you are rendering useless a whole unit. How do you value a model that can do this?


I'm glad this post ha sbecome popular, I just wanted to see wether it's only a problem that I created in my own mind or something real.

[Skrekkugle]

Glad to see I'm not the only one worried about the Deepkin buffs. Think it's a weird choice to specifically remove the stacking from LoN and let an even more OP ability stay in Deepkin. Of course, my regular opponent just picked up Deepkin so I'm a little biased

[Knight Scáthach of Fimm]

If you've ever had to shift Longbeards or Ironbreakers from cover you'll know that buffs are needed as magic doesn't work well against them. Also implementing a cap to buffs would end Freeguild entirely as their primary strength is the ability to take a mediocre unit and make it powerful with synergy. Freeguild Guard hit on 2s most of the time using just model numbers to get a +2 or even +3 bonus.

[Zambo]

For me it started with Sylvaneth book played a guy who put 14 citadel woods down which I lost models through his guys had 3+ / 2+ re rolling 1s saves it was about as even a contest as 1st day of the Somme! 

Things have progressively creeped since then to the point that even in friendly games a lot of matchups are over by turn 2 and are a forgone conclusion after deployment 

my Christmas wish is that GW spend a year releasing armybooks for all factions aka 40K that addresses this issue I would happily not see a NEW army in 2019 but a bit of love for the old guard 

[Glaurung]

49 minutes ago, Knight Scáthach of Fimm said:

If you've ever had to shift Longbeards or Ironbreakers from cover you'll know that buffs are needed as magic doesn't work well against them. Also implementing a cap to buffs would end Freeguild entirely as their primary strength is the ability to take a mediocre unit and make it powerful with synergy. Freeguild Guard hit on 2s most of the time using just model numbers to get a +2 or even +3 bonus.

That imho is a bad design choice: they should be better than this, just a lame +2 or 3 to hit is boring. Give them orders, like guard in 40k or something else.
They can and should be entirely reworked, from what I've seen they just create a box and shoot.

[Kramer]

I think the idea of stacking is cool. But design wise it creates so much unforseen interactions that it's either weirdly powerful or close to useless unless you stack it. 

I sometimes wish GW would take the easy road to keep things streamlined (and with that controlable) a bit more. Same with rule stacking, I miss the simplicity of the launch of AoS. 

[chord]

1 minute ago, Kramer said:

I think the idea of stacking is cool. But design wise it creates so much unforseen interactions that it's either weirdly powerful or close to useless unless you stack it. 

I sometimes wish GW would take the easy road to keep things streamlined (and with that controlable) a bit more. Same with rule stacking, I miss the simplicity of the launch of AoS. 

Agreed when it was just warscrolls and battalions there were way less issues with stacking, etc

[JackStreicher]

Your poll lacks a „neither“ option or at least a „restricted stacking of buffs“

[Knight Scáthach of Fimm]

2 hours ago, Glaurung said:

That imho is a bad design choice: they should be better than this, just a lame +2 or 3 to hit is boring. Give them orders, like guard in 40k or something else.
They can and should be entirely reworked, from what I've seen they just create a box and shoot.

Well then you ought to see some more.

[Vextol]

This question caused me some hurt.  I struggled to decide.  I love stacking buffs, because you absolutely need to sometimes.  I also hate stacking because it makes stupid combos that then require stacking to counter.  I mean...it is what it is but this stacking thing is out of control mostly because of the continual weakening of shooting and "hero sniping".  It's not just the 2.0 overhaul to command abilities and such.

I ended up saying "no" because as the game stands, it's too much, but I'm worried without it, the armies that benefit the most would just become more powerful.

Plague bearers suck against almost everything.  They're slow and they don't do any damage.  Why would we nerf them?  They serve a purpose and thats it.  

If GW breaks the eels I'm selling all my stuff.  I went through it with BCR, and Kharadrons, I don't want to do it again.  If you break their charge buffs or +4 attack maneuver (that's what it is, and it happens mid game) you better up their save or wounds or let the scary ocean of Doom block magic because I'm sick of this idea that you simply break something powerful and don't try to help them anywhere else.  It's how you kill a unit and it's how you kill a faction.  In GW style, they usually break the unit then INCREASE their points.  And once they do it, it can take years to fix if ever.  Drives me nuts. 

Stacking is the thing right now.  It's literally intended with the "double cast" thing with death.  I think it needs to be reigned in, but not with core rules.  Reign it in by unnerfing shooting a little, adding some new artifacts, adding some new spells, new game features, terrain stuff, new units to OLD armies or redoing garbage unused models into something viable and interesting.  Noone would get mad that a unit they don't use is now cool.  We don't always have to "take away".  Sometimes it's more fun to add.

[AaronWilson]

I think we need to be clear what we mean by stacking, are we talking different abilities to stack a different? Like Geminids, Treelord Ancient Stomp and Dryads -1 to hit near a wood for a total of -3 

Or are we talking about stacking the same named ability, like Soul Scryers, Gavriel Surecharge, Waaaghhss etc?

For me, the first part is just part of the rules. Finding combinations and making them work I think is what makes the game so interesting and synergistic. Stacking the same rule more then once because it's very good for me defeats the point of that, it lacks needing to find synergies within a army when you can overload a single thing. 

[Vextol]

4 hours ago, AaronWIlson said:

I think we need to be clear what we mean by stacking, are we talking different abilities to stack a different? Like Geminids, Treelord Ancient Stomp and Dryads -1 to hit near a wood for a total of -3 

Or are we talking about stacking the same named ability, like Soul Scryers, Gavriel Surecharge, Waaaghhss etc?

I think the OP was talking about stacking similar effects in all forms:  

"...Once a -1 to hit was truly a gift, now many battletomes have access to multiple sources of this and much more. One could have a 1+ save (so 2+ ignoring -1 rend)rerolling..."

"...I would like to have a matched paly rule that stated "A unit can't be affected by the same bonus/malus to its to hit, to wound, attacks or save values more than once..."

Still, volturnos and several other units would need to drop drastically in points and seraphon would basically need a rewrite (already kind of do) if you got rid of command point stacking.  Tons of armies would need to be completely redone if you got rid of stacking to the extent the OP was suggesting.  

[King Taloren]

30 minutes ago, Vextol said:

 

Still, volturnos and several other units would need to drop drastically in points and seraphon would basically need a rewrite (already kind of do) if you got rid of command point stacking.  Tons of armies would need to be completely redone if you got rid of stacking to the extent the OP was suggesting.  

Yeah. Dropping that kind of stacking would kind of defeat the purpose of what the ability is for. Otherwise I’d want volturnos to work every turn in exchange with the point adjustment. It was what the entire army was kind of based around was to have a super killer turn three and the other rounds supporting good manuvers to get there and get out/mop up. It’s very effective but it still rewards good play to hold back and screen or take out easier targets before landing the hammer where it should.

 

. Orks can waghh every turn. ID is only good for turn three and best case scenario is to go first and then get double turned so the bonus lasts for three turns (it lasts until next hero phase). Most of time it lasts for one or two turns at best. And easiest counterplay is to just leave combat on your turn three so you avoid at least one part of the slaughter. 

[AaronWilson]

2 hours ago, Vextol said:

I think the OP was talking about stacking similar effects in all forms:  

"...Once a -1 to hit was truly a gift, now many battletomes have access to multiple sources of this and much more. One could have a 1+ save (so 2+ ignoring -1 rend)rerolling..."

"...I would like to have a matched paly rule that stated "A unit can't be affected by the same bonus/malus to its to hit, to wound, attacks or save values more than once..."

Still, volturnos and several other units would need to drop drastically in points and seraphon would basically need a rewrite (already kind of do) if you got rid of command point stacking.  Tons of armies would need to be completely redone if you got rid of stacking to the extent the OP was suggesting.  

But in AoS 1 those armies worked just fine with no CA stacking?