A Modest Proposal / Balance / Allegiance Abilities / Sub-Factions

[Mcthew]

I like this idea, but it  adds even more complexity to a system that was, once, supposed to be simple.

All these recent posts about balance in AoS makes me realise that for the vast majority of my games, and my enjoyment, this apparent lack of balance doesn't affect me. No players in my group use OBR, and there isnt this Mathammer/high-competiveness in the group i.e. of winning at the expense of the hobby. That's not a dig at competitive play, by the way, but essentially saying there's more to AoS than lists, meta and buffs. We choose armies because of the lore, the sculpts and the range of personalisation, not just because they play well (sure, no one likes to lose, but a good player can get enjoyment and success even out of a low tiered army - yes, it is possible!).

If the issue of balance is with competitive play/tournaments then isnt it beholden to the organisers to put some house rules in place to make it more balanced? If I was playing at LVO and most of my games were against OBR Petrifex Elite players, it would probably be a dull, and dispiriting experience. I certainly wouldn't be wanting to attend LVO next year.

AoS is flexible enough to allow house rules. I think the OPs idea has merit, and organisers could adopt it, and would maybe be in their best interests to. It would at least encourage more varied armies, and inject a little more balance, if needed, in competitive play.

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Mcthew

[Kasper]

20 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

If the issue of balance is with competitive play/tournaments then isnt it beholden to the organisers to put some house rules in place to make it more balanced? If I was playing at LVO and most of my games were against OBR Petrifex Elite players, it would probably be a dull, and dispiriting experience. I certainly wouldn't be wanting to attend LVO next year.

AoS is flexible enough to allow house rules. I think the OPs idea has merit, and organisers could adopt it, and would maybe be in their best interests to. It would at least encourage more varied armies, and inject a little more balance, if needed, in competitive play.

I don't think house rules is ever the answer, unless something is very clearly broken and you are in a waiting period for GW to FAQ an army, like with Slaanesh. You will risk alienating players since their army will perform differently from tournament to tournament, since TOs' house rules most certainly will be different. 

Even in casual games we don't play with house rules, since many of us play across different groups. 

[Mcthew]

30 minutes ago, Kasper said:

I don't think house rules is ever the answer, unless something is very clearly broken and you are in a waiting period for GW to FAQ an army, like with Slaanesh. You will risk alienating players since their army will perform differently from tournament to tournament, since TOs' house rules most certainly will be different. 

Even in casual games we don't play with house rules, since many of us play across different groups. 

House rules need not be about the gameplay though. They  can be conditions on the lists themselves. Such as the OPs idea. I've played a tournament where the house rule was no named characters. That worked fine, just required a little pre-tournament head scratching.

[Asamu]

15 hours ago, Kasper said:

Great idea in theory, but pretty much impossible to implement in pratice. As mentioned in previous posts, subfactions arent equal across armies at all. Some armies are forced into a subfaction and other armies can opt out of a subfaction and is arguably better off due to not being forced into a terrible command trait and artefact. 

This means you cant just slap on a point tax and reduce points for models since the armies that arent forced into subfactions will suddenly be way better off. You would have to redo every army and how subfactions function. 

If you really want to tax popular choices, I think a tax on malign sorcery artefacts is just as needed.

Eh... even in CoS, Slaanesh, and S2D, some subfactions are better than others. The suggestion is more about internal balance than balance between different armies.  Say they took all the units in a book and reduced their point cost by ~5%, then made the best sub-faction cost 100 points (Or you increase from 2000 pts to 2100 pts for convenience), the worst cost 30 or so points, and not having a subfaction free (specific numbers depending entirely on the army in question; this is just an example). That would leave the current competitive lists unchanged while giving a small boost to the currently less competitive lists. Maybe have 3 or 4 point values for 1000/1500//2000/3000 point games.

I don't think this is really an issue for the proposal in the OP.

As long as the costs assigned to the subfactions are reasonable, it doesn't cause problems with the balance between different armies.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Asamu

[Kasper]

12 minutes ago, Asamu said:

Eh... even in CoS, Slaanesh, and S2D, some subfactions are better than others. The suggestion is more about internal balance than balance between different armies.  Say they took all the units in a book and reduced their point cost by ~5%, then made the best sub-faction cost 100 points (Or you increase from 2000 pts to 2100 pts for convenience), the worst cost 30 or so points, and not having a subfaction free (specific numbers depending entirely on the army in question; this is just an example). That would leave the current competitive lists unchanged while giving a small boost to the currently less competitive lists. Maybe have 3 or 4 point values for 1000/1500//2000/3000 point games.

I don't think this is really an issue for the proposal in the OP.

As long as the costs assigned to the subfactions are reasonable, it doesn't cause problems with the balance between different armies.

My point is: If I play Ironjawz alligiance I often opt out of the subfactions. So if you are gonna tax the subfactions with a point cost, but reduce the cost of models to compensate, you have just flat out buffed my list since I will now be able to afford more stuff. Same if I play Big Waagh alligiance, there simply aren't any subfactions, so you have buffed my army since I can now take more stuff in the list due to cost reductions on models.

This means you have effectively screwed the current external balance between some armies, despite the whole point of taxing subfactions was to balance armies internally. The costs for the subfactions have to be significant and not just ~50 points. I doubt any Bonereaper player will look away from Petrifix if it only costed ~50 points more than the other ones.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Kasper

[Mcthew]

24 minutes ago, Asamu said:

Eh... even in CoS, Slaanesh, and S2D, some subfactions are better than others. The suggestion is more about internal balance than balance between different armies.  Say they took all the units in a book and reduced their point cost by ~5%, then made the best sub-faction cost 100 points (Or you increase from 2000 pts to 2100 pts for convenience), the worst cost 30 or so points, and not having a subfaction free (specific numbers depending entirely on the army in question; this is just an example). That would leave the current competitive lists unchanged while giving a small boost to the currently less competitive lists. Maybe have 3 or 4 point values for 1000/1500//2000/3000 point games.

I don't think this is really an issue for the proposal in the OP.

As long as the costs assigned to the subfactions are reasonable, it doesn't cause problems with the balance between different armies.

Don't see why this couldn't work, really. They'd be turning a sub-faction into a warscroll battalion but without the conditions of minimum units applying and without one-drop rules. Some sub factions recycle traits and artefacts anyway but add sub faction abilities for free. Costing them as they do warscroll battalions sounds sensible.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Mcthew

[zilberfrid]

2 hours ago, Mcthew said:

I like this idea, but it  adds even more complexity to a system that was, once, supposed to be simple.

All these recent posts about balance in AoS makes me realise that for the vast majority of my games, and my enjoyment, this apparent lack of balance doesn't affect me. No players in my group use OBR, and there isnt this Mathammer/high-competiveness in the group i.e. of winning at the expense of the hobby. That's not a dig at competitive play, by the way, but essentially saying there's more to AoS than lists, meta and buffs. We choose armies because of the lore, the sculpts and the range of personalisation, not just because they play well (sure, no one likes to lose, but a good player can get enjoyment and success even out of a low tiered army - yes, it is possible!).

If the issue of balance is with competitive play/tournaments then isnt it beholden to the organisers to put some house rules in place to make it more balanced? If I was playing at LVO and most of my games were against OBR Petrifex Elite players, it would probably be a dull, and dispiriting experience. I certainly wouldn't be wanting to attend LVO next year.

AoS is flexible enough to allow house rules. I think the OPs idea has merit, and organisers could adopt it, and would maybe be in their best interests to. It would at least encourage more varied armies, and inject a little more balance, if needed, in competitive play.

I actually think that making subfactions closer to Batallion warscrolls is making it simpler.

You have a few warscrolls you can give to your opponent to know what they can do, and that's it.

It's a sort of super batallion, really. Right now, you have your army, and part of it (the allies) are not affected by the faction allegiance at all.

All units, battalions, faction terrain and endless spells have warscrolls, the (sub) allegiances are exceptions/additions to the rules, and they are the only part that has them without warscrolls.

[Phasteon]

I like my AoS as it is 🙂 

Adding points costs to sub-factions would suck because it would tax the background of your army. 

How do you want to play a 500pts game of OBR Petrifex when the allegiance alone costs about 150 points? 

(Lets be honest, as mentioned above, nobody would take another Legion above Petrifex if the difference was like 50 points) 

Congrats, you now put a „balanced“ price tag at a faction that made it impossible to play at a certain points level.

 

Edit: Thats just assuming that Petrifex IS the only competitive choice in OBR. I bet 10/10 players that play Petrifex never tried a different Legion/playstyle. 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Phasteon

[JackStreicher]

It might be easiest to simply slap points costs to the subfaction depending on the game size. Some subfactions should cost nothing due to being very close to non-subfaction armies.

Just an example:

Petrifex: 250 points at 1000 Point battles, 400 points at 2000 point battles 

Big Waagh! 200 pts at 1000 Point battles, 400 points at 2000 point battles.

Fuethan: 30 points for 1k, 50 points for 2k

Legions of Nagash: 20pts, 40pts

Grand Alliances: Free 

Hagg Narr: 50 pts, 80 pts

 

etc. Etc.

[SleeperAgent]

Just make them cost variable percentage. Best one is 20%, mid is 10, etc. That way it scales with the game points. Also if they do this, remove the forced command traits and artefacts. That would make them feel more like a blend of battalions and army configuration.

[JackStreicher]

9 minutes ago, SleeperAgent said:

Just make them cost variable percentage. Best one is 20%, mid is 10, etc. That way it scales with the game points. Also if they do this, remove the forced command traits and artefacts. That would make them feel more like a blend of battalions and army configuration.

True, yet that is nothing they could fix with a simple FAQ.

[Phasteon]

19 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

It might be easiest to simply slap points costs to the subfaction depending on the game size. Some subfactions should cost nothing due to being very close to non-subfaction armies.

Just an example:

Petrifex: 250 points at 1000 Point battles, 400 points at 2000 point battles 

Big Waagh! 200 pts at 1000 Point battles, 400 points at 2000 point battles.

Fuethan: 30 points for 1k, 50 points for 2k

Legions of Nagash: 20pts, 40pts

Grand Alliances: Free 

Hagg Narr: 50 pts, 80 pts

 

etc. Etc.

So you think a Petrifex player should pay 20% of his army for his allegiance? 

25% at lower points even? 

And thats balanced in your opinion? 

Fielding 2 units less than now? 

I think you seriously overrate the strength of PE. 

 

I know those numbers are an example but it shows how little you understand about balancing things when there is a disparity of over 300 points in allegiances in your example. 

[Walrustaco]

1 minute ago, Phasteon said:

So you think a Petrifex player should pay 20% of his army for his allegiance? 

25% at lower points even? 

And thats balanced in your opinion? 

Fielding 2 units less than now? 

I think you seriously overrate the strength of PE. 

 

I know those numbers are an example but it shows how little you understand about balancing things when there is a disparity of over 300 points in allegiances in your example. 

Can you stop being so aggressive in every thread when there is debate lol.

Should petrifex be free? It maybe just shouldnt exist or it should be conditional like a normal, sensible ability imo

[Phasteon]

5 minutes ago, Walrustaco said:

Can you stop being so aggressive in every thread when there is debate lol.

Should petrifex be free? It maybe just shouldnt exist or it should be conditional like a normal, sensible ability imo

Pls point out where I am aggressive? 

I am just strongly disagreeing with his point. 

Also I know that he values balance of armies above everything else from his other posts, so its funny that he wants to absolutely thrash a sub-faction by a ridiculous high point tax compared to others (in his example). 

This example shows IMO that he doesnt understand how points work and ultimately how to balance things. 

So pls try to be objective and stop attacking me or presume I‘m aggressive when I‘m not. 

[Kasper]

31 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

It might be easiest to simply slap points costs to the subfaction depending on the game size. Some subfactions should cost nothing due to being very close to non-subfaction armies.

Just an example:

Petrifex: 250 points at 1000 Point battles, 400 points at 2000 point battles 

Big Waagh! 200 pts at 1000 Point battles, 400 points at 2000 point battles.

Fuethan: 30 points for 1k, 50 points for 2k

Legions of Nagash: 20pts, 40pts

Grand Alliances: Free 

Hagg Narr: 50 pts, 80 pts

 

etc. Etc.

Big Waagh isn't a subfaction, it is an alligiance. 😉

By doing above, you actually just buffed armies like Big Waagh since it doesn't have any subfactions and armies that are required to have subfactions suddenly field less models. 

[Melcavuk]

I think balancing the individual subfactions would help more than point costing, for example Petrifex, all the time before they were released we were hearing that they were slow but resilient any yet nothing in them makes them slower than other allegiances. To me Ivory Host is an allegiance done right, it has its bonus to attack, but also has a drawback to save. That essense of give and take provides more flavour and balance than any straight boost can.

Petrifex downside should be no running and cant use the relentless discipline + movement ability, but maintain its save. Now we have slow, but resilient. It fits lore and it has a downside.

[RuneBrush]

I do think that points for sub-factions/artefacts/terrain etc does have some merit in some circumstances.  My own view (which has in fairness changed over the past few weeks) is that when we all talk about balance it's nine times out of ten, in the context of playing in a more competitive environment, when we're actually looking for all armies to be equally as viable at winning games.

Why do I think this?  Well if you're playing a friendly game the ability to balance is in your own hands - unit of 30 grimghast blitzing through all your mates armies?  Only take 20.  If one club member keeps bringing filthy net lists, talk to them or stop playing them.

When it comes to an event, we lose the ability to self-regulate in the same way.  For events advertised as casual or ideal for new players the vast majority of players will bring armies that aren't what we would term as optimised*.  When it comes to a competitive event, we're generally going to be looking to bring our A Game and an army to match.  This is where things really get tested and we're looking for every opportunity to gain an advantage over our opponent**

The trouble comes is that what we actually want is to win games whilst also using the army we love, which isn't necessarily the army that is currently the best performing.  Having done what I'd class as a really competitive event last weekend, my own viewpoint has actually shifted and I believe that having tiers of army isn't actually a bad thing - if you're genuinely serious about wanting to win events then you need to accept that chasing the meta is part of that process.  This applies to all aspects of the hobby too, I know that if I want to win another Golden Demon, I need to continue to invest in new paints and good quality equipment, signing up to Patreons and will have to commit many hours to painting.

So going back to the original suggestion.  I do think that implementing something (sub-faction points / sub-faction battalions / sub-faction pitched battle points / artefact points / etc) could help to "round off" the very top and very bottom of the tierings.  Yes it would require more time to build a list - but I know I have weeks to write my list so don't really mind***.  One potential risk is that it could introduce a multiplicative effect into the whole army building mechanic, which if you don't get it spot on, could well result in delivering the opposite effect - the top lists become all dominating and the bottom struggle even more

* please don't be one of those players who brings their smash face list to a beginners event
** this doesn't turn you into a WAAC'er - you can have an optimised list and be focused on winning whilst also being a decent, tolerant human being
*** anything that makes the actual game more complicated should be avoided in my view

[Phasteon]

The obvious answer is that people basically have 2 main issues regarding balance: 

– things* they cant counter/ adapt to

– point costs that allow for more of those things people cant counter adapt to

*doesnt matter how you define those things. Can be abilities/profiles whatever.

Why would you think that putting another points cost to those things would be a solution? As already mentioned it would probably create even more unbalance and would also complicate things regarding list building. 

People also assume to much in this hobby without proper experience of what they talk about. There are OBR players that say Petrifex is the only viable Legion, while there might be players that prefer Crematorians or Stalliarch Lords and are perfectly fine. 

But why do players that dont even play the army assume they know better and are making suggestions how to „balance“ the army. 

I have absolutely no idea about the mawtribes tome. How authentic would it be if I make a call and say „Ironguts must cost 260 points per 3 imo“ ? 

I accept good, constructive and reasonable suggestions how to balance things, but most of the time its just wishlisting by players that either want their own army to be stronger than everyone elses or the other way round, to which I 100% disagree. 

[Melcavuk]

3 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

But why do players that dont even play the army assume they know better and are making suggestions how to „balance“ the army. 

I own the tome but dont play the army, however if you only allowed players who own the army rather than who play a variety of armies to balance it then you'd likely end up with the army becoming more broken. 

Petrifex is claimed to be the only viable legion, because Petrifex exists, it is a fantastic example of truly terrible internal balance. The very fact that as you say, playing the army that players claim only Petrifex is viable highlights an issue with the internal balance, either by claiming the units are all pointed as though Petrifex and running anything else makes them over costed, or that the units are pointed without the Petrifex boost and running it makes them all under costed. Such huge boons introduced as subfactions, an unpointed mechanic, mess with points balance severely when they are lasting, undeniable, uncontestable and rely on no specific unit. 

As such it is;
Free
Requires no Synergy
Cannot be prevented
Cannot be hampered
Game long.

All of which means it should be pointed, as it invokes serious changes to the statistics of the faction, or come with a downside so that armies not petrifex are on the same level as those that are.

[hughwyeth]

GW include the points cost for everything - summoning and allegiance traits - in the points cost for models. No point in paying twice. If you split the allegiance costs, it makes things even more complex. AoS is great because of it's simplicity- any increased complexity in points costs should be very carefully considered.

This doesn't address the point of "internal balance", but remember these books aren't made exclusively for the 1,000 competitive players in the world. They're made for the 100,000 casual players. Example- I'm building Cities and will be playing Hallowheart for probably all tournaments, but I'm buying a load of models that won't fit in Hallowheart because I want to play all the cities in casual games. Variety in allegiances, including some that aren't as competitive as others, is great for most of the players. 

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Kasper said:

Big Waagh isn't a subfaction, it is an alligiance. 😉

By doing above, you actually just buffed armies like Big Waagh since it doesn't have any subfactions and armies that are required to have subfactions suddenly field less models. 

I'd make the big Waagh expensive non the less XD like I would with every orruk unit atm. But that's another topic

[Dead Scribe]

The gentleman's agreement to balance is extraordinarily flawed.  The rules state what you can bring.  I think its important that people clarify what mode they want to play on.  If they don't want to get their non optimal list destroyed, they probably shouldn't go to tournaments.  I see a lot of people go to tournaments and then get sour when their list gets man handled by a tuned list.  

This is a game about list building and numbers.  They matter.  A lot.  

I think even new players should be aware of this and make a choice on what environment ultimately entices them and they should go full bore into whatever choice that is.  If thats competitive, then they should be ok with getting destroyed while a new player because that is where you learn the best.

[Melcavuk]

17 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

GW include the points cost for everything - summoning and allegiance traits - in the points cost for models. No point in paying twice. If you split the allegiance costs, it makes things even more complex. AoS is great because of it's simplicity- any increased complexity in points costs should be very carefully considered.

This doesn't address the point of "internal balance", but remember these books aren't made exclusively for the 1,000 competitive players in the world. They're made for the 100,000 casual players. Example- I'm building Cities and will be playing Hallowheart for probably all tournaments, but I'm buying a load of models that won't fit in Hallowheart because I want to play all the cities in casual games. Variety in allegiances, including some that aren't as competitive as others, is great for most of the players. 

This is an interesting point of view, if we use the much talked about Petrifex elite suballegience here as a standpoint.

Mortek guard cost 130

Mortek guard with permanent +1 save cost 130

The difference between the two being the fact that as petrifex the command trait and artifact are "set" if we are to assume here that the sub allegiance points cost is baked in to the original unit value it means GW would "point" the ability to choose an artifact or command trait at the exact same value they point +1 to save all game.

I genuinely believe the strive is for balance, but I cannot logic the formula that puts the above at equal footing in terms of points costs, it seems more a human error oversight than a concept of things going on behind the scenes. 

 

To further compound this, if as you say the allegiance is baked into the cost then by that very virtue allies are overcosted. As they now no longer benefit from the allegiance abilities they have forfeited part of this own cost. Similarly units that can be used in multiple different allegiances must now invoke a different points value by allegiance as the cost of the allegiance must be baked into the unit. Which causes yet more headaches.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Melcavuk

[Kasper]

9 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I'd make the big Waagh expensive non the less XD like I would with every orruk unit atm. But that's another topic

Yeah it is quite obvious you have a blinding hate towards Orruks from all your posts.  

My point still stands that it is naive to think you can just slap a point cost on subfactions since they are not treated equally across armies. It will affect external balance, which means GW will have to go through them anyways - If they have to go through them, why not try to fix them rather than introducing a random point cost?

[JackStreicher]

7 minutes ago, Kasper said:

Yeah it is quite obvious you have a blinding hate towards Orruks from all your posts.  

My point still stands that it is naive to think you can just slap a point cost on subfactions since they are not treated equally across armies. It will affect external balance, which means GW will have to go through them anyways - If they have to go through them, why not try to fix them rather than introducing a random point cost?

HATE!? How dare you Sir!? It‘s blinding RAAAGE 🤣

You are right, yet GW usually does not update entire book sections.

A shorter fix would be to add (non-random) point costs to subfactions / allegiances of a book.