Attack 2x command abilities

[Eevika]

9 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Gitz are very strong, but much like SCE they have a lot of stuff that isn't really applicable at the top of match play. Playing a faction in matched play, and playing a faction competitively are not the same thing, people do a huge disservice to books by inferring they are.

Gitz are literally worse Skaven. Their book is ridiculously restrictive and overcosted. Not having mount traits and command traits and artefacts are almost all restricted to a single model leaving out Fungoid and Hag for example. Not even mentioning how over costed stuff like Troggboss and Dankhold Troggoth are... The book can do one thing ok and thats stacking a massive ammount of -1 to hit debuffs which is just a very toxic way of playing. 

[Dead Scribe]

I think to a lot of people, playing competitively and playing matched play are the same thing, so you will see the language reflect that.

[Eevika]

The Gitz allengiance ability is also horrid and the lack of Houses/lofts or what ever makes them weak.

[whispersofblood]

16 minutes ago, Eevika said:

Gitz are literally worse Skaven. Their book is ridiculously restrictive and overcosted. Not having mount traits and command traits and artefacts are almost all restricted to a single model leaving out Fungoid and Hag for example. Not even mentioning how over costed stuff like Troggboss and Dankhold Troggoth are... The book can do one thing ok and thats stacking a massive ammount of -1 to hit debuffs which is just a very toxic way of playing. 

There is a substantial difference between having fewer options and being categorically worse. Why is it toxic? If we are going to start labelling mechanics with moralistic terms this conversation is going to end right quick.

[sal4m4nd3r]

20 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I think this is working as designed to get you to buy a newer army.

I have an ongoing friendly argument with a close friend of mine about whether GW is Evil (hyperbole) because they are doing this.. or his side of the debate that they are just incompetent and dont see how this is breaking the game. 

[Dead Scribe]

I am doubtful that they are incompetent.  I think how they are designing the game and building the imbalances is purposeful.  It is also appealing to its target audience.

I think that if someone does not like the list building emphasis or does not like how the armies change power every year forcing a rebuy of armies, that AOS is probably not for that person because that seems to be its target audience.

[whispersofblood]

1 minute ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

I have an ongoing friendly argument with a close friend of mine about whether GW is Evil (hyperbole) because they are doing this.. or his side of the debate that they are just incompetent and dont see how this is breaking the game. 

Well they are stuck in between a rock and hard place. Do they do what they think will make the game better giving the opportunity (ie releasing new books with "stronger" mechanics) or do they drip feed the development of their new game to keep older books relevant (by slowly increasing the mechanics of factions generationally, which in the long term increases the cost of developing the game).

I think given the huge turn outs AoS events are having they have chosen the correct path, but it is an equally valid opinion to hold that it does damage to people who are invested in those older factions. Given that most of the game even in the age of newly powerful abilities is still very interactive, and better play still wins games more often then not that the path we are on is a strong choice for Age of Sigmar, but it may not be good for quite a few factions. 

[SwampHeart]

27 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

...does not like how the armies change power every year forcing a rebuy of armies...

From my time at GW they don't really see it this way. They assume that most players identify with a faction rather than a specific list and as such will build a larger than 'single list' collection of that faction. How true that is is obviously very difficult to discern but I know that when I worked for GW many of my customers very much identified as a 'Skaven Player' or a 'High Elf Player' and bought in excess of their tournament list. Assuming that you do this (build a collection rather than a list) then GW's changes year over year have less of an impact because you have a large pool of models to select from to account for those changes. 

There are of course players who literally buy only a tournament list and then either sell it or only expand it when rules change and so of course their financial investment each year at GHB time is higher however as your time in the hobby lengthens this tends to be less of an issue because you simply have enough stuff to adapt to changes without new purchases. At its core there are 3 parts of the hobby and collecting is one of those parts - GW as a company still works to engage customers interested in any of the 3 given phases of the hobby.  

[Dead Scribe]

Assuming that is correct, then they are intentionally doing a disservice to a lot of people who identify as a high / light elf player or a dark / shadow elf player or a wood / wanderer elf player or a slaves to darkness player or a duardin player or a kharadron overlords player or an iron jaws player or an ogor player or a human free guild player (or anything else I've missed) because no amount of collecting will see those factions viable on the table currently today or most of AOS's history.

[Zanzou]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

I think to a lot of people, playing competitively and playing matched play are the same thing, so you will see the language reflect that.

This is a little off-topic but I think "matched play"rules have long since become the defacto rules to play Age of Sigmar in general, as it is the only thing that makes it a balanced experience.  Competitive play is quite a separate matter to me.

[Dead Scribe]

I would agree, matched play rules are pretty much the only thing I have ever seen played.  Even on the web, 99% of the discussion is on matched play games.  To a competitive person, the two things are one and the same.  Though I can see how someone could say you can play matched play without playing competitively (with top of the line lists).  I suppose that is also true in regards to narrative and open.  You could play those competitively as well (the only narrative games I have ever witnessed were in fact tournament style games with a story behind them calling them "narrative play")

Edited May 28, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[SwampHeart]

20 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Assuming that is correct, then they are intentionally doing a disservice to a lot of people who identify as a high / light elf player or a dark / shadow elf player or a wood / wanderer elf player or a slaves to darkness player or a duardin player or a kharadron overlords player or an iron jaws player or an ogor player or a human free guild player (or anything else I've missed) because no amount of collecting will see those factions viable on the table currently today or most of AOS's history.

This has always been the case and isn't new to AoS. GW has never been particularly good at balancing games and their release schedule is a part of that. Through my history of WHFB/AoS (starting in 5th edition WHFB) there have always been haves and have nots. How people respond to this varies from person to person - some people collect different armies, some people just deal with and wait for their turn around the wheel, some people work to excel despite where their army exists in the tiers (see players who have have success with KO despite their overall power level). This is simply how GW chooses to do business - they approach their customer base from a broad angle and know that they have customers who don't care about the power level or competitive viability of their army. 

This isn't to suggest GW doesn't care (or does) about balance, just that they certainly understand their customer base exists in different phases of the hobby. 

[Forrix]

27 minutes ago, Zanzou said:

This is a little off-topic but I think "matched play"rules have long since become the defacto rules to play Age of Sigmar in general, as it is the only thing that makes it a balanced experience.  Competitive play is quite a separate matter to me.

Basically yes. Only thing I've seen played that didn't use match play was Path to Glory but even then you get bonuses if their points are 2x more than yours. Narrative games still use the match play points and rules as a balancing mechanism. I think the "3 ways to play" as advertised by GW really only exists in their head. The matched play system serves as the bedrock for everything else rather than being its own separate distinct thing.

[HammerOfSigmar]

Even among those fight twice ability, there is difference among them, most are you can pick a unit twice to do pile in and fight. The FEC is special, it fight the second time immediately after the first time, which gives the opponent no chance to do any counter-attack, which is an awful desgin in my opinion.

[Kramer]

43 minutes ago, Forrix said:

Basically yes. Only thing I've seen played that didn't use match play was Path to Glory but even then you get bonuses if their points are 2x more than yours. Narrative games still use the match play points and rules as a balancing mechanism. I think the "3 ways to play" as advertised by GW really only exists in their head. The matched play system serves as the bedrock for everything else rather than being its own separate distinct thing.

It excists in my head as well, if that helps  

Yes points across the board for all types of play. But by calling a game narrative, matched or open it sets an expectation between everyone in our playgroup. Open is least played, usually as a practice game or to play with new toys. (the sigmarite frigate springs to mind, when a mate played his frigate for the first time when killed a 'new' one would drop from the sky, just so he could be a bit reckless and beat new model syndrome  )
Narrative immediately puts the focus on having fun through the proces of the battle (usually tournament) even if we use points, allegiance abilities etc. 
Matched is to test our skills/lists to the limits, but for us after two or three of those games it becomes boring without having a whole reserve bench of units to include in the next games.

Listening to the podcasts it seems the designers see it more as a promise to themselves to make sure all archetypes of players have a way to enjoy the hobby. (Which funnily enough they based on actual people and have picture of hanging somewhere to remind themselves not to only design for themselves, I think it was the Ben Johnson StormCast where he told this story)

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, Eevika said:

Gitz are literally worse Skaven. Their book is ridiculously restrictive and overcosted. 

Gitz have (at least) two things that are fantastic:

1. A moon that can do multiple mortal wounds to any model anywhere on the table, and it cannot be blocked, and does not cost the Gitz player any effort. It's literally a free character killer with zero need to take action to make it happen.

2. Manglers. These things destroy other stuff that supposedly can fight (had my Bloodthirsters one-hitted a number of times now).

[Eevika]

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

Gitz have (at least) two things that are fantastic:

1. A moon that can do multiple mortal wounds to any model anywhere on the table, and it cannot be blocked, and does not cost the Gitz player any effort. It's literally a free character killer with zero need to take action to make it happen.

2. Manglers. These things destroy other stuff that supposedly can fight (had my Bloodthirsters one-hitted a number of times now).

Moon only works if you roll well. Manglers arent even played in competitive lists becouse they arent that good. Literally grots and magic are the viable things. 

[Mutton]

5 hours ago, Eevika said:

Gitz are literally worse Skaven. Their book is ridiculously restrictive and overcosted. Not having mount traits and command traits and artefacts are almost all restricted to a single model leaving out Fungoid and Hag for example. Not even mentioning how over costed stuff like Troggboss and Dankhold Troggoth are... The book can do one thing ok and thats stacking a massive ammount of -1 to hit debuffs which is just a very toxic way of playing. 

Have to agree with some of this. Gitz have a number of overcosted units (Poor, poor Dankholds, I really hope you go down in the next GHB). Their battalions are way too specific, with no viable options for people with mixed armies. Their allegiance ability is pretty random and can't be relied on...and they aren't even that good when they do work. Our terrain piece is boring and has almost never affected my games at all (I wish we could bring back ANY battleline on a 4+).

That all said, I don't think they're bad---they need some point reductions and more battalion options.

[Eevika]

1 minute ago, Mutton said:

Have to agree with some of this. Gitz have a number of overcosted units (Poor, poor Dankholds, I really hope you go down in the next GHB). Their battalions are way too specific, with no viable options for people with mixed armies. Their allegiance ability is pretty random and can't be relied on...and they aren't even that good when they do work. Our terrain piece is boring and has almost never affected my games at all (I wish we could bring back ANY battleline on a 4+).

That all said, I don't think they're bad---they need some point reductions and more battalion options.

Yeah they arent bad and I enjoy playing my troggoth army but compare gitz to the two books that came after them. Skaven and FeC we are so lack luster. 

[Laststand]

22 hours ago, Graftonianman said:

Bring some chaff to eat up the first pile in.

I used to think the undead resurrection of a dead 40 skeletons was broken until I learned how to deal with it. 

It’s a new trick; its awe will fade as players learn how to face it. 

So I'll bring extra chaff to take the hit from the first pile in and enough to be a general screen too. Fine, I have potentially dealt with the problem for a round at least but in the meantime I may have had to spend 200pts on rubbish that my opponent didnt spend. That puts me 10% behind just to be able to play the game. 

My point is everything can be dealt with if you dedicate enough of your army to countering but eventually theres a line where you dont leave yourself enough to win.  

[whispersofblood]

15 minutes ago, Laststand said:

So I'll bring extra chaff to take the hit from the first pile in and enough to be a general screen too. Fine, I have potentially dealt with the problem for a round at least but in the meantime I may have had to spend 200pts on rubbish that my opponent didnt spend. That puts me 10% behind just to be able to play the game. 

My point is everything can be dealt with if you dedicate enough of your army to countering but eventually theres a line where you dont leave yourself enough to win.  

Your army doesn't already have chaff? I'm confused what do you think chaff is for?

[SwampHeart]

31 minutes ago, Eevika said:

Skaven and FeC we are so lack luster. 

Skaven and FEC are so bizarrely aberrant that its wild.  

[Skabnoze]

The recent development trend of messing with the timing of attacks (attack first, attack last) and combined with more abilities to attack more than once per turn feels like it is really stretching the core rules close to the breaking point.  I don't have an issue with any of these types of abilities, but the core combat rules were not written with clear timing steps to help facilitate concepts like this.  Most modern games have this (even KillTeam does) and it shows how stripped-back the AoS core rules are (even for 2.0).

I agree that these types of abilities can be extremely potent and the devs should be careful when considering where and when to give access to these abilities.  However, my main concern is that these rules feel really bolted-onto the rules framework and they either already have, or are going to, lead to lots of weird issues requiring errata or clarification.  To me it feels like the time is right for GW to update the core rules with an explicit timing sequence to the combat phase that these rules can tap into.  They could easily put this update into the GHB.  It would not need to massively change the game, but simply give them a better framework for integrating these types of rules into the game.

[Laststand]

48 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Your army doesn't already have chaff? 

It does but my point is on 'extra chaff' to counter the extra pile in. Then something else to counter a different horrible ability. Eventually a list writes itself with counters and you dont have much left to use for your game plan. 

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Eevika said:

Moon only works if you roll well. Manglers arent even played in competitive lists becouse they arent that good. Literally grots and magic are the viable things. 

Well, my experience has been totally different. My regular opponent uses two every game and they (as well as fanatics) have been the MVPs each time.

As to rolling well for the moon, yeah, sure, just like any other ability. The thing is, that's all it takes. No model on the table. No positioning. No line of sight. No range. No point cost. Nothing.  Just roll a die and profit.

Compare, as a simple example, to a Slaughterpriest. Got to have a model on the table. Got to get the target within range. Got to roll well (that's what they have in common) but a bad roll can kill the Slaughterpriest whereas a bad roll for the moon is just a failed attempt.

My point about the moon is not even that it's too good.  It's just not fun and it cannot be countered.