AoS Power Creep

[swarmofseals]

@stratigo@NinthMusketeer

stratigo, I think you may be underestimating the appeal of playing off meta. I've been playing a lot of competitive games on TTS with largely serious players (many of the folks that have been putting up good results in Hammertime and other COVID times online tournaments have been regular opponents). I was surprised to see that most people seem to enjoy pushing lists that are a bit off meta -- either underplayed factions that still have some decent builds or unconventional builds of powerful factions. It's actually really rare that I've found someone playing a straight meta list.

Personally I think one of the biggest problems with the AoS community right now is that the most vocal parts of the community treat the game like the only worthwhile pursuit is trying to 5-0 a GT. The vast, vast majority of players aren't really even trying to do that, nor are they good enough to have a reasonable chance of doing so even using the hardest meta list out there.

 

[NinthMusketeer]

Whenever I am helping someone asking for list advice my first question is always 'what power level are you looking for, what is your local meta like?' Because the difference can be game-breakingly vast simply by accident even when all tourney builds are cut from the picture.

Also @swarmofseals I think you meant to say "overestimating" in the first sentence given the context of the rest of your post.

Edited January 5, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[swarmofseals]

@NinthMusketeer, wasn't @stratigo arguing that nobody cares about playing/discussing off meta lists? My point is that there is a small but vocal portion of the AoS community that indeed does only care about discussing meta lists but that most players (and even highly competitive players) don't really approach the game this way. Hence underestimating.

Edited January 6, 2021 by swarmofseals
edit: this time I did make a mistake. First line should read "playing/discussing off meta lists"

[mojojojo101]

23 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

@stratigo@NinthMusketeer

stratigo, I think you may be underestimating the appeal of playing off meta. I've been playing a lot of competitive games on TTS with largely serious players (many of the folks that have been putting up good results in Hammertime and other COVID times online tournaments have been regular opponents). I was surprised to see that most people seem to enjoy pushing lists that are a bit off meta -- either underplayed factions that still have some decent builds or unconventional builds of powerful factions. It's actually really rare that I've found someone playing a straight meta list.

Personally I think one of the biggest problems with the AoS community right now is that the most vocal parts of the community treat the game like the only worthwhile pursuit is trying to 5-0 a GT. The vast, vast majority of players aren't really even trying to do that, nor are they good enough to have a reasonable chance of doing so even using the hardest meta list out there.

 

I think it is worth taking into account TTS probably encourages people to take off meta lists.

You dont have to expend the money and time required to put models on the table and if it doesn't work you aren't punished as much for getting it wrong.

Will be interesting to see whether these lists / attitude lasts when people get back to proper physical tournaments.

[yukishiro1]

Yep, it's a lot easier to experiment on TTS when your experiment isn't costing you hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours. 

[swarmofseals]

@yukishiro1 @mojojojo101

A fair point, to be sure (and one big reason why I think everyone should be playing on TTS or proxying before investing in a tabletop army.

That being said, anyone who is playing enough AoS to have a realistic shot of going 5-0 at a GT is probably testing before buying/building/painting the entire army OR is good enough that they don't need to play strictly on meta or both.

If you don't have the time to extensively test lists before you buy, build and paint them then (in my opinion) you would be much happier not worrying about the meta and what lists are 5-0'ing majors because you yourself aren't really going to be doing that.

A side note -- while it's clearly a risk to buy, build and paint an off meta army I'd argue that it's just as big of a risk if not a bigger one to buy, build and paint on meta. The majority of top meta lists get nerfed and it's quite a crapshoot as to how big the nerf will be.

[stratigo]

1 hour ago, swarmofseals said:

@NinthMusketeer, wasn't @stratigo arguing that nobody cares about playing/discussing meta lists? My point is that there is a small but vocal portion of the AoS community that indeed does only care about discussing meta lists but that most players (and even highly competitive players) don't really approach the game this way. Hence underestimating.

The context of the conversation chain is, as I understand it, KO are one of the biggest beneficiaries of power creep (and they are), so a way to address Creep is to nerf the biggest beneficiary. So here’s X number of suggestions to do that. 
 

is see the suggestions and several look to be over corrections and I already spent about a year just not playing at all because my army was so bad in the meta available to me, so I’m not super eager to see broad ranging knee ****** nerfs. There’s an obvious set of tools that the most overpowered lists are using. Just get rid of those, we don’t have the data to conclude that there needs to be other wide ranging Nerfs to things like fly high 

[NinthMusketeer]

Misread earlier, whoops! But yes, I agree that nerfing fly high as a rule is not the correct approach right now.

[LuminethMage]

6 hours ago, mojojojo101 said:

I think it is worth taking into account TTS probably encourages people to take off meta lists.

You dont have to expend the money and time required to put models on the table and if it doesn't work you aren't punished as much for getting it wrong.

Will be interesting to see whether these lists / attitude lasts when people get back to proper physical tournaments.

Wasn't the original argument that the meta changes so fast (2, 3 books, which means anything before Seraphon) that's worthless to buy any kind of army because it'll be outdated so soon anyway? That'd mean it makes about as much sense to invest in an off meta army/list as in an on meta list, because when you are finally finished, the meta has completely changed anyway. 

To your last sentence: Doesn't a big chunk of the tournament players also play with mostly what they like? Genuine question, from what I hear, most people maintain they are there for the community and to have fun (as in fun besides the fun of winning). Of course most of them will look to make their list somewhat competitive within what they like and aim to do, but it doesn't look like everyone is sacrificing on models they like and straight aim for a 5:0. That seems to be a pretty small minority, or? 

I'm not saying that if it was a small minority it's fine or GW shouldn't care, because most of us do care at least somewhat about balance, and that minority provides us all most the information about what's powerful right now. But there are probably opportunity costs for GW if they put too much resources into that part. If they get most factions into the 40 - 60 range, seems about right, or? And a lot of factions seem to be in that range. 

[NinthMusketeer]

When talking meta pursuit you can broadly split players into three categories;

-There for fun. Obviously they have optimized their lists within the context of what they have/like, but these players do not show up expecting to win or place top rankings. They are as you described, and I would agree this group has the most presence. They may be running with the latest meta but if they are it is so they can show up and have some good games as opposed to getting crushed, and/or they previously had the army and were grandfathered in when it became OP.

-Bandwagon. These players have jumped on the latest cheese but aren't as good as they think they are. Note that just having the latest cheese doesn't put someone in this category, it's more about being TFG. I would like to say this is the smallest category but I'm not much sure.

-Top players. These players are genuinely very skilled AND are running a tier 1 or 2 army. These are the people who consistently get in the top 30% and have a chance to hit top rankings. They may not be super competitive or even expect to do well, but they consistently do. This group bleeds into the other two a lot.

Obviously these are generalizations and should not be taken as anything resembling a rule, but there is some trending there.

Edited January 6, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Sarouan]

I think there's an important point to keep in mind : not many players are actually able to buy a highly competitive top-meta army in an context where GW is far more reactive than in the days of WFB, when you could keep the same list for years.

Having to invest hundred of dollars or euros in an army that may suck at the next errata / General Handbook isn't that appealing to a lot of players. And I think that's the point here : GW games need a lot of time and investment even not talking about the rules and practicing for tournaments. It's not Magic the Gathering where you buy the cards and there is nothing to do more with them, and it's easier to "throw them away" when they're not competitive enough anymore. Sure, I guess you can sell your less competitive army, but even so that's not what most players do.

It makes sense the majority actually plays with what they have and want to play, rather than the ultimate optimized build talked in the forums.

That, and the current pandemic shutting down most tournaments, forcing people to play with their close groups at best, may be more incentive not to use a dirty optimized list to lose your friends - and thus effectively not playing anymore.  The risk is too high for wargames - it's not just dropping your deck of card and switch to another, it's an army of sometimes hundred of miniatures you built and painted for countless hours. Social contract in game still matters, thankfully.

I believe that's the true reason the majority of players don't push such dirty lists too much. Those who do will soon enough learn the hard way there is no point if the said army is taking dust on your shelves because you have no one wanting to play with you. That's also why balance isn't that much important in GW games : the players actually do the balancing themselves, so that they still have an opponent to play against.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Sarouan

[Marcvs]

27 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

I believe that's the true reason the majority of players don't push such dirty lists too much. Those who do will soon enough learn the hard way there is no point if the said army is taking dust on your shelves because you have no one wanting to play with you. That's also why balance isn't that much important in GW games : the players actually do the balancing themselves, so that they still have an opponent to play against.

I agree with the rest of your post but I would argue that it actually leads to the opposite conclusion: in a game where players tend to stick to their army/armies of choice and switching armies is very expensive, balance is actually more important. If "casual player A" and his friend "casual player B" pick up armies purely based on what they like, the objective should be to give them a good shot at a balanced game. This comes from personal experience, where my club "casual scene" has dried up because someone (to pick two examples) happened to like tzeentch horrors and flamers, while someone else was fond of melee stormcast and the warrior chamber. "Doing the balancing themselves" here means investing money and time to buy and paint new models, without any actual guarantee the situation will change.

This also a different discussion than power creep

[Drazhoath]

34 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

I think there's an important point to keep in mind : not many players are actually able to buy a highly competitive top-meta army in an context where GW is far more reactive than in the days of WFB, when you could keep the same list for years.

Having to invest hundred of dollars or euros in an army that may suck at the next errata / General Handbook isn't that appealing to a lot of players. And I think that's the point here : GW games need a lot of time and investment even not talking about the rules and practicing for tournaments. It's not Magic the Gathering where you buy the cards and there is nothing to do more with them, and it's easier to "throw them away" when they're not competitive enough anymore. Sure, I guess you can sell your less competitive army, but even so that's not what most players do.

Thank you! That’s exactly what I think. 1-2 Erratas every year (Generals Handbook and the other FAQs with point in/decrease) is too much/too fast. I can’t buy and paint an army within 1-2 month and play with them just 2-3 months until ne next point increases strikes me. Especially when a new op faction is released, than you can count the days GW will nerf them after the sales and you can’t play your list anymore.

[Kadeton]

Whether or not you agree that power creep is bad, that it's prevalent in AoS, or that any of the numerous nuances of the exact nature of power creep discussed in this thread is a factor... the ultimate question around power creep is, "Okay, so what?"

What's your plan? Just talk about it online? People have been complaining about power creep in GW games (and every other game which develops over multiple releases) since the dawn of time, and opinions seem to vary on whether anything has substantially changed as a result. Seems like a waste of time.

GW's design team are extremely unlikely to adopt whatever ideas you have about how to 'fix' power creep (whatever that means from your perspective), for many reasons. You'll feel more empowered if you can find something you can personally do to address the problem for you.

You might adapt to it. You might address it with house rules. You might choose to play a different game. Or you might just learn to live with it. But getting stressed out about it, while feeling powerless to actually do anything about it, is a good way to achieve nothing other than making yourself miserable and bitter. GW doesn't care.

For those of you who see power creep as a problem, what do you plan to do about it?

[Enoby]

3 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

For those of you who see power creep as a problem, what do you plan to do about it?

While the best option is probably for a large group of people to send polite emails to the rules team to ensure they recognise that some players are having issues, I feel your question may miss the point of a forum - to discuss things. I apologise if I've misinterpreted, but it sounds like you're saying "if you have an issue, don't discuss why it's an issue and instead just look for a solution".

Sometimes discussion can help formulate opinions, share advice, see if other people are having the same issue, and seeing why people aren't having your issue (maybe they've solved it or have a different philosophy). At the end of the day, discussing an issue online in a constructive (e.g. willing to adapt) way can only be helpful, and now GW has a greater online presence and likely do take a look at the biggest AoS forum online. I know for a fact that they do have some higher ups looking online as I've been told off by them before (not on this forum). 

While you're right that we should also look for a solution, we can't find a good one without talking about why we find the problem a problem.  

[Sarouan]

6 minutes ago, Enoby said:

While you're right that we should also look for a solution, we can't find a good one without talking about why we find the problem a problem.

It's especially true when we actually don't agree about what is really the problem. What some view as imbalance may not be the case to others. Sometimes it's something having consequences not being aknowledged elsewhere, other times it's a matter of perspective.

Identifying the roots of the problem and understanding the other point of view is important, especially nowadays.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Sarouan

[Marcvs]

22 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Whether or not you agree that power creep is bad, that it's prevalent in AoS, or that any of the numerous nuances of the exact nature of power creep discussed in this thread is a factor... the ultimate question around power creep is, "Okay, so what?"

What's your plan? Just talk about it online? People have been complaining about power creep in GW games (and every other game which develops over multiple releases) since the dawn of time, and opinions seem to vary on whether anything has substantially changed as a result. Seems like a waste of time.

GW's design team are extremely unlikely to adopt whatever ideas you have about how to 'fix' power creep (whatever that means from your perspective), for many reasons. You'll feel more empowered if you can find something you can personally do to address the problem for you.

You might adapt to it. You might address it with house rules. You might choose to play a different game. Or you might just learn to live with it. But getting stressed out about it, while feeling powerless to actually do anything about it, is a good way to achieve nothing other than making yourself miserable and bitter. GW doesn't care.

For those of you who see power creep as a problem, what do you plan to do about it?

Ok, here's my points in as few words as possible:

1) I don't recognise "power creep" as a problem, there's too many counterarguments to that hypothesis (the latest of which is: why aren't Gargants the top army?).

2) I recognise imbalance as a problem. I also find it in all other miniature games I play (these days, mainly ASOIAF)

3) In a competitive environement I deal with imbalance by setting reasonable expectations for my performance in light of my army/list. Also, I have no problem conceding after turn 1 if the game is clearly over.

4) In friendly games I deal with imbalance by asking beforehand the opponent what they are bringing to the table and whether they want a competitive or relaxed game.

5) Whether or not it actually helps in solving the problem (and I think that, even though to a small extent, it does) I love discussing gaming stuff so here I am

[Nasrod]

13 hours ago, Arzalyn said:

"Just using your example to get to a point that worry me a little as the discussion moved to the nerfing the "too strong" armys..." 

Absolutely. The biggest example of this? We have a guy that LOVES the 1.0 Stormcast models. Rets, Libs, Juds. Gets crushed constantly, still loves the game. I'm talking has literally 5% win rate. 

His genuine enjoyment for the models and lore is crazy. I don't even own an SC army and at this point we are all rooting for buffs to his favorite units. I don't think raising the underdogs would fix the competitive scene, but the beer and pretzels crew that keep the hobby alive and fun? You earn a lot of good faith to your efforts. 

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

I apologise if I've misinterpreted, but it sounds like you're saying "if you have an issue, don't discuss why it's an issue and instead just look for a solution".

Yes, that's a bit of a misinterpretation, though I can see how you took it that way. What I'm saying is more along the lines of "You will never get everyone to agree that the problem you see is everyone's problem. Instead, work out exactly what your problem is, and how you can personally take action to address it."

Discussion with other people can be really helpful in giving you alternative perspectives and possible solutions for your problem, but the key to making that discussion useful lies in recognising that nobody is "correct". Power creep (and balance) are matters of subjective opinion, and you will never find consensus. There is not one single "power creep problem" or "balance problem" - every player has their own set of problems, and ultimately only they can find the solutions to address them.

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

While you're right that we should also look for a solution, we can't find a good one without talking about why we find the problem a problem.  

Talking can definitely help... but action helps much more. My main point is that there isn't one solution, and if you try to find a robust definition of the problem stated in such a way that a majority of people agree with, you will never get past the discussion stage. Don't look for a consensus solution, and don't expect anyone else (including the GW design team!) to solve "the problem" for you. That way lies inevitable disappointment.

[Popisdead]

On 12/26/2020 at 1:15 PM, Drazhoath said:

Now the most games ends in round 2 or 3 and just because of the double turn. Last month I played against lists with two Mawcrusher (fully buffed flying nightmares), Flamer spam or Nagash + Katakros stuff. I would like to play bigger units of infantry (like FEC Ghouls) but AoS became a game of small heavy hitting units. There a too many models which can burn whole units in one Phase so you must call the game in turn 2.

I must say that I am sick of this game. Again, I like the models (new Slaanesh😍) and I like to collect the armies but the power creep goes on and on and on.

Do you think too or do you know any possibility to stop this spiral? I mean its totaly worthless to buy a new army. After two or three other tomes and Handbooks your new army which is completed and painted is outdated and without chances against the new stuff.

Quit.  Not being  snide or sarcastic.  Power creep was way worse from 2003 (when I got back into GW games) onwards in WFB than AoS which regularly gets rebalanced and attention.  For example Kharadron Overlords.  They've been down and up and down and up.  I would say your view of power creep is more lacking understanding rules as a function as opposed to units as a means to win games.  Mawcrushers are going to suck eating 10 Ungors a turn.  Slaanesh players will take Ungor Raiders to use their 6" pre game move to stop FEC flying ghoul dragons taking out their Keeper (just an example).

It sounds like you are a casual gamer who loves the hobby side.  I am as well.  I don't play tournaments, I don't play WAAC players, and when I play better players going into tournaments practicing strong lists I pick and chose who that opponent and they are aware I'm casual and we chat more post-game on some tips I could learn and I'm aware it's going to be uphill in the game.  I love rolling dice, I love painting models and things have improved for some of the weaker armies I play.

I highly suggest you make peace with your situation here and try to look internally post game more than externally.  And I'm speaking from experience.  I had to come around to this to as with about one year left of 8th I got so sick of the codex creep and lack of balance or attention Fantasy got I stopped playing in tournaments and only played my friends for fun.  

If you don't want to quit or feel what I intended as helpful suggestions doesn't jive with you, start posting your lists in sub-forums in the appropriate threads, give small bat rep synopses and ask for advice.  Also post your list, perhaps how to help, what to look for and what to look out for.  At the very least read through the sub forums.  I've read the Hedonites of Slaanesh sub-forum a couple times.  Not in depth but gleaned through looking for certain players whom I know used the army to their best ability rather than play the game of power creep.  

[NinthMusketeer]

Actions speak louder than words, and yet the pen is mightier than the sword. The world isn't so simple that only talking about something equates to not doing anything about it.

[Saxon]

I think the biggest issue AOS faces is the staggered nature of the army releases as well as the frequency of the releases to keep the hype going. Add this to the extremely high price point for a playable army and its a difficult situation to manage. 

It would be hard to fit new rules which need to be both balanced and thematically appropriate into existing sets of rules. I think it has been frequently discussed on this forum that play testers are not given sufficient time to fully test out rules which results in some really offensive rules (Slaanesh, Petrifix, Tzeentch and KO to name a few). You also have non-game related factors such as marketing to think of. Whether true or not, it's not a big stretch to expect the marketing team to suggest a wow-factor rule or two to make the faction stand out. 

Personally, I was defeated by how quickly my Legions of Nagash army went from relatively top tier to virtually unplayable within the time it took me to paint a mortarch and a hundred skeleton warriors/zombies. This is extremely discouraging given the very high price point for games workshop. You invest into an army with a reasonable expectation that it will be playable and gets stomped every game. I can see why a lot of people would leave the game if this happened. 

I was sucked back in when cities of sigmar got a battletome but that tome seems like a half baked effort to shut people up like me who were vocally annoyed by some many WFB armies being neglected. One or two builds are playable but its not a particularly competitive tome unless you build deliberately offensive armies which isn't my play style. 

[Saxon]

Edit: Double Post

Edited January 7, 2021 by Saxon

[Saxon]

14 hours ago, Kadeton said:

For those of you who see power creep as a problem, what do you plan to do about it?

I now play different game systems more frequently. 

GW won't ever change when their profits are so high so i don't give them my money. I play with what i have. 

[Saxon]

On 1/5/2021 at 3:00 AM, yukishiro1 said:

I agree AoS has a big lethality problem, but the trouble with toning down damage is that in a game where the winner is determined by how many objectives you can control each turn, without extreme lethality, games then just become about who can force one more model (or counts-as one more model) onto an objective than the other side.

GW has kind-of backed themselves into a corner here with the way scoring works. It needs to change to something more dynamic in order for lethality to be able to come down significantly. 

 

Whilst not a big fan of how 40k plays (even the new edition), their secondary objectives seem pretty cool. In a game where the primary motive may seem impossible, you can give yourself a fighting chance by taking your secondary objectives and preventing your opponent from taking theirs. 

I think it also diversifies the list building as well as the tactics as you're not solely focused on one thing. Definitely feels more dynamic and variable which I think is a positive thing.