Powercreep Illusion - Petrifex

[Sleboda]

I swear this is not clickbait.  I'm genuinely curious.

We always see new stuff come out with cries of powercreep. Petrifex had this. I wanna know, once things have settled, how often this doom & gloom is justified.

In the case of Petrifex, in particular, some folks thought the world was ending. I have not seen that to be the case. Maybe you have. If so, please share your actual, factual, real world experiences.

In my case, the trade off to have to fit the Petrifex limits has not been worth it. I've tracked the shift in results from Petrifex boosts and found them to not be worth losing the things I would like to do with artefacts and traits. For example, in a recent game, Petrifex would have saved a few (like, two or three) wounds, but I would have sacrificed what I wanted to take. Not worth it.

 

Are these "obvious best" choices really all that IN ACTUAL GAMES or is it just theoryhammer?

 

Share your actual experiences, please, please, please.

 

Thank you!

[Maddpainting]

The OBR were not power creep at all IMO (from day one, can look at my history, i've been saying the movement based rules for them are better than the +1sv). What GW is doing is getting better at showing an armies or armies traits, strengths and that appears to be power creep but really it isn't.

To me power creep was FeC, some armies like StD, COS has insanely OP builds but b.c of GW miss understanding certain abilities and within a few weeks those was nerfed. But for FeC it was just insane power levels and took entire rules rewrites to fix them.

Some armies did have power creep, and they mostly get fixed. Look at DoT and KO for example, both mobility and shooting but only 1 was/is really strong. KO showcased their strengths well bu isn't power creep where DoT just got better abilities for their units that also were buffed in the form of horrors flamers, changehost, etc.. yes some of that has been nerfed now, but flamers are still a problem (Point changes will fix this and that will be out soon). 


Yes there is power creep, but for the most part its GW getting better at understanding how to showcase an armies strengths which in turn would also be a power creep, but this is a good type of power creep b.c it has clear weakness and easy to exploit those weakness.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Maddpainting

[JackStreicher]

Petrifex has been banned in my old gaming group, due to cheesiness. (Same goes for 2+ Catapults)

overall I don‘t think most new factions are op, they just include mechanics that are unfun and therefor your opponent feels wronged once these mechanics come into play, which creates a perception of being „op“.

summarized: No one (still) wants to play against OBR which created a bad gaming athmosphere for several months. The same seems to be happening with the Lumineth (at least that‘s the mood  in the Group‘s WhatsApp Channel). Seraphon are less affected since they don‘t use as many cheesy game mechanics.

Edited June 21, 2020 by JackStreicher

[MitGas]

We might not like it but in the end realistically only the opinions of the best few players and a couple of the game designers really count - those that regularly place high in tournaments and know the game/armies by heart. I think they can judge the situation best. That said, even a game like StarCraft II struggles hard to keep 3 races equal, with one of them usually having their time for a few tournaments and then some other becoming the top dog after a few changes (personally I find that Zerg in the end is still the strongest and most imbalanced race due to having the ability to remax, max quickly with trash, switch their composition instantly, easily punish tiny mistakes via strong run-bys and forcing the other races to "sim-city" etc but whatever).

No idea if those "AoS masters" get asked what they think about game balance but I think it would be a wise move to get their feedback first in regards to changes, especially because they have to fight optimized lists all the friggin time...

In my group I got no easy prey for my Tzeentch army (which isn't optimized as I wanna use lots of beautiful minis) as they all play tough armies that won't easily get killed by flamers/horrors or spells (Nurgle, Ironjawz, StD) so I can't just spam my attacks and be done with it - I gotta play pretty tactical with lots of screens or else get torn apart and we usually play with smaller armies which is where Tzeentch can't be as powerful as when you get a full 2k points due to all the synergy. Now if I had to face horde armies with low saves I would imagine that my army would be a hell of a lot stronger.

[Jupiter]

2+ nagash with teleportation and super saves. It's bonkers, played against them yesterday also with a completely op archeon army so it was really fun. But if your army doesn't allow crazy op stuff it's not fun, not even close. 

[whispersofblood]

There are two issues here.

Sequential releases: which create what looks like a ratcheting up affect. And, the experience of each new thing being harder to fight then the last. 

New mechanism: humans naturally react negatively to change. It's a survival tactic, new is dangerous until it's proven to not be dangerous. 

Combine the two and the human mind's natural tendancy to create narratives creates a feedback loop, and the forum experience drives confirmation bias. 

The real interaction is the complexity drives inequality. The more complex the rules the more power a skilled player can derive from it. And, rule mechanism are created to do *something* which is obviously more powerful then no mechanism, not doing anything. 

SCE are very simple and have very few real rule interactions internally to produce returns with. Where say IDK are far more streamlined but they have enough mechanisms to produce outsized results. 

I suspect on average LRL are going to have terrible competitive results. And also a tiny minority of LRL players who win events. 

[chosen_of_khaine]

People already didn't like facing Death factions because a large proportion of people play way too aggressively and don't play to the objectives, so when their armies fail to kill off units turn 2 before being ground down they call the army "unfun" or "OP".

That said, Mortek Guard in Petrifex (or even Mortis Praetorians with Katakros) often do things that no unit at that price point should be able to do, especially when you throw a Harvester in the mix. On some battleplans and against some armies, before the game even starts there is often no real avenue to win short of absolute miracle dice rolling.

[Maddpainting]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Petrifex has been banned in my old gaming group, due to cheesiness. (Same goes for 2+ Catapults)

overall I don‘t think most new factions are op, they just include mechanics that are unfun and therefor your opponent feels wronged once these mechanics come into play, which creates a perception of being „op“.

summarized: No one (still) wants to play against OBR which created a bad gaming athmosphere for several months. The same seems to be happening with the Lumineth (at least that‘s the mood  in the Group‘s WhatsApp Channel). Seraphon are less affected since they don‘t use as many cheesy game mechanics.

Both my main armies i'll play against OBR anytime anywhere, i have zero problems with them, they are just bulky, limited on the table, and slow. You can easily body block them and hold objectives. You really only need to kill 1-3 units to have the upper hand all game.

It's sad to hear that they are banned, doesn't let players grow in experience at all and creates a stigma for something that isn't any stronger than 10 other traits/lists.
 

1 hour ago, Jupiter said:

2+ nagash with teleportation and super saves. It's bonkers, played against them yesterday also with a completely op archeon army so it was really fun. But if your army doesn't allow crazy op stuff it's not fun, not even close. 

Yes he is strong, but he is also 1/2 an army and should be able to do 1/2 an armies work. Kill everything else, ignore him and play the objectives.

I play BoC and CoS and have no problem player OBR+Nagash or even Archaon. You just don't want to head strong them unless you know you can. They both are huge point investments which leads the a smaller force. Play the objectives.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Maddpainting

[Acid_Nine]

Honestly I wouldn’t mind petrifax if they didn’t get that extra rend on whatever unit they want. It turns a defensive army into an absolute blender with the right general, and I admit it feels bad when your expensive units like morrsarr guard just bounce right off, doing no damage before getting wiped out by a mainline unit worth 240pts like there was no contest.

in my experience,  when you face petrifax mortek guard, you have to make sure can bring an equally powerful unit like that, make sure the Mortek guard  strike after you and that the unit you chose unit options to do an insane amount of mortal wounds. And make sure you can kill their bone shapes /katakros before they heal up all the hard work you just did. And make sure you kill the gothizar harvester before they can keep bringing more dudes back based on casualties in a general area around them. And make sure you have the volume of attacks with high enough rend to actually break their armor even if you have mortal wounds. And make sure you devote enough resources to a unit that effectively cost like, 12-18% of your opponent’s army in just baseline units...

 

but hey, if you can do all that then it’s a peace of cake as long as they don’t roll good deathless minion rolls!

Edited June 21, 2020 by Acid_Nine

[The World Tree]

Yes, Petrifex are too strong. They were somewhat overshadowed by Tzeentch. More specifically, mortek guard are too strong. Petrifex is tough but less problematic on the other units (well, Nagash too). They just feel awful to play vs. They get durability, rerolls (RP is barely a resource), immunity to battleshock, bringing back models and can be hard hitting. 

There are of course ways around Mortek - high mortal output and extreme durability. However both of these pull the game in a bad direction. Normal armies just cannot cope.

[peasant]

Even worst than brokeness are unfun mechanichs like petrifex nagash, old slaanesh dp snowball...

[Mutton]

It's a three-part problem. 1) Power creep is absolutely a thing that happens---it's hard to avoid. 2) In developing new army mechanics, sometimes they stumble upon mechanics that are powerful but oppressive for the opposing player, requiring a higher level of skill to overcome. 3) Armies that become hard counters to others (something that hasn't really been a major problem until recently).

Going back only a year ago, you can point to many allegiances, abilities, warscrolls, etc that have been further iterated on with stronger rules than their predecessors. Many people tend to agree that books releasing earlier in the life cycle lose their weight near the end. It's natural for this to happen. Designers want to err on the side of strength, either for marketing purposes or to ensure a book/product has staying power. A book with a "safer" rule-set is always going to be harder to lift up than a book that's more oppressive; because the tighter and more reliable the rules, the more readily points increases can mitigate its power (not that this is a foolproof idea, but largely true). However there's only so much you can reduce an army's points to make up for discordant rules (look at BoC or Gitz) before things get a little silly and you end up with 300 models on the table. Power creep happens in nearly every game. The real question is by what method and to what degree?

Are Petrifex, Tzeentch, and Slaanesh overpowered armies that have crept their way into the top echelon by rules-writing alone? It often depends on the player's point of view. I often see very competitive players mentioning that there are clear counters to these armies if you have the right setup and know the right strategies. These folks will obviously say they're fine. Casual players who just wander into the game store every couple weeks and don't pour over tier lists will shout in agony to the high heavens and refuse to matches against them because of their miserable experiences playing against such armies. Nobody wants to spend 2-3 hours playing a game they couldn't win because they didn't do enough mortal wounds or didn't own enough shooting units.

The fact of the matter is people want to buy, paint, and play with cool models. But when playing against some of these armies, you can't simply throw whatever you have/want onto the table and hope to have a chance. Even just owning a mixed army of your favorite models with a couple synergies flavored in there won't cut it, and you'll get smashed a majority of the time. Newer armies tend to skew towards needing a higher level of learning to beat, very specific counters, and they often have multiple safety nets (reliability) for the controlling player to avoid the ruthless nature of luck in a dice-based game.

Why aren't people talking as much about Petrifex or Slaanesh anymore? Well because KO and Tzeentch have released since then and are pretty strong direct counters. Yet people still speak about Petrifex with venom on their lips, because many people aren't playing with those two armies, they're playing with armies that still intensely struggle in that match up due to the nature oppressive things like hyper-defense + offense or infinite summoning. Hell, barely anyone talks about FEC anymore, but I don't know anyone that enjoys playing against them specifically because of the chalice and terrorgheist. Would competitive players say FEC was overpowered? Probably not. I wouldn't. But the mechanics of their army, the very things that give them the best opportunity for success, are oppressive and difficult to overcome without prior knowledge and a lot of experience. I don't want AoS to head in a direction where pitting one particular army against another means an assured defeat by one of those players, but in some cases, we're already there, and it has been getting a little worse.

That said, I'm hopeful the rules writers at GW can turn things around, mitigate some of these oppressive rules,  and have the eye to spot a need for change.

TLDR: Power creep happens and it's more prevalent when mechanics become too overwhelming for casual players to handle effectively without specific army compositions or extensive experience.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Mutton

[JackStreicher]

16 minutes ago, Mutton said:

That said, I'm hopeful the rules writers at GW can turn things around, mitigate some of these oppressive rules,  and have the eye to spot a need for chance.

I am afraid they don‘t realize that a problem exists until it is too late.

[Heijoshin]

I'm by no means qualified to say whether the Petrifex is truly OP or not. I have commented before saying that it isn't and I do regret saying that, mostly because I really didn't take into account an important aspect when it comes to the gaming side of the hobby: Your average Joe gamer. So I have kinda backtracked on my initial "petrifex are kinda fine because x,y,z weakness" and "but a,b,c faction can do something similar" because of this. I'll try to explain it as best as I can. 

If anyone has every played League of Legends, then you know the champion Shaco (or if you play Smite then it's Loki), where this character basically dominates beginners because a new player's lack of wider understanding of the game other than "killing enemy good". Things like farming, placing wards for map control and generally getting a feel for the more subtle things that make you win the game (we've all had that game of LoL where we're up on kill points by a landslide but lose the objective game and ultimately lose the game). However, the champion can be easily countered and / or neutered by more experienced and high level players because of this wider understanding on what it takes to win. You would almost never see these champions in tournaments or even in higher level brackets of ranked play. If you Don't want to be dominated by a Shaco, then you play smarter. 

The reason I mention this is because I feel petrifex falls into this same pattern. It's tough on beginner and even medium skilled pilots because the skill floor is higher ( or is it low skill floor???? Basically I mean it's easier to do well from the get go) than most and the strengths of the army in this sub faction are not only cranked up to 11, but these strengths are one of the core mechanics that help win games: Killing and not getting killed. What does your average Joe want to do in AoS games? Kill and not get killed. Obviously it's way more nuanced than that and arguably what really wins game is deployment and movement, but that leads me to my next point and that Petrifex can be countered by the more subtle and background aspects of the game. Things like screening, movement etc etc that many experienced players rely on just as much as outright killing power. Again, like Shaco, if you don't want to be dominated by a Petrifex player, then you play smarter....

....BUT (and i'm finally trying to get to one of my points after three paragraphs...sorry, not sorry) asking someone to essentially "git gud" in AoS is a lot different than saying the same in LoL. Outside of the whole "some just play for fun, but want a fair game" aspect, Petrifex doesn't simply asks players to play smarter in order to perhaps win, it forces it. It essentially takes away people's choice. If Jimmy and Sandra have been playing a few games and are both relatively new and had some close games where it could go either way, that's awesome. Once Jimmy get's a shiny new OBR army and takes Petrifex, then the dynamic completely changes and Sandra needs to step up her game in order to have that "could go either way" experience.  In my opinion I think this really is something as to why people hate on Petrifex so much (amongst other things of course). I think the added fact that AoS is such a costly hobby adds an element of justified entitlement in ensuring that things are balanced and things like Petrifex are brought in line. 

To be honest, I think since OBR (perhaps even Cities of Sigmar and Orruk), I feel that GW have basically decided that each faction will have one or two key defining strengths that will annoy every other player and essentially have a mentality of "if every faction has something unique, annoying and "out of line" (don't want to say OP or Broken), then it's all good. I am very interested to see how things look next year (if there is no AoS 3.0 that is) and see if older factions (looking at you Nighthaunt) get new updated mechanics which fit with their initial theme but cranked up. 

A final note, and something related to my last paragraph, is that I feel GW have moved away from dice rolls dictate things (e.g. night haunt wave of terror) to either guaranteed abilities (Say StD Ravagers summoning or StD Gaunt Summoner summoning) or those of 90% certainty and / or upping the scale of abilities (Staunch Defender vs Petrifex ) or adding in never before seen things which kinda go against what we expect and know from the game's rules ( e.g. board wide mortal wounds and unbinds with Kroak). I really do hope that GW bring up the power level of these older tomes. That along with bringing in the problem stuff in line, we can finally get a better picture of where we stand. 

 

Edited June 22, 2020 by Heijoshin

[amysrevenge]

I think power creep as a continual systemic process is an illusion.  Some new things that come out are better.  Some things aren't.  People who are keen to talk about power creep will only count the "hits" and disregard the "misses".  If 5 new armies come out, and 1 of them is super awesome and nudges the curve upward, 3 of them are fine, and 1 is terrible, to the Power Creep Crowd that is clear evidence of continual systemic power creep.

I also think that "theoryhammer" exaggerates the real impact of army imbalances by like a factor of 5.

Edited June 21, 2020 by amysrevenge
typo

[Kramer]

5 hours ago, MitGas said:

We might not like it but in the end realistically only the opinions of the best few players and a couple of the game designers really count - those that regularly place high in tournaments and know the game/armies by heart. I think they can judge the situation best. 

That, to me, is such bull. That way the game will (risk) only be made for the very best players. The fact that the number 1 player in the world can deal with the new overpowered army*, doesn’t mean it’s not too strong from the number 2 to the 11 year old that buys his first box of minis. 
the problem is that they have skills that I don’t. And don’t want to invest that much time learning them. should I as a result be lost as soon as someone brings that new army? 
The game should, IMO, be made for the biggest group of gamers. If it becomes to elite it will stop growing.

*whatever that may be.  Not pointing the finger at any specific army. 

EDIT:

@Heijoshin explains my thoughts way better than I could  

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by Kramer

[Nizrah]

You what whas is OP and broken? Not petri. Not Nagash. Not katakros.

ALL OF THIS IN ONE ROSTER.

Nagash
Katakros
40 mortek
2x 10 mortek
Gemids

You literally only hope to win againts this roster is to kill all mortekst, one unit in one turn becouse they will resurrect 6 morteks per turn.

[Maddpainting]

6 minutes ago, Nizrah said:

You what whas is OP and broken? Not petri. Not Nagash. Not katakros.

ALL OF THIS IN ONE ROSTER.

Nagash
Katakros
40 mortek
2x 10 mortek
Gemids

You literally only hope to win againts this roster is to kill all mortekst, one unit in one turn becouse they will resurrect 6 morteks per turn.

5 units is terrible to win games tho. Focus down the 2x10 man and stall the others, you can easily win bee turn 2 without doing much damage. Only 2-3 missions will you have a problem fighting this list (Knife to the heart for example) and mission with 4+ objectives this list will almost auto lose. 

The problem IMO is large amounts of players just wants to have smash face lists and a stronger smash face list will win most the time. Players seem to not want to take utility units at all. 

[JackStreicher]

5 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:

The problem IMO is large amounts of players just wants to have smash face lists and a stronger smash face list will win most the time. Players seem to not want to take utility units at all. 

you Are missing the Point.

Players want to have fun without having to have a Bachelor‘s degree in AoS. Also most players play rather rarely to a variety of reasons which limits their opportunities to gain experience.

[Nizrah]

9 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:

5 units is terrible to win games tho. Focus down the 2x10 man and stall the others, you can easily win bee turn 2 without doing much damage. Only 2-3 missions will you have a problem fighting this list (Knife to the heart for example) and mission with 4+ objectives this list will almost auto lose. 

The problem IMO is large amounts of players just wants to have smash face lists and a stronger smash face list will win most the time. Players seem to not want to take utility units at all. 

Imagine its not that easy to gun down even 10 morteks lol.
Also this list is played by very good player, its nearly unbeatable.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Nizrah

[Maddpainting]

11 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

you Are missing the Point.

Players want to have fun without having to have a Bachelor‘s degree in AoS. Also most players play rather rarely to a variety of reasons which limits their opportunities to gain experience.

You missed my point. If players just want to put anything on the table and shoved it forward then yes it won't work against armies design to do that. Its a tactical game and you still should look at it as such. If you are not willing to have a balanced list then thats not a problem with the player.

Not saying there isn't a power creep, as i said above there is power creep, but lists like the one you pointed out are not good vs someone that understand the game. Personally i would rather play against that list than many other OBR ones.

[Evangelist of Cinders]

My short answer is no(or at least not skyfalling) but it's a bit complicated and long winded looking at GW basic ways of doing game mechanics which have never been quite balanced.  in older editions of 40k and WHFB(none of this being a rule more a trend) most armies functioned relatively similar with the faction having something thematic to make it different(use runes instead of magic, random chart for boons instead of buying artifacts,3+ saves for basic units ect., no cavalry) but each army functioned the same mostly with some  changes over time, where a balanced role forces wouldn't be too different from each other, where maneuvers and knowing how and when to use your advantages would win the game.  Now this is still true in AoS or 40k of recent years but the image of especially fantasy has changed with greater differences of factions being represented by more army mechanics rather then by special units,heroes and items. this gives each faction a very distinct and marketable feel. my lightning golems machine gun balista Vs Ghost hoarde is far more dynamic both in look and feel then my line of spearmen with some knights and slight range resistance vs some Spear-lizards and some slightly better skirmishers.Now this can lead to mechanics and play-styles that might be ointment in the fly for local groups meta or certain players style.  As more factions appear more norm breaks are required for dynamic forces

 

The problem and perception of OP comes from a few things resulting from that some armies dynamic style with a balance force can't handle other factions and thus may need to tailor their armies for a certain faction; Synergy bonuses being a important source of power for the game leads to many factions armies being VERY similar(the downside of dynamic poses leading to manufacturing units with less options in the rules doesnt help). This can lead to a feeling of a need for certain builds or elements of ones army lacking what is needed to win, that your armies special dynamic is null or that a different list build (which means more miniatures to buy build and paint) none of which are fun feelings in a hobby that is a game for you know fun, but not a unfair balance in game mechanics.

 

Now none of this means a faction is by itself OP or that it isn't(power creep is real) but usually the fear of balance slipping away completely is not all there( I can attest to beating petrifex with a compendium army. In no way easy, or all on my skill but doable).

[Nizrah]

30 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:

Personally i would rather play against that list than many other OBR ones.

Everyone in our group thinked that. And we are super competive group.

[MitGas]

1 hour ago, Kramer said:

That, to me, is such bull. That way the game will (risk) only be made for the very best players. The fact that the number 1 player in the world can deal with the new overpowered army*, doesn’t mean it’s not too strong from the number 2 to the 11 year old that buys his first box of minis. 
the problem is that they have skills that I don’t. And don’t want to invest that much time learning them. should I as a result be lost as soon as someone brings that new army? 
The game should, IMO, be made for the biggest group of gamers. If it becomes to elite it will stop growing.

*whatever that may be.  Not pointing the finger at any specific army. 

EDIT:

@Heijoshin explains my thoughts way better than I could  

 

Oh, I get what you say and I can't say there's no truth to saying "bull" to my point but to play devil's advocate and not accuse those top players of being stupid (which your post in a way suggests, I'm talking about an ideal case here) and not think of other tiers of players if they were used as consultants: just because someone can deal with something broken does not mean he'd say the broken army/battalion/hero/whatever else is fine as is. He's more qualified to give valuable feedback than other players would be though and most likely sees things much more unemotional than some of us do as they often have a more methodical mindset about the game than many other gamers and probably play way more different armies as well.  

That said, they could squat Petrifex for all I care. It's nothing I have to deal with so I got no opinion on that particular problem. Personally I'd like GW to find good internal balance, especially when it comes to units and then ask for outside opinions on the various races in regards to their overall pros and cons... ideally they'd start with the tournament scene but not forget about casual players... but you see, this already would take a lot of effort.

[JackStreicher]

58 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:

You missed my point. If players just want to put anything on the table and shoved it forward then yes it won't work against armies design to do that. Its a tactical game and you still should look at it as such. If you are not willing to have a balanced list then thats not a problem with the player.

....

You can have a balanced list and you will still lose against OBR and the likes, the true issue is that you need a specialized list. Which forces you to partake in the „meta chase“ and THAT is what most people have zero interest in.

Edited June 21, 2020 by JackStreicher