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

Powercreep - Fact Or Fiction

Recommended Posts

I really don’t see any spells doing multitudes of Mortal wounds. At best is a D6 mortals and that is often a hard one to cast outside of endless spells. And they have a mild difficulty of if you go first each turn unless it’s pendulum it can swing back over and hurt you instead or veer off into uselessness.

Outside of curse of years most mortal wound spells are pretty bland and I’ve never seen them have too much impact in games. Especially since you cannot spam any spell more than once. Playing Idoneth I prefer Riptide for the -1 hit, it does d3 on the turn after but that is only if the unit is still alive. Most of the time it isn’t.

Most of the mortal wound tend to be from monsters charging and exploding dice (6 or 6+)  mortal wounds in most games.

And got to agree 40k is way worse than  things people complain about sigmar. Though almost everything imperial and their cousins all have 4+ Rerolling invulnerable saves. Most games are smaller model counts, but only cause everyone is running Knights and all various titans. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

🤷🏼‍♂️

Dunno, they just complained that the MW Spam put them off too much also they see it as a lack of creativity that each and every spell deals a multitude of MWs instead of more interesting effects.

Do you know what armies in particular they were complaining about the mw spam of? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mayple said:

Do you know what armies in particular they were complaining about the mw spam of? 

DoK (which imo don't have that much) and IdK ( well also almost no MWs) + all kind of spells

Edited by JackStreicher

Share this post


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

DoK (which imo don't have that much) and IdK ( well also almost no MWs) + all kind of spells

Huh. Seems like they might have just been looking for an excuse to leave. 

As you say, neither of those are mw spam, and on top of that, no spell is a mw spam by itself. 

Easy to find problems if they look for it, tbh

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I just have to share this:

40k in a nutshell 

015047EA-1F28-4608-A1C5-9DE2AB8F2BAC.jpeg

007, an elite agent of Her Majesty,  won't leave space for opponents to deepstrike.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep neither of those factions do a lot of MW spam and no spells really do either, so it just seems they wanted to play 40k more, because in 40k things do a lot more damage than those two armies in AOS do.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think there does seem to be a bit of power creep, but it’s probably a bit too early to tell how bad it is. Nurgle (2018) onwards and from around the GHB2018 would be considered the latest “cycle” of battletomes.
Apart from maybe Nurgle, most of those battletomes are quite competitive (and even a few from before that like Khorne, Tzeentch and Sylvaneth).
Looking at recent tournament results, it seems like quite a wide and varied meta.
There’s no doubt that Skaven and FEC are making a splash. People will need to adjust and it’s probably too early to tell if these ones are going to dominate for a long time. We’re only a few months away from a GHB so I expect a few Skaven and FEC things to get a points tweak.

Khorne looks strong from the previews, but honestly, they’re already strong so I dunno if I’d call that power creep. It’s too early to tell without the whole book out anyway.

The MW spam is a bit of an issue though.
I’d like to see more -2 and -3 rend rather than more MW.
I’d like MW to be as rare as after saves … the ship may have sailed on that one though.

GW needs to be careful that they don’t get caught in an escalating problem. Too many MW…. Give more ward saves….. then there’s too many ward save etc….

Summoning is probably OK as long as everyone (or most) get something like it. There are strategic choices with how to deploy and block good summoning locations. Perhaps summoning can be something like 10 or 12” away instead of 9”…. Then it’s definitely something for next turn and the opponent will get a chance to respond to the new threat.

Too many endless spells and “must have” free terrain could be an issue too.
Boards can already be pretty terrain heavy, and now I get to also put 3 massive gnawholes down. Makes for a very crowded table.

Double turn…. Well, I’m still not a fan of that but it’s the same for everyone and endless spells do provide a bit of strategic choice. I like that aspect of them even if it doesn’t usually matter because most people don’t take the predatory ones that can be used against you. 
Personally I’d love to see how AOS would go with proper alternating unit activations.
It’s not a small change. It would be a significant rules and strategy re-write but I’ve always preferred games with alternating activations (like Legion, X-wing, Imperial Assault etc) than a “you go – I go” style.
It keeps players involved, makes every decision important, provides lots of risk/reward choices and minimises the alpha strike and getting shot off the table problems. 
It already works well in the AOS combat phase. Would be interesting to see how it would go across a full turn. Either alternate units during each phase or alternate a units’ full turn.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Chickenbits said:

 So I'd say there might be some powercreep, but it seems to be somewhat unintentional. 

^ this

i believe there is powercreep within the game but i want to believe it is not intentional, like the differince between the first round of battletomes vs the 1st few that introduced allegiance abilities vs aos 2.0 books. i believe its just that as time goes on they come up with new exciting ideas, the 'powercreep' comes from the fact that they then dont update the previous books to the new standard (although they are doing so now with Khorne and Flesh Eaters)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

i believe its just that as time goes on they come up with new exciting ideas, the 'powercreep' comes from the fact that they then dont update the previous books to the new standard (although they are doing so now with Khorne and Flesh Eaters)

Yep, if you only play with newish books (those with black labels post Nurgle) the game balance isn’t awful.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

It’s not a small change. It would be a significant rules and strategy re-write but I’ve always preferred games with alternating activations (like Legion, X-wing, Imperial Assault etc) than a “you go – I go” style.
It keeps players involved, makes every decision important, provides lots of risk/reward choices and minimises the alpha strike and getting shot off the table problems. 
It already works well in the AOS combat phase. Would be interesting to see how it would go across a full turn. Either alternate units during each phase or alternate a units’ full turn.

Just my opinion, but having played (and enjoyed) a lot of those systems you mentioned, I don't think it's necessary for AOS.  There isn't a big problem with Turkey Shoots currently - it's more of an issue for shooting based games that combat games.  And I love the double turn / priority roll, it's a signature mechanic and produces great moments, as well as a lot of strategic considerations to play around.

40K would benefit massively from it though.  I think at this point, it can only be stubborness that is holding GW back from adopting it.

40K definitely has the largest problems of any shooting game I've played - but then I'm also part of the problem, since I keep buying models for it anyway, because I love the models, lore and setting so much.

(FWIW, personally I think Legion has the best activation system, followed by the Warlord Games "dice bag" which opens up a lot of design space.)

Edited by PlasticCraic

Share this post


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

Just my opinion, but having played (and enjoyed) a lot of those systems you mentioned, I don't think it's necessary for AOS.  There isn't a big problem with Turkey Shoots currently - it's more of an issue for shooting based games that combat games.  And I love the double turn / priority roll, it's a signature mechanic and produces great moments, as well as a lot of strategic considerations to play around.

40K would benefit massively from it though.  I think at this point, it can only be stubborness that is holding GW back from adopting it.

40K definitely has the largest problems of any shooting game I've played - but then I'm also part of the problem, since I keep buying models for it anyway, because I love the models, lore and setting so much.

(FWIW, personally I think Legion has the best activation system, followed by the Warlord Games "dice bag" which opens up a lot of design space.)

Yep agreed. 

The activation thing was mostly due to the double turn issue.

Having a double turn would mean you could activate something first. But it restricts a bunch of spells nuking something, shooting (like you said) and movement taking over objectives. That's probably the big one. There's some missions where you're severely disadvantaged if your opponent gets to move and position themselves twice. 

Alternating hero phase stuff could be an interesting game of cat and mouse as you counter buffs with debuffs or try snipe each other's characters before they can get their abilities off. 

But I agree it's less of a problem since AOS already has alternating combat. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too early to tell.

But as always its worth noting that GW dosen't design factions with rigorous balance in mind, it designs them to simulate the character of said army on the tabletop.  Rule of Cool determines what armies do mechanics wise far, far more than anything else.

Current Abhorrent GK is a great example, it’s manifestly overpowered as a single entity, but GW are more interested in having a feverish killing machine represented on the tabletop than they are in having something proportionate to existing heroes if that isnt going to equate to something tangibly murderous on the battlefield. Granted that there’s plenty other stuff like Ironjawz who should likewise be blenders in combat who aren’t to that degree, but they were done ages ago, completely different cycle of development.

GW are far more interested  in doing something to the max *now* than they are in trying to keep things proportionate within 3 year development cycle. That’s been the case for decades and it’s not going to change. They throw all their firepower into going forward and going bigger.

They don’t sit still and they don’t stagnate as a consequence. Their innovation is what makes them so successful and a huge part of that is not being bound by what’s balanced. They go for what’s biggest, what’s most exciting, what’s the loudest they can turn up the volume on the lore and fiction which had established them so well, every time.

There hasn't ever been a balanced meta in AOS and I wouldn’t ever expect one. Inasmuch as the meta is ever balanced, it balances itself through community experience of how to beat flavour of the month netlists, exploits etc. Those will come in respect for Skaven, FEC and Khorne just as much as they have for all other armies.

Edited by Nos
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I whole heartily agree with the concept of power creep, it's definitely more prevalent in the most recent 3 books (FEC, shaven and khorne).  If you ask me its due to the age old problem of GW not play testing at all or using good players to play test.  If your play testers are not the kind of people (which they are clearly not) that can find broken combos in a book then what is the point?  All in all it seems the lack of play testing combine with a global approach to balance has created a lot of "non game games," it's very rock paper scissors at the moment.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing GW games for a LONG time. There's always been power creep. If you could assign a number to each books relative power and plotted it with release date as the X axis, it would surely look something like the plot on the bottom right of the picture; the newest isn't necessarily the most powerful, but there is a significant upward trend over time. 7th/8th it was VERY obvious. 

 

I think GW need to manage power creep a lot like governments need to manage monetary inflation. A little bit is actually good for the game. It helps encourage people to buy new things. Too much creep, like too much inflation, is disastrous, like 7th Ed Daemons caused more than one person I know to quit because they were so insanely above every other 7th ed army at the time.

scatter-plot-31-1024x627.png

 

To me, the question isn't, "Is their power creep?" I don't see how anyone can possibly think the answer to that question is anything but a definite yes.

The important question is: "Is the power creep at an acceptable level?"

Edited by 18121812
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can people possibly already count Khorne as part of a power creep, the book isn't even out yet. I cannot take anyone saying things like that seriously.

Just like when Gloomspite was on preview and people went nuts on how broken it would be. Then it turned out to be just fine.

I feel most people complaining about  a power creep or poor balance are mainly unable to take control of their own games. You can have so much influence as a player and you aren't just relying on your factions OP rules. Like Stormcast players saying they can't compete without Evocators or Undead without Grimgast Reapers.

Complaining is omnipresent, but the game right now is in a great place and every supported faction can compete.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jake3991 said:

I whole heartily agree with the concept of power creep, it's definitely more prevalent in the most recent 3 books (FEC, shaven and khorne).  If you ask me its due to the age old problem of GW not play testing at all or using good players to play test.  If your play testers are not the kind of people (which they are clearly not) that can find broken combos in a book then what is the point?  All in all it seems the lack of play testing combine with a global approach to balance has created a lot of "non game games," it's very rock paper scissors at the moment.  

It‘s funny how GW just can‘t seem to get points right or establish some balance.

it usually takes people 2 seconds and reddit to see whether a unit is viable or not (with good arguments).

That’s evidence enough for me that GW does not care at all (since they have enough resources to fix balancing and pointing rather quickly and easily)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

It‘s funny how GW just can‘t seem to get points right or establish some balance.

it usually takes people 2 seconds and reddit to see whether a unit is viable or not (with good arguments).

That’s evidence enough for me that GW does not care at all (since they have enough resources to fix balancing and pointing rather quickly and easily)

It is pretty crazy when you consider there is an entire repository of tournament statistics (the honest wargamer) basically doing the leg work for them.  That being said I never started playing GW games for the balance, it was for the popularity in my area (able to get a game) and the awesome models.  But thats a bad excuse, they should at least try and troubleshoot the worst of things happening.  A competitive, roughly balanced game is best for business as GW have found out themselves. It's even evident in their recent actions and plans to publish more updated battle tombs rather than continue to churn out stormcast. 

@Sedraxis to address what you said, the obvious issue in the Khorne battle-tomb is the endless prayers.  Its an ability you cannot counter by any means, no dispel, no method of removal and no way to avoid getting pummeled by it.  In order to do what you say "take control of you own game" you must have a play to make, this ability and many others like it recently release by GW that have no countermove degrade your ability to pull off a win by simply out playing your opponent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't seem to edit my post now, but I meant bottom left, not bottom right, which I'm sure most of you figured out anyway. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

It‘s funny how GW just can‘t seem to get points right or establish some balance.

it usually takes people 2 seconds and reddit to see whether a unit is viable or not (with good arguments).

That’s evidence enough for me that GW does not care at all (since they have enough resources to fix balancing and pointing rather quickly and easily)

They’re not interested in balance. They’re interested in making crazy and cool armies, because that’s their USP.  Pretty much all game design interviews will have the creators talk at length about what they wanted the army to feel and play like and why and that drives the overwhelming philosophy behind how it all works. I don’t recall balance or proportionate costing ever being even mentioned by a designer in the dozens of interviews and articles relating to new army books and rules etc.

There is obviously a balance of a sort in that they playtest etc but I doubt they playtest against a netlist meta. A barely serviceable characterful army is always going to trump a balanced but boring one from their perspective.

Edited by Nos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take is that power creep does happen, but it's not as bad as it's made out to be.

I know when I used to play more, when my book dropped, I'd figure out (or read online) all the great combos and use them in my games. My opponents didn't necessarily do that research, so were surprised by the changes. I had an advantage the first few games (and I totally used that to crush face!). Then they figured out both how to mitigate the strong points and exploit the weak points of my army. Until they adjust, they grumble and complain louder than a Dwarf Longbeard. No-one ever comes back and says, "yeah, it wasn't as bad as I initially thought!" Since this happens with every book dropped, it creates an atmosphere that power creep is worse than it is.

Then every-so-often, GW just gets something wrong. I'm looking at you 7th edition Daemon book! I hated playing against that army even years after the book dropped. 🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jake3991 said:

 

@Sedraxis to address what you said, the obvious issue in the Khorne battle-tomb is the endless prayers.  Its an ability you cannot counter by any means, no dispel, no method of removal and no way to avoid getting pummeled by it.  In order to do what you say "take control of you own game" you must have a play to make, this ability and many others like it recently release by GW that have no countermove degrade your ability to pull off a win by simply out playing your opponent.  

This is just not true. Prayers have a chance to unsummon themselves every turn. This is worse than endless spells by a lot because endless spells can be spammed and only 1 can be dispelled at a time and it eats an enemies casting to do it.

 

dont want the prayers on the table, kill the priest. Shooting, magic, hero sniping abilities like eotg. Saying you can’t take control of your game is admitting your bad. There is always a path to winning.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It‘s funny how GW just can‘t seem to get points right or establish some balance.

I don't think balance is really that important to them and is certainly not important to a large part of the player base either.  For those that want to win, you have to rotate your armies out and change your lists.

For those that just want to play with cool models, you come to terms with the fact you probably wont win much and be ok with playing with cool models.

If balance was a thing that people cared a lot about, AOS and 40k wouldn't be the #1 and #2 games on the market right now still.   The fact that it sells what it does is testament to how little actual balance is something that sells product and we're ok with that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

Just my opinion, but having played (and enjoyed) a lot of those systems you mentioned, I don't think it's necessary for AOS.  There isn't a big problem with Turkey Shoots currently - it's more of an issue for shooting based games that combat games.  And I love the double turn / priority roll, it's a signature mechanic and produces great moments, as well as a lot of strategic considerations to play around.

I personally think Age of Sigmar could become a whole lot more interesting if it looked at an alternate activation model similar to XWing, or most of KillTeam (although it truly baffles me that they left movement as I-Go-U-Go in that game).  But a model where you keep the concept of phases during the round but you build in alternate activations for units within each phase.  In good games of XWing there is a lot of manuevering and cat&mouse due to the way this turn sequence is structured.  KillTeam made a nice distinction by working concepts such as overwatch (Readied) into that system which allows players to tactically influence the order of unit activation.

Age of Sigmar already uses this concept during the combat phase - but that is the only place.  I would like to see movement alternating so that both armies are responding to each other's movements at the same time.  Magic would be interesting as well because you could better build the system to represent the magical wizard duel that Warhammer tried so hard though various editions to imitate.

I like the game as it currently exists, but I think there is a whole lot of really interesting space to play with in the way the turn system functions.  Fantasy Flight has done a good job of playing around in this area with their games.  Even Star Wars Legion adds an extra layer on top of traditional unit alternate activations.  Both players alternate activations fairly traditionally except that which units you can select on your turn is semi-randomized .  Then they worked their commanders & order system into the mix to allow you to select units that you can activate on your choice rather than randomly.  And then they further worked that system into a sort of blind-bluff mini game with your opponent where you juggle how many units you need to issue orders to vs how likely you are to win turn priority and get the first activation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I was slightly surprised they didn't go the whole hog with alternating movement turns in Kill Team.

I think I'd probably like to see it in AoS but then I can imagine (a) there'd be a lot of kickback from people that have always played it how it is and that style is just so historically embedded & (b) maybe it gets a lot more confusing when you're dealing with 2000+ pts games, trying to keep track of who has moved etc (though that's a fairly weak argument, I'm happy to concede).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×