Powercreep Illusion - Petrifex

[Maddpainting]

2 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

....

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.

I disagree, so lets end it there. 

[Kramer]

40 minutes ago, MitGas said:

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.

Haha I would rather say I’m accusing the top 1% being too brilliant rather than stupid. or the 99% stupid🤔 

[LuminethMage]

12 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.

Reading through all of your post here, isn't what you do really arbitrary? What's fun and what's not? So, you banned Petrifex which isn't fun for many people to play against, which is true. How about KO one-drop alpha strikes? Slann Endless Spell/magic shenanigans, Coalesced -1 to all attacks? Tzeentch flammer mayhem? FEC? Orruk destroying half your army in turn one because you didn't know they can do that? Is that all banned? Because all of those can be really not fun for average players who don't build lists specifically to counter these things. Or just the stuff which is detrimental to play styles you and a core group of your friends enjoy, and hence is "cheesy"? (I don't mean that as accusational as it sounds, it's really just a genuine question - how do you bring in new players into the group? For example someone like myself who is excited about the Lumineth, is already labeled as "cheesy" before they are even out, and everyone talking about how bad it will be, it's easy to drive yourself into a corner there, I'm just unwelcome, or how does that go?)

Seems easier to just try to talk to that guy who brings his Nagash/Pretrifex every time against average armies who aren't  build to beat that, taking all the fun away, or? But if you just ban everything people don't like, you'll have nearly the same games in 5 years that you have now. And for many people it's also fun to find out how to beat such an army or get around new problems (like playing more for objectives for example, or how to counter that one spell which doubles CP). Of course some things just have to be addressed because they are either too powerful or weren't intended to work in that way. And of course your gaming group can ban whatever they want, but seems they'll miss out on fun in the long run. 

And the more armies GW will release, the more some of the match-ups will be imbalanced. Otherwise they couldn't make the various armies distinctive, or introduce different play styles appealing to different players. I think you'll run into more of these problems, because they'll have to introduce new mechanics to keep things interesting for most people. And some of them will suck for some of the other armies. 

[Forrix]

In the escalation league I was in before the virus killed gaming in my area I had no problem beating Petrifix with my Tzeentch demons. I was also the only person to ever win a match against the OBR player during the league. 

Petrifix seem ludicrously overpowered to me if you dont have a way of dealing substantial damage outside of the main combat phase. A lot of armies do but a lot of armies don't.  Saying just play the objectives seems very disingenuous to me when the OBR player has lots of bodies with easy access to movement 7 and rend -2. Then there's potential catapult or Nagash shenanigans.  

[JackStreicher]

3 hours ago, LuminethMage said:

So, you banned Petrifex

I banned nothing. And yes Orruks are not allowed to bring 2 warchanters. The rest hasn‘t come up to my knowledge.

Again, what most people simply don‘t get: I am NOT talking about OP Armies I am talking about unfun mechanics as described above. These GW could fix, but why? People keep buying like crazy since they want to have the unfun cheese at their disposal and GW is actually writing AOS into a corner due to the players screaming „at top tables those rules are not an issue“ while in fact (my experience in my new city) the interest in playing AoS has dropped significantly (and that‘s not due to Corona).

Edited June 22, 2020 by JackStreicher

[JackStreicher]

To your question about the other Armies @LuminethMage

As for FeC: I play FeC and before the game si ask my opponents if they know the army. If not I explain what they have to look out for and how they can counter it. In addition I don‘t play powergamer lists but balanced lists.

What would you tell your opponent when you play Petrifex? Or Teclis? Don‘t forget: The armies have already been made. I am just curious.

 

(We usually do not know what our opponent will play so making a counter list is hardly possible.)

Edited June 22, 2020 by JackStreicher

[whispersofblood]

29 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

To your question about the other Armies @LuminethMage

As for FeC: I play FeC and before the game si ask my opponents if they know the army. If not I explain what they have to look out for and how they can counter it. In addition I don‘t play powergamer lists but balanced lists.

What would you tell your opponent when you play Petrifex? Or Teclis? Don‘t forget: The armies have already been made. I am just curious.

 

(We usually do not know what our opponent will play so making a counter list is hardly possible.)

I think you will find the human spirit is far from fragile when encouraged, given education, guidance and allowed to set proper goals. 

AoS is a game of objective play, if you keep that in mind a) you don't buy/build/paint armies that don't play the game: b) reduce the effectiveness of players who build deathballs: c) always leave room for developing strategy even if your faction struggles to combat the new hotness.

Now there are some things that is hard to deal with eternal conflagration and changehost is one of those things but each summer we get a points update. A little patience goes a long way, especially if your club rules require painted models. 

This is not a game balanced around killing models.

[LuminethMage]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

To your question about the other Armies @LuminethMage

As for FeC: I play FeC and before the game si ask my opponents if they know the army. If not I explain what they have to look out for and how they can counter it. In addition I don‘t play powergamer lists but balanced lists.

What would you tell your opponent when you play Petrifex? Or Teclis? Don‘t forget: The armies have already been made. I am just curious.

 

(We usually do not know what our opponent will play so making a counter list is hardly possible.)

Thanks for the reply. I understand that you speak about "fun", that's exactly the problem I have with it. Because fun is really arbitrary. Talking about data-based winning rates makes more sense, even if they are only relevant for tournaments. 

As you are playing FEC - they can be very "unfun" or "cheesy" for other players, as you know. Even if you explain in advance how they play and possible counters. If your opponent is a causal player, they might also not have counters available at that point. You can do the exact same thing with a Petrifex list. Explain the counters and don't play the most extreme version of it.

I think what you describe is more a problem between people who just play casually and people who play very competitively. But there is no qualitative difference between an extreme one drop alpha strike KO list for example, which blows up a casual player or a Petrifex list which uses all its options. You wouldn't have appreciated if you got banned playing FEC just because other people find them cheesy. Especially as this happens with many new armies, because GW wants to introduce new play styles and options. Which people then are not used too, and don't know to counter. So they aren't fun for some people. Others find it fun to challenge themselves. 

As for Teclis, I think it's too early to be worried about that. If he really turns out to be too strong, I'll do the same thing that you are doing, I don't play an extreme competitive list, and let them know what to watch out for. 

[azdimy]

Petrifex Elite subfaction is above any other obr subfaction. The stats don t lie. It is the same issue as Hagg Nar in Dok. GW gave both the defensive and offensive buff to the same subfaction.  From a power creep the sky is falling perspective, I don t think Petrifex is that but it can indeed be unfun to play against in pick up games. My first experience facing Nagash in petrifex a while back  was really negative and it s a  shame as I was facing a new player and felt quite frustrated as he would not explain his rules and played the gotcha game having no experience with the community. Not his fault, I tried to explain to him that this community expects more in games that win at all cost and I look forward when we open back up that we can play again as I m sure he s changed his mindset. After the fact, I feel Petrifex Nagash can be dealt with but only a few things in the game can actually kill him when I never had problem killing regular Nagash. I ve learnt my lesson and will 100%  ignore him next time I see him on the board in Petrifex

[Ravinsild]

6 hours ago, LuminethMage said:

Thanks for the reply. I understand that you speak about "fun", that's exactly the problem I have with it. Because fun is really arbitrary. Talking about data-based winning rates makes more sense, even if they are only relevant for tournaments. 

As you are playing FEC - they can be very "unfun" or "cheesy" for other players, as you know. Even if you explain in advance how they play and possible counters. If your opponent is a causal player, they might also not have counters available at that point. You can do the exact same thing with a Petrifex list. Explain the counters and don't play the most extreme version of it.

I think what you describe is more a problem between people who just play casually and people who play very competitively. But there is no qualitative difference between an extreme one drop alpha strike KO list for example, which blows up a casual player or a Petrifex list which uses all its options. You wouldn't have appreciated if you got banned playing FEC just because other people find them cheesy. Especially as this happens with many new armies, because GW wants to introduce new play styles and options. Which people then are not used too, and don't know to counter. So they aren't fun for some people. Others find it fun to challenge themselves. 

As for Teclis, I think it's too early to be worried about that. If he really turns out to be too strong, I'll do the same thing that you are doing, I don't play an extreme competitive list, and let them know what to watch out for. 

The fact he bans more than 1 Warchanter from Orruk Warclans.... bruh. What even is this. I'd never play in his club. I take 2 and just about need them both just to survive in my club.

[zilberfrid]

2 hours ago, azdimy said:

Petrifex Elite subfaction is above any other obr subfaction. The stats don t lie. It is the same issue as Hagg Nar in Dok. GW gave both the defensive and offensive buff to the same subfaction.  From a power creep the sky is falling perspective, I don t think Petrifex is that but it can indeed be unfun to play against in pick up games. My first experience facing Nagash in petrifex a while back  was really negative and it s a  shame as I was facing a new player and felt quite frustrated as he would not explain his rules and played the gotcha game having no experience with the community. Not his fault, I tried to explain to him that this community expects more in games that win at all cost and I look forward when we open back up that we can play again as I m sure he s changed his mindset. After the fact, I feel Petrifex Nagash can be dealt with but only a few things in the game can actually kill him when I never had problem killing regular Nagash. I ve learnt my lesson and will 100%  ignore him next time I see him on the board in Petrifex

You can make an OBR army that uses the least satisfying ways to play. Lumineth is close though.

Take Liege-Kavalos with the mind blade (takes CA and CP), the other way you can take away an opponent's CP, stack bravery debuffs on top of each other and you can have most of the opponent removed by battleshock without the opponent being able to use CA's. All the while, they themselves are immune to both effects 

In Lumineth, you can make CP's worth half as much (without range issues), have them shift their bravery tests to you (as well as the reduced bravery for the rest of the game), and be punished for trying to cast spells (if all the unbinds even let you).  They also have multiple ways of you not bring able to choose the actions of your own units (paralyzing dizzyness, Syar CT,  Tectonic force moving enemy units etc).

Battleshock is not a fun mechanic, it's also hard to balance because often, things are immune. Messing with the CP's of an army, or even taking the ability to even use them alltogether, is also a bit of a sucky mechanic. I'm also not a fan of the "play with the army of the other guy" rule Lumineth have.

Now having a mechanic where you could react to the spending of a CP by spending one of your own within a certain distance would be quite different. It would be avoidable, non-permanent and not free. Similarely, giving your opponent choice between getting damage or being moved (Tectonic) is a meaningful interaction.

[Acid_Nine]

4 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

You can make an OBR army that uses the least satisfying ways to play. Lumineth is close though.

Take Liege-Kavalos with the mind blade (takes CA and CP), the other way you can take away an opponent's CP, stack bravery debuffs on top of each other and you can have most of the opponent removed by battleshock without the opponent being able to use CA's. All the while, they themselves are immune to both effects 

In Lumineth, you can make CP's worth half as much (without range issues), have them shift their bravery tests to you (as well as the reduced bravery for the rest of the game), and be punished for trying to cast spells (if all the unbinds even let you).  They also have multiple ways of you not bring able to choose the actions of your own units (paralyzing dizzyness, Syar CT,  Tectonic force moving enemy units etc).

Battleshock is not a fun mechanic, it's also hard to balance because often, things are immune. Messing with the CP's of an army, or even taking the ability to even use them alltogether, is also a bit of a sucky mechanic. I'm also not a fan of the "play with the army of the other guy" rule Lumineth have.

Now having a mechanic where you could react to the spending of a CP by spending one of your own within a certain distance would be quite different. It would be avoidable, non-permanent and not free. Similarely, giving your opponent choice between getting damage or being moved (Tectonic) is a meaningful interaction.

I believe that the supposed mechanic you touted is about as unfrair as you made the lumineth the Lumineth idea to be honest. What if an Ogor Mawtribes list comes into contact with a gloomspite or hammerhall list? Turn 1 sure, the maw tribe can use their stuff no problem. But as soon as the maw tribes come into range then they won't be able to do anything. because the opponent can generate an absurd amount of CP's.

 

Also, the CP doubling is a spell, and a very high costing one at that sitting at an 8+! you have to plan meticulously around it to get it off consistently without using teclis, and have to use either a charged up twinstones to add +'s to it, or play as zaitrec to get at least a +1 to it. If something goes wrong in the generation, then it stops. if you're using Teclis, then there are other problems that have been discussed in the lumineth thread to death such as him being squishy and prone to alpha strikes. 

Edited June 22, 2020 by Acid_Nine

[Sleboda]

The lesson here is that "fun" is so subjective as to be a fairly useless measure of what should or should not be on the table.

[JackStreicher]

16 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

The lesson here is that "fun" is so subjective as to be a fairly useless measure of what should or should not be on the table.

It‘s not. You‘d have to divide it into useful categories though and define it.

 

edit: Thinking about it „unfun“ in this case often is referred to in Situations in which your opponent takes control away from you: Turn order, the ability to fail casts/ having a decent change of unbinding, not being able to remove a threat, stopping you from moving, seemingly unable to kill, and in general inequality (a too good points/value ratio), throwing back battleshock, stopping you from using a core game mechanic (battleshock immunity) etc.

Edited June 22, 2020 by JackStreicher

[NauticalSoup]

7 hours ago, Ravinsild said:

The fact he bans more than 1 Warchanter from Orruk Warclans.... bruh. What even is this. I'd never play in his club. I take 2 and just about need them both just to survive in my club.

The funny thing here is that the best toolbox Big Waaagh list we've seen placing in events can squeak by with just one Warchanter by using a Rogue Idol and not bothering with most of the Ironjawz range. So basically this restriction would just make Ironjawz trash and strongly encourage you to play the (more powerful) Big Waaagh instead.

[Ravinsild]

Just now, NauticalSoup said:

The funny thing here is that the best toolbox Big Waaagh list we've seen placing in events can squeak by with just one Warchanter by using a Rogue Idol and not bothering with most of the Ironjawz range. So basically this restriction would just make Ironjawz trash and strongly encourage you to play the (more powerful) Big Waaagh instead.

I'm playing Big Waaagh! Just with basically all Ironjawz models because I don't like Bonesplittas.

[The Red King]

Honestly whenever questions of balance come up there's always a group that is like "no you just have to be smarter!" And then inevitably the thing they were arguing against being OP gets nerfed because everybody could see it.

 

Yes some reactions are knee ****** and based on inexperience, but sometimes that doesnt make them wrong and I feel like some people argue contrary just so they don't look like they are whining or struggle with anything.

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

It‘s not. You‘d have to divide it into useful categories though and define it.

 

Not to derail my own thread, cuz that's really not the point for me today, but yeah. Fun is so often weaponized or, more often and less maliciously, only viewed from one side in a discussion. That's why I think using it to delineate or define experiences is largely pointless.

 

In other words, "fun" is like "common sense." It's far (far far far far far) too individual an experience to expect others to match your view.

[no_shoes]

4 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

It‘s not. You‘d have to divide it into useful categories though and define it.

But it is very subjective. "Fun" for me is crunching numbers and taking the best list. It's playing against other people who bring their best lists. Never been to a tournament, but I still want to play a game without handicaps. And really, that's what playing sub-optimal lists is: handicapping yourself for a challenge or a lack on knowledge (and/or being unwilling to learn). If you want a casual game (what you seem to be calling fun) then play open, narrative, or find someone else who likes casual play. Most people who play the game want to game the game and min/max though.

[Euphanism]

Until I started just bringing catapults and Mortek, I lost most of my games as Petrifix. Our 'competitive' meta is veeeeery first-turn kill heavy; Slaanesh, FEC, and KO pretty much dominate. I only saw a few weeks of Tzeench before the shut down but it seemed to be in the same tier. In those cases, playing Petrifix without catapults felt like I basically showed up to make a neat little display of my army and then put it back in the case. 🙃

We have very few Death players at my LGS (besides that one FEC netlist), and only two Ossiarch players counting myself. The fact that none of the people that usually jump on the new hotness (until it gets an errata) went for Petrifix made me feel like it wasn't as powerful as people thought. It's a shame the best way to play them is with hordes of Mortek, because the lore of Petrifix makes it seem like tons of Stalkers and Guard would be really cool thematically. 

 

tl:dr if Petrifix is really overpowered then I'm doing it wrong

[Mr Spadge]

As a petrifex player I thought I'd weigh in a bit on this.....

I chose petrifex based on the 3+save and cool colour scheme, I was rewarded further by some cool stuff and the hatred of the internet. My list is deliberately as varied as possible (leige, boneshaper, soulmason, soul reaper, 20 mortek, 10 mortek, 5 deathriders, 4 morghast, 1 catapult, 1 harvester) so that I can bring the cool stuff to the table.

Having used them at tournaments (nothing top tier, I'm not that kinda player... but throne of skulls/etc), I find that when people know what they're doing, my army crumbles in short order.

Defeating obr in a smash-face fight is quite hard (they are the 2nd toughest army behind certain fyreslayers builds) so you need to pick your targets very carefully (i would suggest dropping any harvesters you can asap for example 😉 )

Out of 6 games at the last ToS event I went to, I won 4 of them. Lost to cities of sigmar (I didn't have enough board coverage to protect all the objectives and they eventually shot down my support stuff), and beastclaw raiders (who just pulverized everything in combat)

 

Please, if you need help taking on the obr, PRACTICE! They are nothing even close to unbeatable. Just remember that if your plan is "hit them until they die" you probably need a better plan.... unless you have bcr level output 😉

[Kramer]

21 hours ago, LuminethMage said:

Thanks for the reply. I understand that you speak about "fun", that's exactly the problem I have with it. Because fun is really arbitrary. Talking about data-based winning rates makes more sense, even if they are only relevant for tournaments. 

I had an interesting discussion last weekend which is (vaguely) relevant. 

i was talking to a teacher, and he told me about a certain test score they use globally. His argument is that South Korea always scores super high on that score. And as the test was made to judge how good education is, we in the Netherlands should emulate their way of teaching. Which included great discipline, long hours and education dedicated to score high on the test. 
my argument was that the test score is only one variable in judging if education has done its job. What about happiness, social skills or being prepared for university? 

your remark that ‘fun’ is a really arbitrary measurement is true. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a very important one. I agree that statistics are the way to go if you want to make it a tournament game. 
but that doesn’t mean it will work for joe and jill doen at the club. Who only collect one army, take a bit of everything and only play the game once every two months. Vs, tournament terry who switches army to keep up with the meta, min maxes the most efficient units and practices twice a week. 
sure deepkin might score ‘decent’. But only if you max eel it. 
So if Jill paints a nice mixed list of deepkin because she loves the range. And jack just absolutely loves the keeper of secret models and decides he needs one of every variation... that won’t lead to fun games. 
or make it more measurable for you. That won’t lead to the same statistics as at a tournament. 
So fun imo is a hard measurement. But one that is at least as important. or maybe game stores should have acces to a closed off site where they can just input all the games that are played in their stores. Would be interesting to see the difference. 
 

[whispersofblood]

45 minutes ago, Kramer said:

I had an interesting discussion last weekend which is (vaguely) relevant. 

i was talking to a teacher, and he told me about a certain test score they use globally. His argument is that South Korea always scores super high on that score. And as the test was made to judge how good education is, we in the Netherlands should emulate their way of teaching. Which included great discipline, long hours and education dedicated to score high on the test. 
my argument was that the test score is only one variable in judging if education has done its job. What about happiness, social skills or being prepared for university? 

your remark that ‘fun’ is a really arbitrary measurement is true. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a very important one. I agree that statistics are the way to go if you want to make it a tournament game. 
but that doesn’t mean it will work for joe and jill doen at the club. Who only collect one army, take a bit of everything and only play the game once every two months. Vs, tournament terry who switches army to keep up with the meta, min maxes the most efficient units and practices twice a week. 
sure deepkin might score ‘decent’. But only if you max eel it. 
So if Jill paints a nice mixed list of deepkin because she loves the range. And jack just absolutely loves the keeper of secret models and decides he needs one of every variation... that won’t lead to fun games. 
or make it more measurable for you. That won’t lead to the same statistics as at a tournament. 
So fun imo is a hard measurement. But one that is at least as important. or maybe game stores should have acces to a closed off site where they can just input all the games that are played in their stores. Would be interesting to see the difference. 
 

I quite enjoy agonizing over each and every variable in my list design. That effort has in game effects. Choosing an army based in the models you like or find fun is a perfectly reasonable way to choose an army you will enjoy the look or feel of. It is not a legitimate way to choose an army which is consistently high in synergy, and your results will bare that fact out. 

The volume of rules actually cater to the second two styles it's just specifically match play that does not. The solution is to not play match play and enjoy the game you want to enjoy in the manner provider for. 

Scalability means choices matter, that does not preclude that some units might be pointed incorrectly. But healthy competitive play tends to view the rules as they are and then re-evaluate after a book is launched or a GHB.

[RuneBrush]

Personally I think there's a difference between power creep and something being overpowered.

Power creep does happen and is the ultimate driving force for us revisiting an army following a new release.  New magic focused army just come out?  What anti-magic options do I have available.  New battletome for my army out?  What new options do I have available to me.  I don't look at power creep is necessarily a bad thing because of this.  Where power creep veers into a less positive light is when it comes to an army that hasn't been revisited for some time and they don't have any tools to deal with any new mechanics/armies (often compounded when an army wasn't particularly strong to begin with).  The Psychic Awakening books for 40k I feel are a good way to revisit armies and help balance things out a bit.

Overpowered is something that's a bit more subjective because it's generally based upon your own interpretation on if something is too powerful.  This can factor in lots and lots of different things, including your own army and the enjoyment you get out of a game.  Generally the things that are viewed as being overpowered are units/combinations that your army has little to no way of combating.  In the case of petrifex I think many people had issues when facing this army - changehost is another.  Ultimately some of the cries of something being overpowered fizzle out as people are fickle and swap armies fairly frequently, reducing the "pool" of those trickier armies.

[Scurvydog]

It would be rather terrible if the game was balanced according to the lowest denominator. If Bob who plays once a month at best with only liberators and judicators needs to have an equal win chance with all other armies we will see a problem. I see building a list as any TCG, making a deck is just as important as how you play it, if you build a poor deck and you don't know how it plays and also don't know what your opponent is doing, you should by all rights lose.

I hear lots of complaints about things being OP, it is so easy to blame that. For fun I have been collecting some "low power" armies, like dracothian guard stormcasts focused lists, or chaos warrior heavy StD and won and how complaints about those being OP... Mostly this is because if game experience and that I read all other battletomes and know what to prioritize and how to counter, yet most players do not put in the effort or thought, yet expect to win with pushing forward their favorite minis.

The only way to deal with this is to set expectations, I don't think the core issues is related to specific books or rules but 90% of it is down to player mentality and both players enjoying the game in a similar way. Although I for sure would not be able to buy the new lumineth even if I wanted to for a year or so before everyone calms down, the rules shown right now has everyone in a frenzy, even though some older tomes will most likely do very well against them.