Powercreep - Fact Or Fiction

[prochuvi]

That are cheap excuses. New goblins havent won any tournament and following this logic they should have won the first tournaments because people didnt know how play vs goblins.

 

That are big excuses,skavens and flesh eater battletomes are 100% the best example of POWERCREEP that we have seen in battletomes or codex in last 10 years

A example:

Loremaster of eldrith council 140 points and cast one spell then we have skaven grey seer casting two spells for 120 points

 

Gw seems dont wanna nerf nothing,they released 3 codex in a row with BIG umbalances doing them overpower(idoneth,lon and dok). They could have nerfed those battletomes and all fixed.but they have chose bring new battletomes trying compete in level of overpowereness with those 3.

The result? We are seeing the bigger powercreep in codex in all the recent gw history. Before this powercreep (lon,idoneth,dok) any and i mean ANY army could have a chance of win any game.

We had better armys than others of course,but every army even mixed order,destruction etc had a chance.but rigth now it is 100% imposible to have a non powercreep hera battletome winning a tournament

 

If some cant see this is because they are blind or dont know the meaning of powercreep

[Dead Scribe]

I don't know that its a cheap excuse.  The goblin book simply doesn't have any off the scale strong units.  It is an overall pretty solid book, just not something that screams tournament powered.  That doesn't mean its not capable in tournaments, just that the goblins are not as cost effective for points and tournament players are going to gun for the most cost effective units.

Is that power creep?  By the definition of power creep, the goblin book should also be OP, but its not.  

A real complaint may be that not all books being released are equal in their OP builds, but power creep itself is not linear here, therefore you will get disagreements that powercreep exists.

[SwampHeart]

12 minutes ago, prochuvi said:

The result? We are seeing the bigger powercreep in codex in all the recent gw history. Before this powercreep (lon,idoneth,dok) any and i mean ANY army could have a chance of win any game.

We had better armys than others of course,but every army even mixed order,destruction etc had a chance.but rigth now it is 100% imposible to have a non powercreep hera battletome winning a tournament

If that's the case then why did KO almost win CanCon? Why was CanCon won by Blades of Khorne? Why is BoC doing very well at the hands of a few skilled players? I'm not debating if power creep is real - it is, its always been there. You deal with it and move on, what I take issue with is the hyperbole in the above quote. 

[The World Tree]

 

The easier thing to say is that FEC and Skaven are pre-existing armies. People already had the models at their disposal. Most of the gitz armies are new. I do think Gitz are a more subtle army, tougher to strategise and with clear thought gone into keywords to create strong balance.

[Requizen]

19 minutes ago, prochuvi said:

That are cheap excuses. New goblins havent won any tournament and following this logic they should have won the first tournaments because people didnt know how play vs goblins.

 

That are big excuses,skavens and flesh eater battletomes are 100% the best example of POWERCREEP that we have seen in battletomes or codex in last 10 years

A example:

Loremaster of eldrith council 140 points and cast one spell then we have skaven grey seer casting two spells for 120 points

 

Gw seems dont wanna nerf nothing,they released 3 codex in a row with BIG umbalances doing them overpower(idoneth,lon and dok). They could have nerfed those battletomes and all fixed.but they have chose bring new battletomes trying compete in level of overpowereness with those 3.

The result? We are seeing the bigger powercreep in codex in all the recent gw history. Before this powercreep (lon,idoneth,dok) any and i mean ANY army could have a chance of win any game.

We had better armys than others of course,but every army even mixed order,destruction etc had a chance.but rigth now it is 100% imposible to have a non powercreep hera battletome winning a tournament

 

If some cant see this is because they are blind or dont know the meaning of powercreep

First, I don't know of any big tournaments that came out right after Gitz that allowed them. Second, as Dead Scribe said, it's a different situation. Gitz are a strong book, but there's nothing in there that's a "adapt to this or die" style of build or play. You are seeing them perform well at events, as well - just because it's not top place doesn't mean it's pointlessly bad.

Your example is pretty bad. Number of spells isn't a metric that the whole thing is based around, and you're comparing what is still a non-Tome unit to a Tome unit. Plus, the Loremaster's spell is actually really strong in a variety of builds and armies, the Grey Seer's is solid but limited in use due to range and target priority. I'd ally Loremasters in for their spell alone, I wouldn't ally Grey Seers in for that. Again, it's more complicated than picking one point of data to compare on.

Before DoK/LoN/Deepkin, it wasn't such that any army could win. There were still very strong armies (at the time, it was SCE, Tzeentch, and Fyreslayers) and very weak armies (Dispossessed, most of Skaven, Slaves to Darkness, Brayherd pre-BoC). It's very silly to think that everything was somehow perfectly balanced before those releases. 

This is also far from the biggest powercreep in GW history. If you played 40k (which I assume you did by calling things Codexes), the amount of powercreep in that game over the last decade or so has been absolutely bonkers, with 8th somewhat toning it down.

By your own logic, then BoC, Nighthaunt, and Gitz should be winning, since they are "powercreep era" Battletomes with endless spells and what not. You are contradicting yourself in literally the same post.

[King Taloren]

@prochuvi Dude! Chill! Next thing you’ll be standing outside Warhammer World waving doomday signs proclaiming the collapse of Games Workshop is nigh. 

Not going to deny powercreep but to start ranting that way is just coming off that either you are trying to be funny or trolly or you need to take a vacation right away.

[Skreech Verminking]

42 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

 

The easier thing to say is that FEC and Skaven are pre-existing armies. People already had the models at their disposal. Most of the gitz armies are new. I do think Gitz are a more subtle army, tougher to strategise and with clear thought gone into keywords to create strong balance.

True.

1 hour ago, prochuvi said:

That are cheap excuses. New goblins havent won any tournament and following this logic they should have won the first tournaments because people didnt know how play vs goblins.

 

That are big excuses,skavens and flesh eater battletomes are 100% the best example of POWERCREEP that we have seen in battletomes or codex in last 10 years

 

Gw seems dont wanna nerf nothing,they released 3 codex in a row with BIG umbalances doing them overpower(idoneth,lon and dok). They could have nerfed those battletomes and all fixed.but they have chose bring new battletomes trying compete in level of overpowereness with those 3.

1st. I don’t know how it has been in the tournament scene since the Gloomspite have been released. But still the faction is kinda new, they have gotten new models and new tactics which needs some time to understand and use.

I mean look at Boc, a few weeks after they were released, they weren’t near the top of the tournament scene, after a while they started to rise and some cunning players even got one of the top 10spots.

2. I don’t know anything about  flesh eater courts but skaven, well are strong.

They have gotten great rules which gives us skavenplayers a bigger range of options, but them beeing Oop?

I guess you could call them that but I think it’s more that our rules and warscrolls changed a bit but not massively making it for us dedicated skavenplayers much easier to see their strength, weaknesses and the Know-how to use those tricks we already had just much more efficient.

In total I think it just needs some time till the Gitzplayers find their own few tricks.

so I wouldn’t really call the gitz weak.

3dly not wanting to Nerv a very powerful or too powerful armie, seems plausible.

I mean they did it with Kharadron overlord, and I doubt the players where to fond of that, better of just powering up every other faction right? (right guys??😅)

 

[Laststand]

3 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Well I’m more or less happy that Gw seems to be interested in updating the Calvary in aos total.

I mean they always where so weak.

I for one never really understood why those lances of the Knights sometimes just didn’t have any rend when in reall live they literally pierced Armour when charging.

making the charges much more devastating, seems for my perspective logical and will make that weak range much better. Now we only have to hope that they won’t stop with khorne but will try and update all of the right now overcosted weak Calvary the highborn, dark aelves, free guilds, etc. Have 

Time for some stormvermin riding wolfrats maybe?

[Skreech Verminking]

23 minutes ago, Laststand said:

Time for some stormvermin riding wolfrats maybe?

You mean bonebracker ratogres😜right?

[Ravinsild]

Meanwhile over in the Age of Sigmar 2: Blades of Khorne discussion thread everyone seems to think we have gotten horribly nerfed and our whole book sucks. 🤷‍♂️ Hyperbole, but still, a lot of people have been pointing out that X, Y, Z were nerfed and this is worse and that's worse etc.. 

[Skreech Verminking]

8 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

Meanwhile over in the Age of Sigmar 2: Blades of Khorne discussion thread everyone seems to think we have gotten horribly nerfed and our whole book sucks. 🤷‍♂️ Hyperbole, but still, a lot of people have been pointing out that X, Y, Z were nerfed and this is worse and that's worse etc.. 

Well Daemons in particular have gotten much much better.

rhe thing I will probably enjoy playing this guys 

[Laststand]

2 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

You mean bonebracker ratogres😜right?

180pts for 3?

[Forrix]

2 hours ago, Ravinsild said:

Meanwhile over in the Age of Sigmar 2: Blades of Khorne discussion thread everyone seems to think we have gotten horribly nerfed and our whole book sucks. 🤷‍♂️ Hyperbole, but still, a lot of people have been pointing out that X, Y, Z were nerfed and this is worse and that's worse etc.. 

One thread focusing on the buffs and one thread focusing on the nerfs basically lol

[Kugane]

I think the fact that underpowered armies dont sell well. Equal power armies also dont sell well. They may feel its better to make the next army ever so slightly stronger to make sure it at least sells to the tournament crowd? On a casual level i think people can adjust their army list to be compatible.

[Sleboda]

10 hours ago, Laststand said:

Can I point out the new mightly skullcrushers rules.

A battleline unit that in units of 6 models does 6d3 mw on the charge on a 2+. And they have 5 wounds, and 6 base attacks per model on 3+, 3+.  360pts for a unit of 6. 

That is BEFORE any of the many buffs that khorne can add.

Perhaps the biggest power creep though is that they have now got a 3+ save which previously i though was limited to heroes. That single change is a 16% jump in toughness without any of the extra attack prowess that has been added. 

Yes, that individual unit, isolated from the context of the whole book, has indeed improved. Ask two things though:

- Are they too good now, or (likely, given what long time players have said about them) were they poor previously?

- How does this change work in concert with the whole revised book?

I don't have the book yet, but early reviews are saying that the book is just ... ok ... now, and less fiddly/trick reliant.

[firebat]

Not to mention in a unit of 6 one of them should fail the 2+ roll and getting 6 models of that size all within 1" of an enemy on the charge should be really hard unless your opponent doesn't know what they're doing or you're playing on an open field.

[Kitsumy]

Hmm those skulcrushers are ok on minimun size. But the buff being 6 is i think excesive.

 

They do 10 mortals on the charge as average. For 360p. Thats absolutly nuts. Only that will kill 70% of big ass beast with 400+point costs. And after tgat they will do around 16 0 rend wounds that usually will be at least 8 wounds. So on the charge they will on average do 18 wounds on any model ( more if thst model have a bad save) for 360p it is great and im not counting the new passive to reroll 1s being cloose to a hero or the banner to get more atacks etc.

 

So yeah a 360p unit killing to any big beast on average on any  big unit is pretty great

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, Laststand said:

180pts for 3?

As long as the models looks cool you can count on me supporting it.

(I for some reason have  12voices in my head, telling me to buy every skaven unit Gw will and has produce(d) (as long as it looks great and is made out of plastic)

 

[The_Yellow_Sign]

On 3/17/2019 at 7:10 PM, angrycontra said:

- Flesh eater courts. I still don't understand why people call this faction power creep. Because they have one good new hero? Sure arch-regent is great but I'd argue he is only great when he is taken the first time, second arch regent is good (since summoning pays some of those points back) but the real power is that one spell, which you can only attempt once per turn so extra arch-regents feel redundant. Fec have limited rend, limited mortal wounds, somewhat overpriced units (summoning balances this) and mediocre spell casting ability (you can take casting boost allies but honestly, try to squeeze them in Fec lists, not easy I can tell you that). That new command ability is fantastic but it's just that, a command ability. You don't have infinite points available to you and fec are lacking command point generators (if fec could take skaven warpseer in their army, I'd call them op sure). And that gristlegore general is strong, but it's just a single hero. You tie it up in melee, shoot it down or focus the rest of the army.

Limited mortal wounds? FEC has excellent MW output from Terrorgheists and Crypt Flayers. For an army with "limited mortal wounds", see Beasts of Chaos: Beasts lack MW except from one or two average spells, and lucky rolls on the (overcosted) Skyfires shooting (average 1 MW from 3 Skyfires for 200 points). 

The arch-regent is definitely undercosted since he is basically free when you summon 20 ghouls turn 1. And summoning ghouls from your opponent's board edge is generally stronger than starting them on the board.

But Gristlegore is really the biggest issue with FEC, because it is a bad play experience for a lot of armies, especially in a non-tournament setting. A game against Gristlegore is literally won in the list-building phase, and that's not a good sign. Sure, high quality shooting from Shootcast, Skaven, or KO will drop it fairly soon, but your suggestion to tie it up in melee is just laughable: its damage output is so high that very few units will be able to survive two activations from it, especially if it is buffed. Many armies simply have little to no tools to kill it or tie it up. Sure, DoK can chaff it with Morathi, and Gloomspite can hit it with Itchy Nuissance if they took it in their list and it doesn't get unbound. But what if you're playing Ironjaws, Beastclaw, Sylvaneth, etc.? Or Beasts of Chaos and you didn't pay 100 points for the Taurus Endless spell (which will often fail or be unbound to lack of Beasts' casting bonuses)? Then you just straight up lose and get tabled as 6 Terrorgheists activate before you even get an activation and table your army.

[Kamose]

Can i just take this moment to say that, as a Seraphon player, I can remember when everyone was freaking out about unkillable Bastiladons and Ripperdactyls with infinite attacks?  In the words of Hunter S. Thompson:

"Playing Seraphon in the middle of 2015 was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run . . . but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were playing the unbeatable cheese army in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant. . . .

So now, less than three years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the meta finally broke and rolled back."

😎

[Dead Scribe]

 But what if you're playing Ironjaws, Beastclaw, Sylvaneth, etc.? Or Beasts of Chaos 

I would say that if you care about winning that you wouldn't be playing those armies.  If you care about winning then you need to find a list that can deal with the top dog stuff.  

[Saxon]

9 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't know that its a cheap excuse.  The goblin book simply doesn't have any off the scale strong units.  It is an overall pretty solid book, just not something that screams tournament powered.  That doesn't mean its not capable in tournaments, just that the goblins are not as cost effective for points and tournament players are going to gun for the most cost effective units.

Is that power creep?  By the definition of power creep, the goblin book should also be OP, but its not.  

A real complaint may be that not all books being released are equal in their OP builds, but power creep itself is not linear here, therefore you will get disagreements that powercreep exists.

Lol Boingrot Bounderz

[Requizen]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

 

 

I would say that if you care about winning that you wouldn't be playing those armies.  If you care about winning then you need to find a list that can deal with the top dog stuff.  

What does winning mean in this context though? I'd argue those armies can easily go positive at events with the right general and build. If you're talking about "chasing the meta" and aiming for 5-0 at big tournaments... that's almost another game entirely. 

With a few exceptions I think most factions in the game can go to an event and win more than they lose, and with a good run can even place quite high. But there's always going to be one or two oppressive builds and that's just part of a game this big and shifting. 

[svnvaldez]

1 hour ago, Requizen said:

What does winning mean in this context though? I'd argue those armies can easily go positive at events with the right general and build. If you're talking about "chasing the meta" and aiming for 5-0 at big tournaments... that's almost another game entirely. 

I think "What does winning mean in this context though" underlies this entire discussion. Who are the people complaining of "power creep" and why?  Are your games at your local store or with buddies not fun anymore because one player is using an old book and the other player is using a new book and each feel like the game is "inbalanced"? Are you a tournament player and upset that what you use to use to go 5-0 is no longer "on meta"?  

3 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I would say that if you care about winning that you wouldn't be playing those armies.  If you care about winning then you need to find a list that can deal with the top dog stuff.  

Yea this is what confuses me with the word "power creep". As a tournament player I just ask myself what is "good" and what is "bad". I am using those words very loosely. What I really mean is what can help me place as high as possible.  I then take the list that helps me win. I'm not looking at "power creep" I'm looking at efficiencies. The frost phoenix are one of the earliest scrolls of AOS. I can still build a list around them.

I read the BCR scrolls and points and I can't build a list around them so I pass. I have a large BCR collection. Yes I would like a new tome with new tricks. But I'm also okay just using BCR to play with friends and the models I like and if I want to win I would take a different army.

FEC have builds I can win with... so do Skaven. Is that "power creep"? Does it matter if it is? I play MTG and the Golgari Midrange deck I was placing well with under Guilds of Ravnica doesn't have the same bite it use to. It can still win games and I still have fun with  it. But if I want to take the game seriously I invest in a Sultai Midrange deck of Ravnica Allegiance which has a similar feel and core to my old deck but has new cards. Is that a bad thing that my deck evolved? I guess the big difference there is a Golgari and a Sultai deck do have similar cards so I don't feel like I'm completely throwing my old deck away when I want to up the power. This is why I preferred Mixed builds under GH1. But alot of players felt that it was not immersive to field a StoneRukk and GW has completely shifted the power away from mixed builds to tome armies.

I don't think tome armies are a problem either. They are just different to mixed. I now just collect the entire destruction range. I have a BS, IJ, BCR, Gloomspite, and a Gutbuster army. They all look great on the shelf and are fun to play with. When I want to win games I take what I perceive to be the strongest of those armies and stack the CA of the Big Boss and roll a ton of dice with a the Krukk.

[svnvaldez]

14 hours ago, prochuvi said:

The result? We are seeing the bigger powercreep in codex in all the recent gw history. Before this powercreep (lon,idoneth,dok) any and i mean ANY army could have a chance of win any game.

Haha clearly you don't remember Changehost or Vwing teleports into combat. Pull up LVO 2018 placings. If you weren't using exploits of setups you could just pack up your models during the pairings at the top tables.

Those two lists were not good because of power creep. They were good because the rules of the game were poorly written and easily exploited. Imo now the games rules are much better. In the sense that yes some armies are better than others but there are far less game breaking exploits that I am aware of. The game could do without CA stacking imo but that rarely breaks a game like Changehost or Vwing.

I truly believe all black label AOS2 books can compete and my hope is this continues and all armies get updated consistently.