Attack 2x command abilities

[PJetski]

34 minutes ago, Laststand said:

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. 

If you plan ahead you can position your important models out of range of the second pile in (usually >4" from the front line). They'll hit the screen, kill it, then stop.

[Eevika]

3 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

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

You do realise no other army needs to roll to see if its allegiance ability works at all. Its unreliable and bad. 

[Grailstorm]

11 hours ago, Kasper said:

You are assuming all combat armies have equal stats/abilities and aren't semi balanced around the fact that an army got niches and CAN fight twice. I'm not saying Slaanesh or FEC are 100% balanced, and I can certainly understand the frustration of fighting them, only to see your heroes/units wiped off the table before you got a chance to play with your toys, despite doing a charge. My point is that you can't just take 2 heroes from each and compare them like that.

Also you are comparing Ironjawz to new battletomes. It is absolutely no secret that the new battletomes are miles ahead of the older tomes or even an army that doesn't have a tome, so your experience will obviously be way different/worse. Armies with tomes in AoSv2 are VERY strong, so new tomes kind of have to give the army a certain oompf which Slaanesh certainly lacked previously.

Is it fun to play vs Focus of Diversion? I can see the frustration, but I think it is better than "I attack first" because there is zero counter to that, where as you can bring multiple units into combat to negate the Focus of Diversion, so there is at least more room for interaction.

The armies are clearly not balanced around the fact they can fight twice. The points cost for all units are roughly the same as before the ability was introduced. In some cases, they are lower.

It wasn’t my intention to compare Ironjawz as an army to other, newer armies. 

I was just using them to illustrate the power of command abilities. I’m not complaining about the power of Khorne, Slaanesh or FEC. I’m bemoaning the fact that this specific command ability is ruining the game.

The Megaboss command ability is great – and was one of the better combat command abilities in the game until the addition of attack 2x. Now, this new ability nukes all previous combat command abilities.

+1 attack? +1 to hit? These are nothing in comparison.

The fact that some armies can spend 1 CP to use such a hugely powerful ability, and some armies cannot, is the definition of imbalance. Especially when the reward is 2, 3, 4, or even 5x as good.

Imagine Nighthaunt could make Bladegheists attack 2x rather than adding one attack.

Imagine Ironjawz could make Brutes attack 2x rather than adding 1 attack.

When the cost of an ability is the same, it needs to be roughly equivalent to the reward.

Edited May 28, 2019 by Grailstorm

[Grailstorm]

16 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I suppose, then, that it's good there are point values for things in Matched Play. It's almost like the designers had some sort of tool available to them to create balance and factor in the abilities in the book at the time of writing.

That aside, I'm starting to think that they wrote Blades of Khorne assuming you would get extra fights. Without that ability, the book is pretty non-competitive.

Not sure what you’re getting at here. There has been no major change in points since the introduction of attacking 2x, despite it being up to 5-6 times better than any comparable command ability depending on the target unit.

[Grimrock]

@Grailstorm I think you might be overestimating the attack twice mechanic just a touch. A slaanesh player can use it to double daemonettes attacks from 2 to 4 for a single unit. A Maw Crusha can add 1 to 2 attacks as well, except it does it for every unit within 14. Also keep in mind the quality of attacks coming from the two armies, brutes have some of the best attack stats in the game (with buffs), and daemonettes are 4+/4+ rend 1, 1 damage. Sure it's nice to double that, but adding +1 attack to brutes will make a much bigger difference most of the time. You may be thinking of how big a deal double attacks would be for ironjawz and then porting that impression to every army, but the models, and importantly available buffs, are wildly different.

I'm not saying double attacks aren't a big deal, they're awesome, but the ironjaw command ability has been having about the same effect forever. It's absolutely bonkers how strong it is.

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Grimrock

[Sleboda]

16 minutes ago, Grailstorm said:

Not sure what you’re getting at here. There has been no major change in points since the introduction of attacking 2x, despite it being up to 5-6 times better than any comparable command ability depending on the target unit.

I'm saying, for example, that when Blades of Khorne was written, the abilities and points were done together, and therefore the 2x Attack stuff in there is accounted for.

[Kasper]

11 hours ago, Grailstorm said:

The armies are clearly not balanced around the fact they can fight twice. The points cost for all units are roughly the same as before the ability was introduced. In some cases, they are lower. 

It wasn’t my intention to compare Ironjawz as an army to other, newer armies. 

I was just using them to illustrate the power of command abilities. I’m not complaining about the power of Khorne, Slaanesh or FEC. I’m bemoaning the fact that this specific command ability is ruining the game.

The Megaboss command ability is great – and was one of the better combat command abilities in the game until the addition of attack 2x. Now, this new ability nukes all previous combat command abilities. 

+1 attack? +1 to hit? These are nothing in comparison.

The fact that some armies can spend 1 CP to use such a hugely powerful ability, and some armies cannot, is the definition of imbalance. Especially when the reward is 2, 3, 4, or even 5x as good.

Imagine Nighthaunt could make Bladegheists attack 2x rather than adding one attack.

Imagine Ironjawz could make Brutes attack 2x rather than adding 1 attack.

When the cost of an ability is the same, it needs to be roughly equivalent to the reward.

I completely understand, and agree with your view, I just don't think you can do a 1:1 comparison at all, you need to factor in alligiance abilities, stat profiles etc.

I personally don't think the double attack is a fun mechanic, because it creates a situation where the enemy wont play with his toys at all, despite doing a calculated charge. But then again, it isn't fun being boxed in by Endless Spells by Skaven, meanwhile you are shot to pieces. I think we just have to get used to that almost every army in the future can do something bunkers and have their own sort of "oompf". Is it good for the game? Probably not. Does it create a fun experience? I don't think so.

[Grailstorm]

12 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I'm saying, for example, that when Blades of Khorne was written, the abilities and points were done together, and therefore the 2x Attack stuff in there is accounted for.

This is precisely the point, though. They’re clearly not. What units accounted for it? Bloodthirsters? Bloodcrushers? Bloodletters? Any points changes are minimal and reflect warscroll updates. Some actually got cheaper, even though they got buffed *and* got given the ability to attack 2x.

It’s the same everywhere. Ghoul King? Remained the same cost, even after getting huge buffs and getting the attack 2x ability.

The average warscroll cost across every army has barely changed since points were first introduced. Abilities have got better and better, but points stay the same.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Grailstorm

[Grailstorm]

1 hour ago, Kasper said:

I completely understand, and agree with your view, I just don't think you can do a 1:1 comparison at all, you need to factor in alligiance abilities, stat profiles etc.

I personally don't think the double attack is a fun mechanic, because it creates a situation where the enemy wont play with his toys at all, despite doing a calculated charge. But then again, it isn't fun being boxed in by Endless Spells by Skaven, meanwhile you are shot to pieces. I think we just have to get used to that almost every army in the future can do something bunkers and have their own sort of "oompf". Is it good for the game? Probably not. Does it create a fun experience? I don't think so.

A fair point, but I think you also have to consider the issue is magnified when you introduce allegiance abilities and compare stat profiles because all the armies that can attack 2x also happen to have extremely good allegiance abilities. If we’re agreed that attack 2x is the best combat command ability in the game, then for allegiance abilities and stat profiles to have much relevance the armies in question would need to have worse stats and worse allegiance abilities to balance out the power of their command ability.

Slaanesh can fight 2x all the while making you fight last and getting extra attacks on 6s. The maths shows the latter is roughly equivalent to +1 to hit on every unit in the army and +2 to hit on units of 20+. It’s also worth noting that this ability is the final and most expensive reward that Khorne can buy – and Slaanesh get it for free.

I would wager these two allegiance abilities (which come in addition to others) would be taken by any army in the game. So it stands to reason they are some of the best allegiance abilities in the game. So now you have an army with fantastic allegiance abilities that also has the ultra-powerful attack 2x command ability.

Warscrolls are generally on par with each other across the board for the most part, but for me the power swing that attack 2x brings to the table is massive.

[whispersofblood]

29 minutes ago, Grailstorm said:

A fair point, but I think you also have to consider the issue is magnified when you introduce allegiance abilities and compare stat profiles because all the armies that can attack 2x also happen to have extremely good allegiance abilities. If we’re agreed that attack 2x is the best combat command ability in the game, then for allegiance abilities and stat profiles to have much relevance the armies in question would need to have worse stats and worse allegiance abilities to balance out the power of their command ability.

Slaanesh can fight 2x all the while making you fight last and getting extra attacks on 6s. The maths shows the latter is roughly equivalent to +1 to hit on every unit in the army and +2 to hit on units of 20+. It’s also worth noting that this ability is the final and most expensive reward that Khorne can buy – and Slaanesh get it for free.

I would wager these two allegiance abilities (which come in addition to others) would be taken by any army in the game. So it stands to reason they are some of the best allegiance abilities in the game. So now you have an army with fantastic allegiance abilities that also has the ultra-powerful attack 2x command ability.

Warscrolls are generally on par with each other across the board for the most part, but for me the power swing that attack 2x brings to the table is massive.

It is not for free, it is instead of some other ability or structural advantage. This is what we asked for in the face of grand alliance soup lists.

But in all likelihood camps don't agree on any of the basis by which understanding could be reach. We can't even agree what the goal strength or the measure of that strength should be .We don't agree that games should be killy, we don't agree that comparing or considering the pre-matched play artefact factions is important, we don't agree that the battletome factions from AoS 1 will get their updates in a timely fashion, we don't agree that even all the new tomes are relatively close when allowing for the theme of the faction. So there isn't much basis for discussion really. 

[Satyrical Sophist]

17 hours ago, Sleboda said:

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.

You were talking about character sniping. In order to take a hit from the moon you need to roll a 1.  So on average each turn a character is under the moon is 1/3 of a mortal wound. The moon is on average on the battle field for three turns. So on average they might expect to take 1 wound in the whole game from the moon... Assuming that they are chasing the moon.  The moon that starts in one quarter of the board ...so positioning. Can only effect stuff in either it's quarter, or if it's in the centre of the board. Almost like a range...

I have seen games where the moon did absolutely nothing. Turn 2 rolling a 1 and it staying off the board. It's a terribly unreliable effect. There is a higher chance that the moon will have no effect than a slaughter priest will kill themselves early in the game. 

[Dead Scribe]

No one here plays the gits because they are not up to snuff competitively, but when people were trying them out here, the moon did almost nothing most of the time.  It pales in comparison to things like the flesh eater throne giving free summons or the skaven knotholes.  

 

[Satyrical Sophist]

4 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

No one here plays the gits because they are not up to snuff competitively, but when people were trying them out here, the moon did almost nothing most of the time.  It pales in comparison to things like the flesh eater throne giving free summons or the skaven knotholes.  

 

It's entirely possible that gits would be fine with the moon active all the time.

[Dead Scribe]

Their main issue is that they cannot compete with the damage output of armies like DoK or skaven or the flesh eater courts to really be viable against those armies.  Additionally they don't have great durability.  

So yeah the moon active wouldn't hurt them, but its not nearly enough to make someone want to collect that army if they are going to have to face those armies.

[Smooth criminal]

I think robbing opponent of their turn to fight is the major issue.

By itself 1 CP for another pile-in is a fair trade I think, Aos does need some resource management. If all CP do is reroll charges and ignore morale that's not much of a resource management.

Now when stuff like "attack first", "attack with 4 thirsters one after another", "all my dudes attack first", "all your dudes attack last" etc. come into play the only interactivity AoS ever had gets thrown out the window and we're playing a melee version of 40k aka Me roll turn me alpha strike: the game.

I want to see a "no chain pile-in" clause in ghb 2019. It won't happen though and even if they stop printing new books with the chain pile-in (they won't) the existing mass is enough to ruin the game.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Smooth criminal

[Kasper]

10 minutes ago, Smooth criminal said:

I think robbing opponent of their turn to fight is the major issue.

By itself 1 CP for another pile-in is a fair trade I think, Aos does need some resource management. If all CP do is reroll charges and ignore morale that's not much of a resource management.

Now when stuff like "attack first", "attack with 4 thirsters one after another", "all my dudes attack first", "all your dudes attack last" etc. come into play the only interactivity AoS ever had gets thrown out the window and we're playing a melee version of 40k aka Me roll turn me alpha strike: the game.

True, but I also think CP generation is a topic of discussion. If it is too easy to generate multiple CPs a turn, then management is thrown out the window too, even if it is meaningful decisions you spend them on.

[Dead Scribe]

I can see where you are coming from and agree that robbing your opponent of their turn to fight is a negative play experience.  However from the competitive arena, thats a hugely useful tool and I can't see them getting rid of it because it seems aimed at the design goal of faster games by killing stuff as fast as possible.

[PJetski]

1 hour ago, Smooth criminal said:

By itself 1 CP for another pile-in is a fair trade I think, Aos does need some resource management. If all CP do is reroll charges and ignore morale that's not much of a resource management.

I would agree, but being able to "buy" command points it removes much of the opportunity cost that command points should have. It was a lesser problem at first because command points were less impactful (along the lines of +1 hit) but now they are crazy force multipliers.

[CB42]

6 hours ago, Grailstorm said:

Slaanesh can fight 2x all the while making you fight last and getting extra attacks on 6s. The maths shows the latter is roughly equivalent to +1 to hit on every unit in the army and +2 to hit on units of 20+. It’s also worth noting that this ability is the final and most expensive reward that Khorne can buy – and Slaanesh get it for free.

 

19 hours ago, Grailstorm said:

+1 attack? +1 to hit? These are nothing in comparison.

It feels like you're arguing in bad faith. Is +1 to hit nothing in comparison? Or is it so good that it's the final and most expensive reward that Khorne can buy?

Quite frankly, you're making a lot of really bad, hyperbolic arguments. Is pile in and attack twice on a unit good? Definitely. But the comparison between one unit fighting twice and +1 attack from a Megaboss is a bad comparison because you're ignoring that a Megaboss on Maw Crusha gives +1 attack to every single unit within 15". So +1 attack on 5, 6, 7 units versus fighting twice on 1 unit? Suddenly the Megaboss on Maw Crusha looks incredibly overpowered, right?

You're upset and because you're upset you're choosing to ignore context or literally any argument other than things that support your hyperbolic claims, but come on. You've reached the point where you're contradicting yourself in order to try to advance your hyperbole.

[Sleboda]

9 hours ago, Grailstorm said:

This is precisely the point, though. They’re clearly not. What units accounted for it? Bloodthirsters? Bloodcrushers? Bloodletters? Any points changes are minimal and reflect warscroll updates. Some actually got cheaper, even though they got buffed *and* got given the ability to attack 2x.

It might, for example, explain why bloodthirsters are so, so bad. They define "glass cannon" and need all the offensive help they can get in order to be worth even considering.

[AverageBoss]

On 5/28/2019 at 1:49 AM, Sleboda said:

I suppose, then, that it's good there are point values for things in Matched Play. It's almost like the designers had some sort of tool available to them to create balance and factor in the abilities in the book at the time of writing.

That aside, I'm starting to think that they wrote Blades of Khorne assuming you would get extra fights. Without that ability, the book is pretty non-competitive.

Here is the thing though. Command traits, artifacts, command abilities, and other rules granted by your allegiance don't have point values. And is simply having access to those abilities enough to warrant a point hike? Should a non-Gristlegore AGKoTG/ZD have the same points cost as its Gristlegore cousin?

[Sleboda]

That's been a tough thing for GW for evs. I think Jervis even talked about it with Power in 40K, about how it's a middle ground between taking all the best options and none of them.

The way I understand it is that there are certain clear "best" options, but if they costed only based on those, the "lesser" (but still fun!) options would never get used.

I don't envy them over this. It has to stink knowing you are making some things that are fun and characterful that the ComeAtMeBro gamers will dismiss as crud that only noob-loozers would ever take.

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Just a reminder folks that everybody is going to have their own experiences and opinions of units attacking twice.  Let's not lose sight of this and try to "poo poo" somebody else's opinions with our own.  In this particular discussion I don't think there is actually a right or wrong.

[HammerOfSigmar]

Well, from my point of view, for most fractions' 1cp to attack the second time, it is still acceptable somehow. The biggest problem is still about the FEC, they have a +d3a spell, and a CA allows they to fight the second immediately affect the first time. It just spoils the game to force your opponent watch you deleting his army, Anyone want to defend the FEC?

[Dead Scribe]

Anyone want to defend the FEC?

Not defending FEC, they are easily probably the most mathematically powerful faction in the game currently and are a tournament workhorse until their book gets compensated for somehow, but I believe that the FEC and other armies that fight twice and delete the other person's army while they watch is the game working as intended / designed. 

I believe the polls that they take show people want fast games, but also want larger amounts of models.  The only way to compensate for that is to have things die fast from the first turn.