Powercreep Illusion - Petrifex

[LuminethMage]

3 minutes ago, Indecisive said:

Magic is a little trickier since with spellcasting bonuses and more importantly, unbind ability you can not just dominate the phase but cripple the opponent's chance to do anything. Factions that shoot well tend to be more efficient or superior firepower rather than stop you from shooting at all.
Excess unbinding strength is more of an annoyance if I had to pick. Teclis only has a small unbind bonus, but infinite unbinds.

It's true that with magic you can dominate part of a phase if you have a lot of modified unbinds etc. The "magic phase" is only part of the hero phase though, and isn't much of a concern for some armies, and you can't suppress the whole hero phase with it. I don't really see the qualitative difference against a good alpha strike army for example. They also can cripple your army without you being able to do much about it in many cases. Many armies now can do something which you can't prevent them from doing and that can be annoying for you (but fun for the other part, and most often the reason why they are playing that army in the first place). 

I understand though what you mean because the magic phase is interactive whereas the shooting phase for example is not, so I can't prevent you from shooting even though I have good shooting phase. But I'm not sure if it makes a qualitative difference in the end in what people see as more of a negative playing experience. Probably depends on the person and what kind of army they play. Some armies don't care at all about dispelling. For others it's a big deal. 

In both cases you have to find a way to adapt to the situation. You likely won't try to outshoot a KO army with your DoK, and maybe taking Hallowheart against Teclis won't be a good idea, but one of the other CoS will work just fine. 

I just think you it's unavoidable that you run into these problems if you want to provide different play styles and attract a wider range of people. I like playing mages, and found AoS uninteresting at first because the mage phase was kind of a joke. Of course you always have trade-offs and need to see that you get as many people in without really making it not fun for others. But again I don't see "magic" being qualitatively different.  

[Kasper]

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

That isn't my assumption... If I have any assumptions its the following.

Using HoS as an example, I've already detailed that the specific list that people took issue with is functionally dead against at least 9 factions, which leaves 15? factions that it works against lets say. That the whole HoS faction is now dead, and that is not a desirable outcome. That by the time GW could do anything about them, they already were reverting to the mean.

You misunderstand how HoS worked if you think they hard countered every melee army in the game. HoS worked by making alpha strikes a non-functional strategy in that specific match up, and people refused to accept it. They were also an extremely easy army to start requiring building and painting about 20 models, and were released into a game that was dominated by the alpha strike at the time. Of course they were going to do well, its like releasing a Killer whale into a seal pen.

I'm not suggesting that the game should or can be balanced around 2 day events. However with the number of factions available assuming we want these factions to be legitimately different, and not just re-skins of some dominant combat strategy, then I suspect that if a closed community has less than 5 players you will see huge amounts of imbalance. The game just can't be balanced on that scale and the factors which most predicates success at that level are intellectual ability, money, time and effort. Rules are a distant 5th, we can suppose this because there are many examples of players reaching out to the internet about their friends supposedly "unbeatable" Maggotkin of Nurgle army. In that environment players are going to be rank order by some combination of those factors again we can suppose this because new players aren't generally buying models they like. Its the same with a faction like KO with can dominate a local group or be at the bottom of a local group. But is actually pretty decent in the competitive environment. 

You feel very strongly about this I can see. But your feelings aren't born by facts, by the time HoS got nerfed in that errata they were already losing games to Orruks and needed to make changes to their list to deal with the pressure if they wanted to remain capable. Those changes included taking a lot more models, and fewer heroes specifically the KoS because of their fragility in the face of a competent melee unit like Ard Boyz. 

HoS actually weren't crushing non-alpha based combat armies, but you would need meta-data (such as actual scores) to know that. They didn't just run over Khorne if they Khorne player didn't try and alpha, and Khorne has never been a big player in the game. The reaction and continued opinion on HoS is in lockstep with normal reactions about confrontational facts. People were used to the game as it was, and couldn't come to grips that a faction any faction could or should change the norm. Personally I think the alpha meta was a boring game, and not really interesting or intellectually stimulating. Interestingly basically every army since HoS (discounting CoS) have been strongly anti-alpha in their own way and the game is better for it.

 

I played Slaanesh from day 1 and I had to shelf the army (it is still resting in my drawers, slowly trying to sell it off) because it was borderline insane and it completely ruined pretty much every single game between combat armies. Yes, it didnt dominate EVERY melee army (Fyreslayers comes to mind) but it ruined many. Slaanesh was very dominant from day 1 and all the way until the FAQ with the summoning point nerfs, even in the bigger tournaments. From what I remember Slaanesh had a general win % of around 75 when factoring for mirror matches. You cant tell me THAT much of the meta was pure alpha-strike lists.

In my opinion this is a very clear indicator that Slaanesh was borderline insane and broken vs the current armies you saw. To me it is completely irrelevant if new shooting armies (that hardcounter Slaanesh I agree) are introduced down the line to keep Slaanesh "in check", because it still keeps this hard rock-paper-scissors thing going which isnt healthy for the game. I dont care if Slaanesh would fall down to 50% due to Tzeentch, Seraphon, Lumineth etc. being introduced - It would just further create super polarized games where Slaanesh won by default against MANY armies but would also lose by default against many armies due to magic/shooting output. That isnt a cool system.

This is also why I find straight up looking if X army has 50% win ratio as a stupid indicator if X army is "ok". If you had 3 armies where army A beat army B 100% of the time, army B beat army C 100% of the time and army C beat army A 100% of the time (rock-paper-scissor) each one would have a balanced win ratio, but terrible game experience. This is how it felt like playing Slaanesh for me.

[Beliman]

22 minutes ago, LuminethMage said:

I understand though what you mean because the magic phase is interactive whereas the shooting phase for example is not, so I can't prevent you from shooting even though I have good shooting phase.  

Not sure about that:
To shoot, you need to hit and wound; and  there are some modifiers to work around (-1 hit from abilities, Look out Sir, can't attack if you have enemies at 3", etc...). Of course that you can't stop the shooting phase (there are armies based around shooting, imagine something that stops you fighting!!) but you can still try to save the damage! 

[whispersofblood]

52 minutes ago, Kasper said:

I played Slaanesh from day 1 and I had to shelf the army (it is still resting in my drawers, slowly trying to sell it off) because it was borderline insane and it completely ruined pretty much every single game between combat armies. Yes, it didnt dominate EVERY melee army (Fyreslayers comes to mind) but it ruined many. Slaanesh was very dominant from day 1 and all the way until the FAQ with the summoning point nerfs, even in the bigger tournaments. From what I remember Slaanesh had a general win % of around 75 when factoring for mirror matches. You cant tell me THAT much of the meta was pure alpha-strike lists.

In my opinion this is a very clear indicator that Slaanesh was borderline insane and broken vs the current armies you saw. To me it is completely irrelevant if new shooting armies (that hardcounter Slaanesh I agree) are introduced down the line to keep Slaanesh "in check", because it still keeps this hard rock-paper-scissors thing going which isnt healthy for the game. I dont care if Slaanesh would fall down to 50% due to Tzeentch, Seraphon, Lumineth etc. being introduced - It would just further create super polarized games where Slaanesh won by default against MANY armies but would also lose by default against many armies due to magic/shooting output. That isnt a cool system.

This is also why I find straight up looking if X army has 50% win ratio as a stupid indicator if X army is "ok". If you had 3 armies where army A beat army B 100% of the time, army B beat army C 100% of the time and army C beat army A 100% of the time (rock-paper-scissor) each one would have a balanced win ratio, but terrible game experience. This is how it felt like playing Slaanesh for me.

You've kind of failed to grapple with what I said. 

My argument isn't that the HoS win ration would drop permanently because of new armies. At first that would be the case, but as players adapt to the new challenge in an attempt to not be punished against new armies, they will need to make changes. The extreme builds that were letting them beat armies to the degree you mentioned are the exact reasons they lose against the new armies. To address them they need to pull back from those extremes which give the factions which struggled against them before more breathing space. Its not actually a rock/paper/scissors affect in the long term, the existence of the r/p/s puts pressure on builds to not spec to any point of the trilateral arrangement. This is only true so long as there is enough diversity on the arrangement, but the meta HoS were released into specifically did not have this diversity. If HoS were a form of Rock, then the whole meta was built to be scissors attacking each others remaining paper elements, and the worst performing factions were the ones who couldn't shed enough of their paper components (The Khornes, and the Nurgles of AoS 1.5.)

The HWG datasets aren't really deep enough for people to make the sorts of judgements they are, its why factions are falling off performance cliffs, similarly its why DoK were unnerfable basically they were simply exceptionally adapted to the actual game, and didn't need to play the metagame.

[LuminethMage]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

Not sure about that:
To shoot, you need to hit and wound; and  there are some modifiers to work around (-1 hit from abilities, Look out Sir, can't attack if you have enemies at 3", etc...). Of course that you can't stop the shooting phase (there are armies based around shooting, imagine something that stops you fighting!!) but you can still try to save the damage! 

Sure, I think what the OP meant is - if in the magic phase one side has very strong dispels it can totally shut another side down, which is a bit different from saving damage, or making it more difficult. Which is not wrong. That was what I was responding to, but seems I wasn’t clear enough. : ) 

[Kasper]

2 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

You've kind of failed to grapple with what I said. 

My argument isn't that the HoS win ration would drop permanently because of new armies. At first that would be the case, but as players adapt to the new challenge in an attempt to not be punished against new armies, they will need to make changes. The extreme builds that were letting them beat armies to the degree you mentioned are the exact reasons they lose against the new armies. To address them they need to pull back from those extremes which give the factions which struggled against them before more breathing space. Its not actually a rock/paper/scissors affect in the long term, the existence of the r/p/s puts pressure on builds to not spec to any point of the trilateral arrangement. This is only true so long as there is enough diversity on the arrangement, but the meta HoS were released into specifically did not have this diversity. If HoS were a form of Rock, then the whole meta was built to be scissors attacking each others remaining paper elements, and the worst performing factions were the ones who couldn't shed enough of their paper components (The Khornes, and the Nurgles of AoS 1.5.)

The HWG datasets aren't really deep enough for people to make the sorts of judgements they are, its why factions are falling off performance cliffs, similarly its why DoK were unnerfable basically they were simply exceptionally adapted to the actual game, and didn't need to play the metagame.

So what exactly isnt your point then? Because it isnt very clear.

You believe it was a bad move to nerf Slaanesh after over half a year of complete domination in both casual and competitive games because the newly introduced armies would have forced Slaanesh into a different list, that would be less oppressive against the current armies that Slaanesh beat without a sweat?

[whispersofblood]

50 minutes ago, Kasper said:

So what exactly isnt your point then? Because it isnt very clear.

You believe it was a bad move to nerf Slaanesh after over half a year of complete domination in both casual and competitive games because the newly introduced armies would have forced Slaanesh into a different list, that would be less oppressive against the current armies that Slaanesh beat without a sweat?

Most of my posts in regard to your opinon are analysis, to which you've not engaged at all creating a strawman argument that they were proving to be oppressive. You've waded in and neither made a point or provided some reason you disagree with my assessment, so I'm a bit confused. The full tournament reports I can get my hands on show that HoS weren't actually beating factions without a sweat, and frequently weren't scoring that many points destroyed after the 3rd round, and the spread on actual scores wasn't insane. I will of course accept that HoS savagely beat, really bad factions but that seems like a useless piece of metadata we know some of those factions would lose to a random collection of Destruction models. The point is you can't render anything down to one or two data points and make a proclimation. 

The long run of the argument is that new factions do exactly what HoS did, just later, in different ways and that the community has already adapted. Armies are no longer heavily skewed towards alpha strikes and similar strategies, and therefore the dominance HoS showed early on would have regressed to a more tolerable percentage with no changes. I believe they still would have done well as the core of the faction is actually quite fast so good on the objective game, but that is not relevent at the moment. 

The reality is GW made the changes some parts of the community demanded, the game kept advancing and HoS are essentially unplayable in any serious manner. So clearly it was the wrong decision and the right one was patience, which was already paying off by the time the winter faq arrived. I apologize there is a list, multiple Epitome, Daemon Princes and Chaos Marauders.

[Kasper]

17 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Most of my posts in regard to your opinon are analysis, to which you've not engaged at all creating a strawman argument that they were proving to be oppressive. You've waded in and neither made a point or provided some reason you disagree with my assessment, so I'm a bit confused. The full tournament reports I can get my hands on show that HoS weren't actually beating factions without a sweat, and frequently weren't scoring that many points destroyed after the 3rd round, and the spread on actual scores wasn't insane. I will of course accept that HoS savagely beat, really bad factions but that seems like a useless piece of metadata we know some of those factions would lose to a random collection of Destruction models. The point is you can't render anything down to one or two data points and make a proclimation. 

The long run of the argument is that new factions do exactly what HoS did, just later, in different ways and that the community has already adapted. Armies are no longer heavily skewed towards alpha strikes and similar strategies, and therefore the dominance HoS showed early on would have regressed to a more tolerable percentage with no changes. I believe they still would have done well as the core of the faction is actually quite fast so good on the objective game, but that is not relevent at the moment. 

The reality is GW made the changes some parts of the community demanded, the game kept advancing and HoS are essentially unplayable in any serious manner. So clearly it was the wrong decision and the right one was patience, which was already paying off by the time the winter faq arrived. I apologize there is a list, multiple Epitome, Daemon Princes and Chaos Marauders.

We have so little data in this Warhammer community and yet the little data we have, that LVO spends a ton of time compiling, you are just gonna hand wave away because it doesnt fit your agenda? Okay dude. Slaanesh was recorded as having one of the highest win % ever.

Slaanesh was a problem. Everyone knew that, even competent Slaanesh players realized their faction was bonkers. There were multiple posts on the FB groups of people feeling terrible about playing Slaanesh because games were so one-sided (they won hard) and they had to comp themselves by shelving their army. Myself included - People at my club refused to play against tripple Keeper because games werent fun. This forum was filled with so many threads of rage about Slaanesh.

Anyways, it is quite clear you have a hard-on for Slaanesh and blinded/oblivious to how reality was. I have no desire to keep this going since it is clearly just a waste of time.

[JackStreicher]

Power creep = fine, it happens when new rules are introduced 

power creep at the recent levels = oh boy, playtesting would have avoided a metric ton of misery.

[whispersofblood]

29 minutes ago, Kasper said:

We have so little data in this Warhammer community and yet the little data we have, that LVO spends a ton of time compiling, you are just gonna hand wave away because it doesnt fit your agenda? Okay dude. Slaanesh was recorded as having one of the highest win % ever.

Slaanesh was a problem. Everyone knew that, even competent Slaanesh players realized their faction was bonkers. There were multiple posts on the FB groups of people feeling terrible about playing Slaanesh because games were so one-sided (they won hard) and they had to comp themselves by shelving their army. Myself included - People at my club refused to play against tripple Keeper because games werent fun. This forum was filled with so many threads of rage about Slaanesh.

Anyways, it is quite clear you have a hard-on for Slaanesh and blinded/oblivious to how reality was. I have no desire to keep this going since it is clearly just a waste of time.

HoS are just one example of the trend. But again you've not actually engaged with any of the arguments. Yes I started with LVO's data and then I investigated the meta-data (The data that makes up the data presented) for the events that were available. That's what good researchers do, look at the nitty gritty of the source data... 

I've dispensed with the feel bad argument further up, feel free to engage with it there. I don't really have an agenda I'm engaging with the topic of the thread and using retrospectives to inform how we should move forward. 

Don't raise your voice, improve your argument 
- Desmond Tutu



 

Edited July 2, 2020 by whispersofblood

[Laststand]

46 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

HoS are just one example of the trend. But again you've not actually engaged with any of the arguments. Yes I started with LVO's data and then I investigated the meta-data (The data that makes up the data presented) for the events that were available. That's what good researchers do, look at the nitty gritty of the source data... 

I've dispensed with the feel bad argument further up, feel free to engage with it there. I don't really have an agenda I'm engaging with the topic of the thread and using retrospectives to inform how we should move forward. 

Don't raise your voice, improve your argument 
- Desmond Tutu



 

You both have some valid points. HOS may well have been changing because of new factions and the older lists would have had to go but you are saying it is ok for 1 faction to dominate the game for 6 months and be unplayable for many opponents because eventually that gets fixed by another faction taking over as the superpower. The time period really causes problems here and it isnt just people figuring an army out.

The flip side of you saying that HOS are now rubbish and applying your point from before  is that maybe HOS have to wait for a new army to come in to upset shooting lists and switch the meta back to something they can compete in. It might take 6 months but you would be happy with that.

Ultimately we should prob park this thread and everyone can agree to disagree. 

[Smooth criminal]

Petrifex are in a weird spot where they aren't strong enough to be tier 0 like things that were nerfed, but are strong enough to curbstomp weak lists taking enjoyment out of the game for people playing those.

[Sonnenspeer]

I would not care so much about power creep if it would not mess up the fluff. Aren´t Stormcast Eternals meant to have super power and wreck a skeleton with ease?

Liberator Warblades: 2 Attacks 3+/4+ no rent, 1 damage
Mortek Guard Sword: 2 Attacks 3+/4+ rent -1, 1 damage

😖

[Yondaime]

2 minutes ago, Sonnenspeer said:

I would not care so much about power creep if it would not mess up the fluff. Aren´t Stormcast Eternals meant to have super power and wreck a skeleton with ease?

Liberator Warblades: 2 Attacks 3+/4+ no rent, 1 damage
Mortek Guard Sword: 2 Attacks 3+/4+ rent -1, 1 damage

😖

And this is without the RD points shenanigans

[Scurvydog]

16 minutes ago, Yondaime said:

And this is without the RD points shenanigans

Well that goes for just about everything. Chaos marauders are nearly only half the price of a Mortek and can also have 2 attacks 3+/4+ rend -1, 1 dmg and easily buffed much higher. Liberators are absolute trash and you can compare any 20 points worth of models to a liberator and will always find something better, their large bases makes them infinitely worse as well.

Just about every army has buffs and debuffs. Using RDP as an argument, well then the new lumineth spearmen got 2 attacks as well, are wizards and can go from 6+ to 5+ to hit = MW with 3" reach. Fyreslayers got 4++ saves, access to fight first and fight 2 times, for 200 points you get 50 wounds worth og horrors. Anyway there is so much stuff out there now at least as good. Guess most people have not felt Seraphon properly yet in real life due to lockdowns, but 20 points for 1 saurus knight has the same save as a liberator, can reduce all dmg taken by 1, 2 3+/3+ attacks, 2 jaws attacks and 3 cold one bites, yup 7 attacks per 20 pts model with 8" movement, they are a blast.

Instead we end up with some armies left with subpar battelines especially, who might have been decent at one point, but just left at the wayside compared to what is parading around these days, like the mentioned Liberators, Sylvaneth stuff, beasts of chaos, mortal blades of khorne (BWs) etc, these units are now just critters waiting to be run over.

[El Syf]

35 minutes ago, Sonnenspeer said:

I would not care so much about power creep if it would not mess up the fluff. Aren´t Stormcast Eternals meant to have super power and wreck a skeleton with ease?

Liberator Warblades: 2 Attacks 3+/4+ no rent, 1 damage
Mortek Guard Sword: 2 Attacks 3+/4+ rent -1, 1 damage

😖

Nagash made better Stormcasts than Sigmar. Which makes sense given Sigmar isn't renowned for Necromancy, is there any lore that explains how Sigmar learnt how to make Stormcasts? Going from a barbarian king to a adept necromancer/scientist seems a bit of a stretch lolz.

[Beastmaster]

10 minutes ago, El Syf said:

Nagash made better Stormcasts than Sigmar. Which makes sense given Sigmar isn't renowned for Necromancy, is there any lore that explains how Sigmar learnt how to make Stormcasts? Going from a barbarian king to a adept necromancer/scientist seems a bit of a stretch lolz.

I try not to think about it. There’s so many contradictions in being undead. 😁

[Yondaime]

33 minutes ago, Scurvydog said:

Well that goes for just about everything. Chaos marauders are nearly only half the price of a Mortek and can also have 2 attacks 3+/4+ rend -1, 1 dmg and easily buffed much higher. Liberators are absolute trash and you can compare any 20 points worth of models to a liberator and will always find something better, their large bases makes them infinitely worse as well.

Just about every army has buffs and debuffs. Using RDP as an argument, well then the new lumineth spearmen got 2 attacks as well, are wizards and can go from 6+ to 5+ to hit = MW with 3" reach. Fyreslayers got 4++ saves, access to fight first and fight 2 times, for 200 points you get 50 wounds worth og horrors. Anyway there is so much stuff out there now at least as good. Guess most people have not felt Seraphon properly yet in real life due to lockdowns, but 20 points for 1 saurus knight has the same save as a liberator, can reduce all dmg taken by 1, 2 3+/3+ attacks, 2 jaws attacks and 3 cold one bites, yup 7 attacks per 20 pts model with 8" movement, they are a blast.

Instead we end up with some armies left with subpar battelines especially, who might have been decent at one point, but just left at the wayside compared to what is parading around these days, like the mentioned Liberators, Sylvaneth stuff, beasts of chaos, mortal blades of khorne (BWs) etc, these units are now just critters waiting to be run over.

yeah my point was that liberators lacks proper buffs and are outdated, all those armyes are new and proves even more that SCE are victim of the immense power creep, the big base can be an advange in some case, they just lack '2 weapons

correct me if i am wrong but i dont think marauders can get to the point of 2+ 3+ -2 rerollable with +3 save rerollabe, 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Yondaime

[Scurvydog]

1 hour ago, Yondaime said:

 i dont think marauders can get to the point of 2+ 3+ -2 rerollable with +3 save rerollabe, 

In my last game they were hihgly effective, managing to kill both a bloodthirster and a unit of juggernauts, due to having mark of chaos individed and being close to a sorc and a warshrine in the army, possively making them unbreakable, 2x6++ saves, reroll saves and reroll hits, wounds and charges. They can and will murder anything what is not designed to murder them even harder, like an equally soouped up unit of hearthguards to 400 points would after all handily beat them, but possibly not without a cost. 

The marauders are praised for being solid battlelines right now, but there are quite a few strong armies now, the problem with the "power creep" is mostly evident in a few books being left behind, rather than a few books being way way too strong I think.

The most obvious book being Stormcast this book is in a sad state, horrible rules and only very few warscrolls and gimmicks which can even begin to play against other better books. It was not even a good book to begin with, everyone could see it had terrible internal balance at the time, some heroes are pointless and laughably weak, some units basically fill the exact some roles while being way skewed in power level, like paladins vs evocators or dracothain guards vs dracolines (they at least differ a bit more). Battalions are horrible, it is a mighty feat they managed to make so many and make them all terrible, how does that even work. 3 stardrake battalion? Nonsensical compositions for miniscule buffs? You got it!

Nighthaunt was a bit more streamlined, especially on the battalion front and they had allegiance abilities that did something, however for this book they abanded the sub factions every other book got! Why??? Some boxes makes no sense, with 2 heroes in 1 box, still lots of stuff exclusive to the big starter box, for some boxes with 1 hero and 2 unit models, you cant get seperate. For some reason the heroes on these boxes are all named? It smells like something got botched completely and got new stickers on mid way and it shows. At least they got a bit of flavor with the Legion of Grief and later a few new battalions that are quite fun at least. 

Blades of Khorne got Bloodthirster spam as a top spot, and then possibly an archaon list, but I would not really call that blades of khorne, more khorne soup. The mortal part of the army is fine for casual gaming and tbh the game would probably be better as whole if everyone was at this level or the next book:

Gloomspite Gitz, this book is what other books should strive to be in many aspects, it does away with sub factions again, instead nudging to various styles and builds through synergies on warscrolls and unit roles, instead of sub factions saying "x  models/unitsgets +1 of this, so use x all the time!". This book is both fun to play with and against, but does not hold up to the stronger books.

Sylvaneth got legs, but not much. It has some ok battalions, it has more than 1 sub faction worth considering, and everything is just rather "decent" but they lack the insane output or resilience to brawl with the best, they lack the +'es to cast to complete against caster lists so will get shut down easily.

I think Maggotkit and LoN can be added here, Maggotkin got a little help lately at least.

After that we move into the area where the tools for success becomes more readily available, with tools such as fight first or twice (HoS, Fyreslayers etc), raw brawling potential (Orruks, Ogors, DoK), incredible sustain and/or staying power (FeC, Petrifex), overwhelming magic and/or focused damage output (Tzeentch, Kroak, KO and proably LRL soon), a decent mix of things (Skaven, std). These are just examples but my point is I think more books are in the strong category and we should maybe look to power up the stragglers, rather than bring down the rest for a healthier meta and avoid aiming for the lowest denominator in army designs for balance benchmarking.

[Galas]

I didn't tought today would be the day I saw someone defend Slaanesh pre nerf, but here we are. And because they were "future proofed" just because other insane combos and armies have become after them. Wow.

"Future proofed" and GW is just incompatible. They change design philosophies mid edition all the time. The thing with AoS is that everything is broken so nothing is. With the difference that actually 60% of the armies of the game aren't broken. Theres no problem when a Army can make lists that counter specific lists. It becomes a problem when you have armies that totally neuter other armies. Thats very bad design.

 

I have to say that I'm really tired of the typical "git gud" players that comes on the internet after a extremely OP army like Slaanesh or Iron Hands in 40k has been nerfed and says "Do you see guys? You only needed to learn how to counter it to win!"

NO! When an army makes 6-7 of 10 places on top 10's month after month and only AFTER it has been nerfed it comes down from that pedestal, is not because people LEARNED how to play agaisnt them. Is because they have been nerfed. 

Thats a reality nobody has a problem accepting in videogames but for some people it is so hard to understand in warhammer? Why is that? Is people that plays those armies offended because their victories are undervalued for playing an OP army or something? 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Galas

[whispersofblood]

23 minutes ago, Galas said:

I didn't tought today would be the day I saw someone defend Slaanesh pre nerf, but here we are. And because they were "future proofed" just because other insane combos and armies have become after them. Wow.

"Future proofed" and GW is just incompatible. They change design philosophies mid edition all the time. The thing with AoS is that everything is broken so nothing is. With the difference that actually 60% of the armies of the game aren't broken. Theres no problem when a Army can make lists that counter specific lists. It becomes a problem when you have armies that totally neuter other armies. Thats very bad design.

 

I have to say that I'm really tired of the typical "git gud" players that comes on the internet after a extremely OP army like Slaanesh or Iron Hands in 40k has been nerfed and says "Do you see guys? You only needed to learn how to counter it to win!"

NO! When an army makes 6-7 of 10 places on top 10's month after month and only AFTER it has been nerfed it comes down from that pedestal, is not because people LEARNED how to play agaisnt them. Is because they have been nerfed. 

Thats a reality nobody has a problem accepting in videogames but for some people it is so hard to understand in warhammer? Why is that? Is people that plays those armies offended because their victories are undervalued for playing an OP army or something? 

I'm assuming you are talking about me? Care to quote where I said any of that?

This is erroneous Battletomes are not released sequentially they are released in accordance with marketing pressures which is why I wouldn't argue they were designed with what the game might look like 6-7 months in the future.  

[Heijoshin]

4 hours ago, Sonnenspeer said:

I would not care so much about power creep if it would not mess up the fluff. Aren´t Stormcast Eternals meant to have super power and wreck a skeleton with ease?

Liberator Warblades: 2 Attacks 3+/4+ no rent, 1 damage
Mortek Guard Sword: 2 Attacks 3+/4+ rent -1, 1 damage

😖

This is very disingenuous, and you probably know it. Libs cost 100, Mortek cost 130. If fluff is actually an issue, then you would have remembered that OBR aren't "skeletons" in the sense that you are meaning it. 

I can understand People's "Lib and SCE being poo" issue and heck, I collect SCE too! But then the issue is with with making SCE better, WHICH WILL HAPPEN. I get it that older books aren't as good, but they will get updated. This is a fact of life. Have we all forgotten that Seraphon, a super old tome, got updated? Should the ten commandments be found, i'm sure we'll discover there are actually 11 commandments and the 11th will be "SCE will get a new book. Obviously. Like seriously guys......jeeez". 

In the words of the Grand Vizier of Agrabah, Jaffar: Patience, Iago. Patience. 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Heijoshin

[readercolin]

2 hours ago, Heijoshin said:

This is very disingenuous, and you probably know it. Libs cost 100, Mortek cost 130. If fluff is actually an issue, then you would have remembered that OBR aren't "skeletons" in the sense that you are meaning it. 

I can understand People's "Lib and SCE being poo" issue and heck, I collect SCE too! But then the issue is with with making SCE better, WHICH WILL HAPPEN. I get it that older books aren't as good, but they will get updated. This is a fact of life. Have we all forgotten that Seraphon, a super old tome, got updated? Should the ten commandments be found, i'm sure we'll discover there are actually 11 commandments and the 11th will be "SCE will get a new book. Obviously. Like seriously guys......jeeez". 

In the words of the Grand Vizier of Agrabah, Jaffar: Patience, Iago. Patience. 

What he said is a hell of a lot less disingenuous than what you are going for.  Yes, Libs cost 100 to Mortek's 130.  However, for 100 points you get 5 liberators, while for 130 you get 10 mortek.  Same number of wounds.  But for 30 points you are doubling the number of attacks, getting better rend (or better range), and getting better allegiance abilities.

[ACBelMutie]

Even I think Morteks are too powerful, you can't compare units 1Vs1 because that doesn't work. This is like an onion. Units have warscroll rules, subfaction rules, alligance rules... and they get buff from other units. Daemonetes are expensive because you are paying the invocation, for example. So a comparison unit Vs unit is worthless.

Greetings

[Sleboda]

16 hours ago, Sonnenspeer said:

I would not care so much about power creep if it would not mess up the fluff. Aren´t Stormcast Eternals meant to have super power and wreck a skeleton with ease?

Liberator Warblades: 2 Attacks 3+/4+ no rent, 1 damage
Mortek Guard Sword: 2 Attacks 3+/4+ rent -1, 1 damage

😖

Sure!

Good thing Mortek are not skeletons, but rather crafted beings, forged by Nagash and infused with the souls of ancient warriors, imbued with hatred for the living and an unwavering loyalty that comes from knowing the secrets of eternity!

 

But yes, absolutely Stormcast will smash a skeleton. Agreed.