Powercreep Illusion - Petrifex

[ACBelMutie]

36 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

This is the sort of comment that had me start this thread, so thanks for saying that and giving me the nudge to encourage it to get more focused.

See, I just don't get that. In my recent game vs. Gitz, it was not mortal wounds or shooting that got me. It was superior movement and being vastly outclassed in combat. Manglers and hoppers dominated in both areas, wiping out droves of Mortek easily, giving my opponent control of objectives they I simply could not counter. This was why I ended up thinking "This is the army people were concerned about???"

So, to get us a bit more on track, I'll ask again -

What is real, on-table experience showing us? What is the reality of the situation as opposed to the read-the-book-theory of it?

Some Ossiarch lists can be stronger than others. A solid list with 60 Morteks in 2 or three units have a big sustain and a nice attack. People dislikes the -2 rend and the "repeat saves" because it's like hitting your head against a wall. My main army is LoN. I used to bored Slaanesh A LOT. It was almost impossible to win against them because they nearly always fighted 2 times with their Keepers and when my units were almost destroyed, I hadn't enought push to deal enough wound to their units.

In this case, OB are pretty solid. They can loose, of course. I lost to an Stormcast list recently because of the map. He landed at 9" with Gavriel and 10 Retributors which charged and destroyed one of my objectives thanks to the 4 ballistas who weakened them. He had another unit of 10 Retributors waiting for landing and get another objective, but I protected them enought. The problem was I couldn't get their objectives and he destroyed 2 of them at battleround 4. I lacked movility in that map, but I'm sure OB can deal pretty well against Stormcast in most cases.

What I want to say is Ossiarch Bonereapers aren't invincible, but are above average. Some armies can counter them and another ones can counter them with "special" lists (not good against other armies). Them problem is there are several armies that can't fight against them in most of the cases. I have OB because I like the models (I like every bone/death miniature in this game) but I know they are above average.

GWs likes to balance the game using "rock scissors paper" and that frustrates many played because it's army is very good against 5 armies, but very bad against another 5 ones. I don't know how to balance the game, but this is what we have. X beats Y. Y beats Z. Z beats X.

Greetings

[Icegoat]

4 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

„They say he can’t be killed.“

“And do you believe them?“

„No, Mylord. Anyone can be killed.“

😁

They can be killed but then they just get back up again  my poor maggot boys dont get that chance.

[ACBelMutie]

12 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

The reality of the situation is there is power creep I play maggotkin and have never won against ossiarchs in 4 matches I've played. They dont die and when they do they get up and they run around like a sprinting cheetah. It's not so much they kill my unitss they just park themselves in front of them and the combat never ends. Its depressing. 

Well, Nurgle needs a new battletome. They need new rules in most of their units, not a change in their costs. They lack rending and damage output. They used to be quit hard to kill, but every army had improved its offensive output since they got a new battletome.

Greetings

[whispersofblood]

47 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

The reality of the situation is there is power creep I play maggotkin and have never won against ossiarchs in 4 matches I've played. They dont die and when they do they get up and they run around like a sprinting cheetah. It's not so much they kill my unitss they just park themselves in front of them and the combat never ends. Its depressing. 

In the same token I could build a Maggotkin list in 15 minutes or less that would beat OBR. The questions are would you build it, would you paint it, would you have fun. Most people need to check at least the latter of those questions positively but in tournament play you need all 3. 

The match play rules don't need to validate people's stylistic choices nor should they.

[Aelfric]

3 hours ago, Beliman said:

One year for my next army you say?!?!

Well, for one I'm a bit of a slow painter; and two, I also have  Cities, Ironjawz and Gitz armies and I have a habit of veering towards each in turn.  I am currently in Ironjawz mode.  When my box arrives, I will start my Lumineth army, but I can guarantee I will stray from time to time.  I can't help it - there are more models I want for each of them and not enough time (or money, it has to be said).  Fortunately, the others are large enough points-wise to play variants at 2000 points, so I can still play while painting them up.  

[Skreech Verminking]

Well The meta changes every time a new army comes out.

certainly there have been a few very powerful combination and unbelievable Rules (slaanesh pre-summoning.. cough cough).

But nothing really seriously, unbalanced hasn’t been nerfed or changed in some way.

sure there have been a time when nothing but Dok were played in the top tables.

but considering that back then almost 90% of the aos ranged have been left in the dust , it kinda makes sense that an army that isn’t using the pretty bad Grand allegiance rules, and even has a spell lore, will more then often win a battle.

now we have thankfully arrived in a certain time where these 90% have either gotten a battletome and become somewhat better, or don’t really exist anymore ( Highelf players screaming in pain😭)

so the meta today usually works with certain question being answered.
For Example As  skavenplayer I will always have to ask myself, what armies I’ll be facing, what kind of weaknesses those armies have that I can counter with my more cunning nature.

When the meta was all about Slaanesh and it’s summoning, I choose to an army consisting of mostly 1wound models, which ended with me taking anything from clanrats to plague monks.

I even wen’t with the (too) expensive Stormvermins, and at a certain point I even played with an army that was swarming the table with around 380Clanrats. (Which made me a pretty hated foe for some slaanesh players).

against the meta today which consist of mostly bonereapers, who’s biggest weakness is their slowness, city of sigmar armies, which really don’t like loosing their support heroes.

Seraphon are similar.

their warscroll is basically trash, but with those comman abilities, that can stack, and since they are basically an army that starts a round with 5-10 cp, the are literally outperforming many armies. Although pretty resilient to most shooting thanks to some great protection abilities, they still suffer greatly from loosing any kind of Heroes.

There is always a way to somehow find a way to win. (Although some matches might become extremely hard)

So even when some units might become overly strong, your either going to wait for a slight nerf or just adjust.

with Teclis coming (who, from what I heard (not sure if it is true though), can auto bann and cast 4 spells a turn), it just might mean we will see a slight change from magic heavy list to non at all.

 

 

[JackStreicher]

22 hours ago, Euphanism said:

Sorry, I've been hearing 'those models are ugly why do you like them' from day 1 so I'm probably a bit defensive! Hard-line opinions about little plastic toys and all that.

You called my MAME!? Here I am, Sir!

[Ravinsild]

You know, I think that this is really a positive thing. The designers are pushing the boundaries, they're experimenting with the rules and they're trying new things out. I think that shows the game is progressing and growing. It's moving forward and they're thinking about it.

Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 was a totally different game by the time Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition came out.

Even Pathfinder was a different game by the time Pathfinder 2E came out.

Yes, there was power creep, but the game was being supported, and it was growing and it made for new, awesome characters. Because the thing is what's broken now may become the new norm, and when it comes round to circling back to YOUR battletome, they may push the boundaries even further, or give you what's now the new norm. It will cycle like this, forever, but I think that's honestly okay.

I've only heard legends of the World That Was, but allegedly some armies would languish for years with nothing. Not 1 model, not one rule...they'd just have a book for like 3 Editions with 0 changes. And that's why fantasy died. Nobody cared and it stagnated.

[zilberfrid]

12 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

You know, I think that this is really a positive thing. The designers are pushing the boundaries, they're experimenting with the rules and they're trying new things out. I think that shows the game is progressing and growing. It's moving forward and they're thinking about it.

Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 was a totally different game by the time Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition came out.

Even Pathfinder was a different game by the time Pathfinder 2E came out.

Yes, there was power creep, but the game was being supported, and it was growing and it made for new, awesome characters. Because the thing is what's broken now may become the new norm, and when it comes round to circling back to YOUR battletome, they may push the boundaries even further, or give you what's now the new norm. It will cycle like this, forever, but I think that's honestly okay.

I've only heard legends of the World That Was, but allegedly some armies would languish for years with nothing. Not 1 model, not one rule...they'd just have a book for like 3 Editions with 0 changes. And that's why fantasy died. Nobody cared and it stagnated.

3.x only worked because it isn't pvp.

The splatbooks made a hot mess of balance. 

In a pve, balance is much less of an issue, so it matters less if you are only half as effective as your friend.

When you play against one another, balance needs to be a lot closer.

[Ravinsild]

1 minute ago, zilberfrid said:

3.x only worked because it isn't pvp.

The splatbooks made a hot mess of balance. 

In a pve, balance is much less of an issue, so it matters less if you are only half as effective as your friend.

When you play against one another, balance needs to be a lot closer.

Well yes, I understand that, I was just using an example of a game that's changed over time due to constant development. Unlike a game which nobody touches and it dies.

I could use video games instead.. ?

[Evangelist of Cinders]

23 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

I've only heard legends of the World That Was, but allegedly some armies would languish for years with nothing. Not 1 model, not one rule...they'd just have a book for like 3 Editions with 0 changes. And that's why fantasy died. Nobody cared and it stagnated.

I wouldn't compare the two.GW was a VERY different company. Wouldn't let its IP leave their production, insisted that they were a miniatures company and perfomace was not related to hobbies or games popularity,there was very little done beyond FAQs to address problems over time. WHFB the creep was more noticable between editions, as the game of maneuvers didnt change much. Also how 40k got to be the Space marines and only space marines game it can feel like.AoS simple core rules allows more experimental divergence, which means you cant stick with the same army over the course of a edition and expect to perform the same, leading to needing a larger collection but also not being able to stick with a style of play you like(for better or worse)

[zilberfrid]

13 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

Well yes, I understand that, I was just using an example of a game that's changed over time due to constant development. Unlike a game which nobody touches and it dies.

I could use video games instead.. ?

5e might be a better comparison. It's running for six years now (3.0 ran 3 years, 3.5 ran 5), and it's intentionally toned down all the excesses to help longevity.

Sure balance isn't perfect, but it's no 1e, 2e or 3.x.

Still, not a pvp game. I don't know what a good comparison may be without computer games.

Edited June 24, 2020 by zilberfrid

[Sleboda]

I would just like to call out the ---fact--- that there is no such thing as a meta.

Just like there is no such thing as a pre, or a circum, or an omni.

We have words and phrases for what some people mistakenly call a meta. Environment. Popular style. And so on. We don't need to support the dumbing down of communication by accepting the use of a prefix as a word on its own, especially when there are already ways to say it correctly.

 

I will now kindly ask everyone to get off my lawn.

[Ravinsild]

2 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

5e might be a better comparison. It's running for six years now (3.0 ran 3 years, 3.5 ran 5), and it's intentionally toned down all the excesses to help longevity.

Sure balance isn't perfect, but it's no 1e, 2e or 3.x.

Still, not a pvp game. I don't know what a good comparison may be without computer games.

Yeah I was gonna be like League of Legends honestly. How the heroes and mechanics have evolved and changed, how they went back and redid all the Season like 1-3 heroes released to revise their kits to keep up with the newest and latest heroes. How they've changed the games to mostly skill shots from point and clickers, etc. They keep revising the jungle. It just keeps moving forward and the meta shifts. I guess I should have just started with that.

Then there's you know, like Tribe 2. And if you're like "what?" well...that's exactly my point.

[Ravinsild]

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

I would just like to call out the ---fact--- that there is no such thing as a meta.

Just like there is no such thing as a pre, or a circum, or an omni.

We have words and phrases for what some people mistakenly call a meta. Environment. Popular style. And so on. We don't need to support the dumbing down of communication by accepting the use of a prefix as a word on its own, especially when there are already ways to say it correctly.

 

I will now kindly ask everyone to get off my lawn.

If I understand the terminology it means Meta-Game, or "The Game within the Game" which typically seems to be "The best possible and most optimum" way to play the game.

Why is there no game within the game?

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Ravinsild said:

If I understand the terminology it means Meta-Game, or "The Game within the Game" which typically seems to be "The best possible and most optimum" way to play the game.

Why is there no game within the game?

There is a game within the game. Yes, indeed. Or, more accurately, there is a "game about the game" but that is not the same as the current way the game is played, and it's certainly not the same thing as the way people are playing the game.

 

For example, meta data refers to data about the data. Like if you wanted to say that 10% of the classifications of color of dice are variations on red. That would be data (10% of the things) about the data (the groupings of colors of dice).

Simply saying that a lot of people are using shooting heavy lists is not a game about the game. It refers to the environment in a local group. 

 

That's not, at all, a meta game, and certainly not a "meta" (which is a prefix for other words).

Edit:

To add to it for clarity -

If we made a game, an actual game and not just an analysis (oh look, another extant real word and not just a prefix), about the game, we could call that metagaming when we played it. Like, if we had a game where you accumulated information about an army by turning over cards and rolling dice, and used the results to allow the winner of that game to change the rules of a game of AoS, we could call the first game "an AoS metagame."

 

TL;DR

-Meta is a prefix, not a word.

-Even if it were legitimate shorthand for "metagame" it would still be an incorrect usage of the term.

 

Edit edit:

In anticipation -

If you refer to an army as an "auto," you are wrong. You may mean "automobile" when you shorten it to "auto." The full word (automobile) is wrong as the word to describe an army, and the short version (auto) is still not a word.

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Sleboda

[Ravinsild]

52 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

There is a game within the game. Yes, indeed. Or, more accurately, there is a "game about the game" but that is not the same as the current way the game is played, and it's certainly not the same thing as the way people are playing the game.

 

For example, meta data refers to data about the data. Like if you wanted to say that 10% of the classifications of color of dice are variations on red. That would be data (10% of the things) about the data (the groupings of colors of dice).

Simply saying that a lot of people are using shooting heavy lists is not a game about the game. It refers to the environment in a local group. 

 

That's not, at all, a meta game, and certainly not a "meta" (which is a prefix for other words).

Edit:

To add to it for clarity -

If we made a game, an actual game and not just an analysis (oh look, another extant real word and not just a prefix), about the game, we could call that metagaming when we played it. Like, if we had a game where you accumulated information about an army by turning over cards and rolling dice, and used the results to allow the winner of that game to change the rules of a game of AoS, we could call the first game "an AoS metagame."

 

TL;DR

-Meta is a prefix, not a word.

-Even if it were legitimate shorthand for "metagame" it would still be an incorrect usage of the term.

 

Edit edit:

In anticipation -

If you refer to an army as an "auto," you are wrong. You may mean "automobile" when you shorten it to "auto." The full word (automobile) is wrong as the word to describe an army, and the short version (auto) is still not a word.

 

I always thought metagaming was when you as a human real life person player know something that your in game character does not know, but you act as the human person with that knowledge in the game  when it is something your character cannot know. Like "I choose to attack the Orcs around that corner" because you can see the miniatures on the map, but your character can't see around corners in the game.  Then people get mad at you.

[NkfPanda]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

There is a game within the game. Yes, indeed. Or, more accurately, there is a "game about the game" but that is not the same as the current way the game is played, and it's certainly not the same thing as the way people are playing the game.

 

For example, meta data refers to data about the data. Like if you wanted to say that 10% of the classifications of color of dice are variations on red. That would be data (10% of the things) about the data (the groupings of colors of dice).

Simply saying that a lot of people are using shooting heavy lists is not a game about the game. It refers to the environment in a local group. 

 

That's not, at all, a meta game, and certainly not a "meta" (which is a prefix for other words).

Edit:

To add to it for clarity -

If we made a game, an actual game and not just an analysis (oh look, another extant real word and not just a prefix), about the game, we could call that metagaming when we played it. Like, if we had a game where you accumulated information about an army by turning over cards and rolling dice, and used the results to allow the winner of that game to change the rules of a game of AoS, we could call the first game "an AoS metagame."

 

TL;DR

-Meta is a prefix, not a word.

-Even if it were legitimate shorthand for "metagame" it would still be an incorrect usage of the term.

 

Edit edit:

In anticipation -

If you refer to an army as an "auto," you are wrong. You may mean "automobile" when you shorten it to "auto." The full word (automobile) is wrong as the word to describe an army, and the short version (auto) is still not a word.

 

Thanks for the valuable information. I will make sure to correct everyone at my local gaming store and if I am asked where I received the info I will just say "from a really fun guy on the internet, the life of the party". 

[Kasper]

13 hours ago, Icegoat said:

The reality of the situation is there is power creep I play maggotkin and have never won against ossiarchs in 4 matches I've played. They dont die and when they do they get up and they run around like a sprinting cheetah. It's not so much they kill my unitss they just park themselves in front of them and the combat never ends. Its depressing. 

But that is just not true. By your logic every single new book would default to tear up every tournament if there was a true power creep happening and that is just not what we are seeing. Keep in mind that a new book generally has an advantage for a short while simply because the player behind the new book knows your army, but you dont know his or where the weaknesses are. Prior to COVID the podium results across the world were actually very diverse - Sure some armies appeared more than others, but it was still very diverse and it wasnt just the latest book winning.

The whole mentality of "oh I play X army and I cant win vs Y army, so Y army/unit must be broken" is so unhealthy. Every book has some form of issues with internal balance, so you cant just randomly stuff things into your list and expect it to be the best your battletome has to offer. Maybe your friend is just way better at the game than you? Maybe his list is just a little more finetuned? I find it so funny so many people see themselves as this divine being that always play flawless and perfect and never make a single mistake or got room to improve at all, and base statements in regards to balance or whatever off that.   

[RuneBrush]

Think @Sleboda has summed up the use of the word meta really well   One of the confusing things within our hobby is that we frequently mis-use terminology/words.  Quite often this stems from when a term was used correctly and over time it's meaning has been subverted into meaning something different.  Why can this be bad?  Because it can cause confusion for players and worse still if you use it in a different context with different people, you can look like a berk.

I believe I'm right in saying that metagaming within the wargaming hobby was at one point used when you'd design an army list specifically to beat another army list - the list building "game" being treated as a sub-game.  So if I knew I'd be facing army X with a specific build, I could use a counter build to improve/guarantee my chances of winning before even rolling a dice).  It's not a massive leap to see why "meta" has come to represent the current trend of army builds (even if the word is used incorrectly).

[Joseph Mackay]

Oh and another interesting point of note: the order battletomes are released in, is not necessarily the order they were written. So using the ‘but book X is bad and was released after Y’ isn’t a good argument against power creep existing or not

[Yondaime]

16 hours ago, ACBelMutie said:

Some Ossiarch lists can be stronger than others. A solid list with 60 Morteks in 2 or three units have a big sustain and a nice attack. People dislikes the -2 rend and the "repeat saves" because it's like hitting your head against a wall. My main army is LoN. I used to bored Slaanesh A LOT. It was almost impossible to win against them because they nearly always fighted 2 times with their Keepers and when my units were almost destroyed, I hadn't enought push to deal enough wound to their units.

In this case, OB are pretty solid. They can loose, of course. I lost to an Stormcast list recently because of the map. He landed at 9" with Gavriel and 10 Retributors which charged and destroyed one of my objectives thanks to the 4 ballistas who weakened them. He had another unit of 10 Retributors waiting for landing and get another objective, but I protected them enought. The problem was I couldn't get their objectives and he destroyed 2 of them at battleround 4. I lacked movility in that map, but I'm sure OB can deal pretty well against Stormcast in most cases.

What I want to say is Ossiarch Bonereapers aren't invincible, but are above average. Some armies can counter them and another ones can counter them with "special" lists (not good against other armies). Them problem is there are several armies that can't fight against them in most of the cases. I have OB because I like the models (I like every bone/death miniature in this game) but I know they are above average.

GWs likes to balance the game using "rock scissors paper" and that frustrates many played because it's army is very good against 5 armies, but very bad against another 5 ones. I don't know how to balance the game, but this is what we have. X beats Y. Y beats Z. Z beats X.

Greetings

I am really curious, do you remember the SCE list by any chance?

SCE player here, i am looking for a list with paladins that can hold the line vs OBR

[Marcvs]

2 hours ago, Yondaime said:

I am really curious, do you remember the SCE list by any chance?

SCE player here, i am looking for a list with paladins that can hold the line vs OBR

well:

2x10 retributors (800)

gavriel (120)

4 ballistas (440)

at least 3x5 liberators (300)

and probably a lord ordinator to go with the ballistas (140)

gives you 1800 points already. Probably you'll need a wizard and you are essentially done (whether this can hold the line against OBR is another matter ofc)

Edited June 25, 2020 by Marcvs

[ACBelMutie]

Marcvs is right. Lord Ordinator with the 4 ballistas, 3x5 Liberators (battleline), Gavriel and 2x10 Retributors (lots of Mortal Wounds). I don't remember who was the other hero (Incantor I think).

Greetings

[Yondaime]

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

well:

2x10 retributors (800)

gavriel (120)

4 ballistas (440)

at least 3x5 liberators (300)

and probably a lord ordinator to go with the ballistas (140)

gives you 1800 points already. Probably you'll need a wizard and you are essentially done (whether this can hold the line against OBR is another matter ofc)

 

1 hour ago, ACBelMutie said:

Marcvs is right. Lord Ordinator with the 4 ballistas, 3x5 Liberators (battleline), Gavriel and 2x10 Retributors (lots of Mortal Wounds). I don't remember who was the other hero (Incantor I think).

Greetings

Ty so much guys, ill try it