I feel there is a vicious cycle in rules writing currently.

[Eevika]

So In AoS 2.0 we have seen DPR (Damage prevention roll) becoming hugely important as mortal wounds became more common and now you expect things to have it to be good. Then fights first abilities slowly came the thing you expect everyone to have to be good and now we are seeing better rend coming in to the game with Bonesplitters being able to ignore DPR. Do you think this ability will be the next thing GW starts slapping everywhere or not?

[Knight Scáthach of Fimm]

Unlikely, although AoS could do with some more brand new rules as so far it's just been a variant of +1 save or a dpr or if you're spicy, charge at 18" when it comes to unit/ faction special rules. It was becoming monotonous with how linear some ruling could be, since I knew how it worked from the books previous.

[Eevika]

28 minutes ago, Knight Scáthach of Fimm said:

Unlikely, although AoS could do with some more brand new rules as so far it's just been a variant of +1 save or a dpr or if you're spicy, charge at 18" when it comes to unit/ faction special rules. It was becoming monotonous with how linear some ruling could be, since I knew how it worked from the books previous.

Yeah I would really like to see actually unique rules from time to time. We have allegiance abilities that do cool unique stuff but warscrolls and such seem to just be the same stuff all the time. 

[Myrdin]

GW is known for their Rulebooks having Power Creep or regular basis. 
Sometimes they are more able to keep it in check, sometimes they are not able to do so. Lets just hope we wont see much more of it before AoS 3.0

[zilberfrid]

I am not really a fan of this blanket treatment of ignoring it.

Having a specific unique with different rules is fine, especially if they can be fielded throughout a great alliance, because it isn't something that makes a matchup a foregone conclusion. Having an entire army very good at disabling another army, but very weak against others might be metabreaking, but it's metameta to do so.

I'd like to see a "Gotrek" for each grand alliance, say a big beasty for destruction, a legendary undead for death (Krell?), and some sort of greater Chaos spawn for Chaos.

[Eevika]

52 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

I'd like to see a "Gotrek" for each grand alliance, say a big beasty for destruction, a legendary undead for death (Krell?), and some sort of greater Chaos spawn for Chaos.

This would be a really cool idea. Krell would definitely be a super cool hero for death

[stratigo]

2 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

I am not really a fan of this blanket treatment of ignoring it.

Having a specific unique with different rules is fine, especially if they can be fielded throughout a great alliance, because it isn't something that makes a matchup a foregone conclusion. Having an entire army very good at disabling another army, but very weak against others might be metabreaking, but it's metameta to do so.

I'd like to see a "Gotrek" for each grand alliance, say a big beasty for destruction, a legendary undead for death (Krell?), and some sort of greater Chaos spawn for Chaos.

There is a gotrek for each grand alliance. Most of them are just much bigger than he is. 

 

2 hours ago, Myrdin said:

GW is known for their Rulebooks having Power Creep or regular basis. 
Sometimes they are more able to keep it in check, sometimes they are not able to do so. Lets just hope we wont see much more of it before AoS 3.0

I keep trying to hype myself up to start playing again, then I see a battle report with three keepers jogging across the field and go "Uuuuuugh". 

 

The cycle of power creep is getting kinda nuts right now. Like, demons codex at the end of 7th fantasy nuts.

[Myrdin]

8 minutes ago, stratigo said:

The cycle of power creep is getting kinda nuts right now. Like, demons codex at the end of 7th fantasy nuts.

Oh I remember that one.

And right after them came the HE, who one upped them immediately with a banner that gave them 2+ ward save against demons, and with bunch of crazy units.

[zilberfrid]

13 minutes ago, stratigo said:

There is a gotrek for each grand alliance. Most of them are just much bigger than he is. 

I keep trying to hype myself up to start playing again, then I see a battle report with three keepers jogging across the field and go "Uuuuuugh". 

The cycle of power creep is getting kinda nuts right now. Like, demons codex at the end of 7th fantasy nuts.

I meant a unique unit/monster/war machine that is able to ally in every faction of that GA but eat all ally points of that faction, and brings something interesting to the table.

Looking at Forgeworld models, it's mostly things that cannot be allied to alliances.

As for a few single entities that make things hard, you could counter them with, of course, Gotrek, or just play the objectives.

 

As for this being inflation or too much power to single entities, that could be, but others are argueing the opposite, being that hordes rule the meta.

Edited September 26, 2019 by zilberfrid

[TheCovenLord]

It is sort of expected in miniature games due to the long development/build/play period required for them. 

 

GW wants to sell a new faction so they introduce something new (ex: strikes first). If it ends up being OP it becomes the 'new hotness'. We also know that GW does not do a public development cycle (something I praise privateer press for), does not regularly re-write warscrolls in any capacity let alone going back to add rules to 'band-aid' factions already released without the 'new hotness' rules (cannot think of a true example other than KO thunderers without it being alongside a release) etc.  The army gains popularity but from then on to remain competitive the next thing released has to either have that same rule (first strike - Flesheaters, slaanesh, now fyreslayers), be so brutally strong it negates the advantage granted by the rule (dok, fyreslayers) or something new is introduced which is either a) better (the cycle renews with this new rule becoming commonplace on top of the previous one ex: Slaanesh) or b) it is a flop (nighthaunt is a huge offender here with ethereal, gitmob to a certain degree as well).

 

To put it bluntly. GW is treating the rules writing for a miniatures game like a trading card game. But unlike a TCG which shift quickly and can have meaningfully bans without too much uproar (even then powercreep was pretty rampant when I stopped playing MTG in Scars of Mirrodin). Miniatures require too much investment for this to be a viable route for GW to balance the rules of the  game. This along with refusal to alter warscrolls or offer a meaningful 'test' period (whatever in-house they are doing is either done poorly or of such a small sample size broken stuff is released regularly) before releasing a faction mean GW games always, without fail, suffer from exaggerated powercreep that usually takes a new edition to remedy. It's been like this for over a decade of play now even back to my warhammer 40k 6th edition/ warhammer fantasy roots.

 

You just cannot expect the game or rules writing to be fair or consistent and that the cycle of 'new hotness' rules additions is just a facet of the hobby until GW starts taking a more balanced *  tournament scene more seriously.

Edited September 26, 2019 by TheCovenLord
Removed the word *competitive. Stuff does not have to be balanced to be competitive as the current scene embodies

[Ironbreaker]

I hate when armies (GG and Skaven specifically) get bonuses that buff their weakness. Battleshock immunity is such a crappy thing to play against with hordes especially with a low damage output army that lacks mortal wounds and wizards. 

"Killed enough after putting everything into a 40 block of grots to trigger battleshock? I'll spend a CP to ignore it. Also I just regained that CP so I can do it again next turn. Also. here comes the other 40 block to flank you."

It's so tiresome and unfun.

[TheCovenLord]

34 minutes ago, Ironbreaker said:

I hate when armies (GG and Skaven specifically) get bonuses that buff their weakness. Battleshock immunity is such a crappy thing to play against with hordes especially with a low damage output army that lacks mortal wounds and wizards. 

"Killed enough after putting everything into a 40 block of grots to trigger battleshock? I'll spend a CP to ignore it. Also I just regained that CP so I can do it again next turn. Also. here comes the other 40 block to flank you."

It's so tiresome and unfun.

You touch on one of the inherent issues I have with AOS at the moment. They design factions to cover their weaknesses rather than play to their strengths.  Armies should be strong. Overpowered busted strong. But, it should be at their "strength" (ex: skaven crazy shooting/warpmachines) but each faction should retain their weaknesses. This not only helps balance the game but also lends to inherent faction flavor as you realize they are not perfect spheres of power rather a pointed spear that needs to be utilized in a skillful manner. 

 

Most video games function off this principle (DOTA, league, overwatch, rainbow 6) all have different characters with inherent strengths but also inherent exploitable flaws and the real skill is in mitigating those flaws while exploiting your strengths. Even MTG has this to a certain degree with the color pie (yes I am aware it is broken continually but an established "flavor" and favored style for each color exists beyond certain blocks).

 

I hope they realize this and start balancing factions with inherent strengths and weaknesses both from a rules perspective (more balanced play and tougher games) as well as from a flavor perspective (how god awful vanilla is skaven/gitmobs when you remove the randomness, the cowardly foot soldiers, the backstabbing or the bloodlust of the daughters of khaine forcing them into fights with minimal armor *cough except hag narr cough*? They all become slightly funny looking space marines with no character of their own)

Super powered all rounders are boring and make for vanilla play and unfortunately the top tier competitive armies are exactly that, immense, minimal to no weakness super factions with no flavor and few to any exploitable rules that require thoughtful play.

Edited September 26, 2019 by TheCovenLord

[sandlemad]

14 minutes ago, TheCovenLord said:

It is sort of expected in miniature games due to the long development/build/play period required for them.

[...]

To put it bluntly. GW is treating the rules writing for a miniatures game like a trading card game. But unlike a TCG which shift quickly and can have meaningfully bans without too much uproar (even then powercreep was pretty rampant when I stopped playing MTG in Scars of Mirrodin). Miniatures require too much investment for this to be a viable route for GW to balance the rules of the  game.

This is a good point and one of the things that turns me off tournament play. I just don't understand how people can conceivably chase the meta given the incredible expenditure of time and money it takes to dig into the new hotness, to catch up in a month or whatever. For MTG or similar, even with some ebay poaching and the like, I can get it. For getting/shelving 80 ghouls or 60 witch elves maybe twice a year, I fail to comprehend.

[Ironbreaker]

@TheCovenLord

"They shall be my finest warriors, these rats who give of themselves to me. Like clay I shall mould them and in the furnace of war I shall forge them. They shall be of iron will and steely sinew. In dirty rags I shall clad them and with the crudest weapons shall they be armed. They will be touched by plague and disease; sickness shall blight them. They shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best them in battle. They are my bulwark against the storm-things. They are the Defenders of the Skaven Empire. They are my Clan Rats...and they shall know no fear."

- The Horned Rat

Edited September 26, 2019 by Ironbreaker

[Dead Scribe]

Its actually not that expensive. 

I chase the meta, but I don't pour a ton of money into chasing the meta.

When I sell my current army I try to do so before it is fully nerfed, thus getting a pretty high sell value out of it.  That money does not fully cover buying the new army unless the new army is second-hand, but it covers a good portion of it.

The key is not getting attached to anything.  You don't play armies you like the look of, you play armies you know are statistically powerful.  When it comes time to sell them, you sell them. You don't hang on to them.  

Edited September 26, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[TheCovenLord]

1 minute ago, sandlemad said:

This is a good point and one of the things that turns me off tournament play. I just don't understand how people can conceivably chase the meta given the incredible expenditure of time and money it takes to dig into the new hotness, to catch up in a month or whatever. For MTG or similar, even with some ebay poaching and the like, I can get it. For getting/shelving 80 ghouls or 60 witch elves maybe twice a year, I fail to comprehend.

I do not know either. I like competitive play but I relegate my self to the occasional tournament games but never place high because I refuse to chase the meta.  I also place myself somewhere in between a player and a hobbyist though. I love the flavor, miniature construction and painting as much as I love the play aspect. But I could never do one without the other which is why I voice my disappointment in some of the rule writing. Luckily it is not so exaggerated outside of the competitive scene that I cannot use units/armies many would consider totally non-viable (darklings). 

 

I cannot speak to how it is fiscally possible to chase the 'new hotness' maybe somebody who participates can speak to the cost/how it is possible. 

[Forrix]

5 minutes ago, TheCovenLord said:

You touch on one of the inherent issues I have with AOS at the moment. They design factions to cover their weaknesses rather than play to their strengths.  Armies should be strong. Overpowered busted strong. But, it should be at their "strength" (ex: skaven crazy shooting/warpmachines) but each faction should retain their weaknesses. This not only helps balance the game but also lends to inherent faction flavor as you realize they are not perfect spheres of power rather a pointed spear that needs to be utilized in a skillful manner. 

 

Most video games function off this principle (DOTA, league, overwatch, rainbow 6) all have different characters with inherent strengths but also inherent exploitable flaws and the real skill is in mitigating those flaws while flaunting your strengths. Even MTG has this to a certain degree with the color pie (yes I am aware it is broken continually but an established "flavor" and favored style for each color exists beyond certain blocks).

 

I hope they realize this and start balancing factions with inherent strengths and weaknesses both from a rules perspective (more balanced play and tougher games) as well as from a flavor perspective (how god awful vanilla is skaven/gitmobs when you remove the randomness, the cowardly foot soldiers, the backstabbing or the bloodlust of the daughters of khaine forcing them into fights with minimal armor *cough except hag narr cough*?) Super powered all rounders are boring and make for vanilla play and unfortunately the top tier competitive armies are exactly that, immense, minimal to no weakness super factions.

I particularly hate fighting Legions of Nagash as Nurgle as I'm supposed to be the tanky faction that trades damage  for its tankiness (in a nutshell) but here's an army that's tankier than me and hits harder than me. And has better spell casting and arguably better mobility too.

Its super annoying to look at a rule like Deathly Invocations and be like "Okay, I guess I need to focus fire units down". Then they have Undying Legions so its like "Okay, I guess I shouldn't just pour all my attacks into one unit". So its like "I guess my only hope is to kill the general". Then the general is Nagash or otherwise effectively impossible for your battletome to kill (I get that powercreep and a points increase has dethroned Nagash from his previously absurd level) and you're just screwed.

[Mcthew]

56 minutes ago, Ironbreaker said:

I hate when armies (GG and Skaven specifically) get bonuses that buff their weakness. Battleshock immunity is such a crappy thing to play against with hordes especially with a low damage output army that lacks mortal wounds and wizards. 

"Killed enough after putting everything into a 40 block of grots to trigger battleshock? I'll spend a CP to ignore it. Also I just regained that CP so I can do it again next turn. Also. here comes the other 40 block to flank you."

It's so tiresome and unfun.

Indeed, and unnecessary. For that command ability it could just be a re-roll for battleshock instead. It doesn't matter how masterful your general is or how much fear they can instill in a unit, if you've lost 80% of 40 model unit in one go, you're gonna run away!

[Ironbreaker]

3 minutes ago, Forrix said:

I particularly hate fighting Legions of Nagash as Nurgle as I'm supposed to be the tanky faction that trades damage  for its tankiness (in a nutshell) but here's an army that's tankier than me and hits harder than me. And has better spell casting and arguably better mobility too.

Its super annoying to look at a rule like Deathly Invocations and be like "Okay, I guess I need to focus fire units down". Then they have Undying Legions so its like "Okay, I guess I shouldn't just pour all my attacks into one unit". So its like "I guess my only hope is to kill the general". Then the general is Nagash or otherwise effectively impossible for your battletome to kill (I get that powercreep and a points increase has dethroned Nagash from his previously absurd level) and you're just screwed.

It's funny at first to read that Skeletons can theoretically output hundreds of attacks, but seeing it in action and having to work through the logistics with the player doing it is beyond disgusting.  You can't shoot the 40 skeletons because they will just come back up later. You can't let the skeletons touch you or your unit will be dead before the other player even piles in his models. You can't charge them because you might not kill them all and you'll just be left with the same situation just maybe a bit better. And while you were trying to figure out how to deal with the slow approach of death, unless they have been running every turn and hitting those sweet 6's on their rolls, here comes a zombie dragon to mess up your plans. 

[zilberfrid]

16 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

This is a good point and one of the things that turns me off tournament play. I just don't understand how people can conceivably chase the meta given the incredible expenditure of time and money it takes to dig into the new hotness, to catch up in a month or whatever. For MTG or similar, even with some ebay poaching and the like, I can get it. For getting/shelving 80 ghouls or 60 witch elves maybe twice a year, I fail to comprehend.

I don't chase the meta, but currently find myself in a bit of a bind because I don't know which figure is able to what do come CoS. Whether or not they are competetive, I really can't tell whether I would like more crossbowmen or gunners, or which types of guards, or how to make the Empire Captain distinct from Greatswords etc.

I could half-finish builds, but I don't really want to.

[Dead Scribe]

It seems a few of you should probably look into playing a different game, so that you can enjoy your time more.

[zilberfrid]

4 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

It seems a few of you should probably look into playing a different game, so that you can enjoy your time more.

Yeah, I've shifted my focus to my remaining Shadespire warband, which will need extensive remodeling to become what I want them to be (Godsworn Hunt to metal band).

[Ironbreaker]

5 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

It seems a few of you should probably look into playing a different game, so that you can enjoy your time more.

I do enjoy the game, it's just there are clearly armies that are tough to deal with as a former Dispossessed player and now a Kharadron player. There are only three people at the store I play at that play Sigmar. One plays GG, one plays Skaven, and the other's play Legions of Nagash. It's an uphill climb most games and I will not withhold my ranting about the state of armies. I do play other games. I play 40k and Middle Eath. 40k definitely has it's power problems with everyone at the shop running knights or knight equivalents and every list and game leading to an arms race on dealing with knights. Middle Earth however is a great game so far. We have three players and each week we have a big battle between the two Good players, myself one of them, and the one Evil player. Those matches have usually always felt balanced. I have never looked at the enemy army and thought, "Well what am I supposed to do against that?" Recently the Evil player bought Sauron however so this could be the start of another local meta power struggle. 

[sandlemad]

50 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

The key is not getting attached to anything.  You don't play armies you like the look of, you play armies you know are statistically powerful.  When it comes time to sell them, you sell them. You don't hang on to them.  

Like I said, this attitude is just utterly, incomprehensibly alien to me and sounds like not just a different game but a different existence.

[Moldek]

25 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

It seems a few of you should probably look into playing a different game, so that you can enjoy your time more.

I think AoS tournament play is a different game than narrative, open or even casual matched play. It's probably futile to hope to reliably score high in tournaments with a single army that you've kept for 10 years, true. But a lot of people still have great fun games with "low tier" armies, and a lot of people are able to have decent win rates with fluffy unoptimized lists. Most people who stick to the hobby do so because they enjoy the visual spectacle, the social interaction and the craft of painting and building. It takes a lot of investment to have even one fully painted army.

So while I have zero problems with the way you approach it, I think you're part of a tiny minority. Changing armies twice a year to place at tournaments and not having any attachment to the miniatures is pretty far from what most player's experience of AoS is.

I think one of the problems is people have different expectations and they don't often match. If you main regular opponent enjoys cheesy "broken" lists and you only play unoptimized compendium wanderers or pure dispossessed, you're gonna have a bad time. The rarest, most precious resource in wargaming is not books, minis or terrain : it's a good gaming group that match your playstyle, that you like and are available!