General Lumineth Realm Lords Rules Discussion

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

I don't really have anything myself to discuss the subject (though I am interested in the discussion as a LRL player), but I grew tired of the constant interruptions in the Rumor thread.   Especially since the Rumor thread is the defacto only thread worth posting here in apparently.  So to try to stem some of the one thread gets all 100s of pages of discussion and the rest get 2 or 3 pages this thread now exists.  At very least it gives the Mods a place to direct those wanted to talk about this particular subject and not clutter up the Rumor thread more than it already is. 

And yes, I know it probably should be in the Lumineth Realm Lords sub-forum, but this thread is aimed for non-fans and detractors to air their thoughts of the LRL  rules (not the models themselves unless it concerns the rules) who do want to discuss the rules (particularly the latest rules) and aren't the sort to seek out the smaller sub-forums.  As well as those who wish to make counterarguments to said thoughts.

[zilberfrid]

I don't play, but I am firmly in the "Dislike" camp. The rules seem to be written to reduce the effect the opponent can have on the game, which I think is a rather bad thing.

It diesn't matter where you put your models or what your armour save is when 36" LOS ignoring mortal wounds come for you.

On the other hand, it's harder to hit them.

Similar to increasing CP cost while generating a lot themselves.

Many of the rules are written to be either non interactive or specifically to feel unfair (Cathaller, looking at you).

It's like fighting Skaven inTW:WH2, I enjoy losing vs another faction more than winning vs Skaven, because it's just so tedious.

I'm not even saying they can't be balanced. A nerf could make them bottom of the pile and it could still be a bad time, but if it's tedious to play, did GW not get this from their playtests?

Edited March 25, 2021 by zilberfrid

[Joseph Mackay]

I’ll just say that in regards to Total Eclipse (have to spend 2cp for command abilities), when it was first previewed I was amongst the complainers, I thought it was overpowered, unfun and quite frankly ridiculous. However, I’m actually fine with it now, as I feel like the fact there’s no ‘interaction’ between your opponents using command points is a pretty serious issue: Stormcast Eternals and Gaverial Surehearts +3” to charge command ability that can stack? There’s no interaction with a unit of 10 Evocators turning up 9” away from you and then getting a guaranteed charge. Idoneth Deepkin getting +3 attacks to each weapon for every command point Volturnos spends? Things like this are a bigger issue than a spell that makes you spend 2cp instead of 1 in my opinion 

[Eternalis]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

Things like this are a bigger issue than a spell that makes you spend 2cp instead of 1 in my opinion 

It depends of your list. Some armies will really struggle because of this.

If the leaks are real, the new lore of magic has a new spell that prevents your opponent to use a CA on 1 chosen unit. How is that fun for your opponent?
The biggest problem with Lumineth is that they can't win against the top meta army but, in the same time, they are not fun at all for many other factions. They are in a strange spot.

[Doko]

All the tome ignore every rule of the "regular" tomes and also cancel every skill from the enemy tome.

Btw the new fox as someone pointed in reddit seems it is with a 3+ you do d3 mortals and not do 3 mortals +d3 (as all in my group tougth when we read it)

 

All in all even as lumineth hater(hater of his rules,i am a elf lover and his lore) even to me some units arent very good.

Bad units:

The new wukong mage 150 only for 1 spell and nothing extra that be good i see him bad.

The cavalry archers, his damage output is from 120 units and not 150, if his melle damage of mounts isnt good they are overcosted.

The standart(banner boy),if it is only a extra ld in area and the one time per game skill that i read,he isnt very good and useless when the veill lady is so broken doing better job with the ld inmune

 

 

I dont know units:

The twin brothers,a mage with +1 cast doing 2 spells,inmune to shooting(due to be out of the game after the combat phase) and potential to do 10 rend 2 damage at latter turns seems veeeery good(200+ points) but i havent read his cost

The fox,at first i tougth he was a joke and too much broken to be real(reading it as 3 mortals +d3) but if it is with  a 3+ a d3 mortals , then he isnt so broken. He does maaaaany mortals to many units,and have many extra skills,but is dangerous because you must end at bad positions if you want maximize his damage.

Cavalry hero, casting with +1 and 4 damage his non named version and 7 his named version with a -1 to be hit. He is better than the stormcast mage in gryfon that cost 200 but this dude cost only 150. Also a free cp every turn To me he is veeeery good but not broken

Broken units:

The scribe giving a permanent (as allways in lumineths zero counterplay or dispeleable) bonus to cast,unbinding etc gonna be broken

The ballista for only 100 points and at 30+ range have the same damage output that the stormcast ballista at 18" and as the double than stormcast at his same range of 30 and stormcast cost 120. This ballista cost must be 140 

New swordmasters,only 120 points and as i put in other post they have the same damage output than fyreslayers with poleaxes with only 2 enemy at 2", and does 50% more damage than fyreslayers for each extra enemy at range. Something as 170 would be more close to balanced

Loremaster,ignore the rule from cant teleport inside 9" and also ignore the getting objetives rules and moreover a mage with 3 save and VERY good melle damage

Edited March 25, 2021 by Doko

[Icarion]

53 minutes ago, Eternalis said:

It depends of your list. Some armies will really struggle because of this.

If the leaks are real, the new lore of magic has a new spell that prevents your opponent to use a CA on 1 chosen unit. How is that fun for your opponent?
 

If my opponent uses a command ability to make their unit ignore a battleshock test that I worked hard to set up, and it costs me the game, how is that fun for me? If my opponent uses a command ability to make a unit pile in and attack twice, how is THAT fun for me?

The answer, it's not, and it's not supposed to be. 

These NPE witchhunts are getting ridiculous. Wanting every rule to be fun for both you and your opponent makes the game boring, and is unreasonable, and I believe impossible to achieve while maintain a dynamic game full of 20+ distinct armies and even more playstyles. 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Athrawes

[Eternalis]

3 minutes ago, Athrawes said:

If my opponent uses a command ability to make a unit ignore battleshock that I worked hard to set up, and that costs me the game, how is that fun for me? If my opponent uses a command ability to make a unit pile in and attack twice, how is THAT fun for me?

The first CA you're talking about is a generic one we can all use. Bravery bomb is bad because this CA is bs, and that make the bravery stat worthless. But if you choose to plan ALL your bravery bomb on only one unit, well... Maybe your plan was bad?
For the second one I get it, it's frustrating. Just like the "always strike first" rule.

The thing is that LRL have a lot of these frustrating mechanics. They prevent you to move, to run, to use your CA, will bravery bomb you all day because you killed too much of their models, they can snipe your heroes without LOS ...
There are rules in AOS, but just like OBR (on a smaller scope), Lumineth don't have to play with it.

[Kitsumy]

So sad, my favourite mini, the fox isnt a ranged artillery, is a squishy kamikace unit and it is so bad as my poor eidolon of mathlan was on release ( still bad after warscrool change and huge point reduction). Fox do average 4dmg with his bow and need to run among rival army only to do 2.4-5 mortals??? So i need to run into my rival army with my squishy overcosted RANGED hero only to do around 4 mortals and 4 dmg.... Hate that gameplay and still it should cost around 200p at best for that.

Galiminus are reaaally useles if they havent more rules.only 10 same boring atacks that lot of units allready do, with better rules, more range and less points.

Wukong is like a 80p mage but for 150??

Bannerguy is the worst standarbearer i have seen, not +1 armor, or 6fnp etc noo better ld only? Rly?

Hero on horse do pitiful dmg, like less than half than same tipe of heroes like akhelian king or celestant in drake, but at least is cheaper and cast.

Ballista even with lot of restrictions do the same as stormcast one, and is squishier for only 20p less.

 

Twin brothers, doing more dmg as the game go on is useless since everyone knows game are usually done by turn 2 ( after the double turn). So despite we dont know his points the mechanic is bad for me.

People will cry, like always with this army but they are really meh for me, and is a shame since wind models are far prettier than the others.

[Icarion]

1 hour ago, Eternalis said:

The thing is that LRL have a lot of these frustrating mechanics. They prevent you to move, to run, to use your CA, will bravery bomb you all day because you killed too much of their models, they can snipe your heroes without LOS ...
There are rules in AOS, but just like OBR (on a smaller scope), Lumineth don't have to play with it.

People seem to think that every army is going to run with Teclis auto-casting all the spells he wants, and Cathallers forcing battleshock tests, while simultaneously throwing out debuffs left right and center from temple units and wizards, while still having a giant core of archers mortal wounding you from across the table, ignoring your armor and cover and line of sight.

The truth is you cannot do all of that in a 2k list, not even close. And Even if you could, hopping that every spell goes off, is in range, and isn't denied is a ludicrous expectation to try and plan for.

There is no denying Lumineth will end up having a large toolbox to construct a list from, but they will never be able to do everything people are demonizing them for all at once, in a single game.

So it seems that, realistically, that your problem is more that lumineth have a wide variety of options to choose how they want to specialize their armies strategy in the list build stage, while other armies are much more restricted in the tactics and gimmick they can employ.

And the only thing I can say to you about that is to be patient. Soon other armies are going to get the lumineth wave 2 treatment, to expand their own toolboxes. I just hope they when they get their updates, this community is more chill and less full of toxicity for those gamers sake.

Edited March 26, 2021 by Athrawes

[Envyus]

1 hour ago, Kitsumy said:

So sad, my favourite mini, the fox isnt a ranged artillery, is a squishy kamikace unit and it is so bad as my poor eidolon of mathlan was on release ( still bad after warscrool change and huge point reduction). Fox do average 4dmg with his bow and need to run among rival army only to do 2.4-5 mortals??? So i need to run into my rival army with my squishy overcosted RANGED hero only to do around 4 mortals and 4 dmg.... Hate that gameplay and still it should cost around 200p at best for that.

Galiminus are reaaally useles if they havent more rules.only 10 same boring atacks that lot of units allready do, with better rules, more range and less points.

Wukong is like a 80p mage but for 150??

Bannerguy is the worst standarbearer i have seen, not +1 armor, or 6fnp etc noo better ld only? Rly?

Hero on horse do pitiful dmg, like less than half than same tipe of heroes like akhelian king or celestant in drake, but at least is cheaper and cast.

Ballista even with lot of restrictions do the same as stormcast one, and is squishier for only 20p less.

 

Twin brothers, doing more dmg as the game go on is useless since everyone knows game are usually done by turn 2 ( after the double turn). So despite we dont know his points the mechanic is bad for me.

People will cry, like always with this army but they are really meh for me, and is a shame since wind models are far prettier than the others.

Uhh I think you are judging too much on too little info.

 

Also games are not normally done by turn 2. 

[JonnyTheKing]

Oh boy Lumineth, I have two friends who regularly play them and I have not lost yet to them (Couple draws though) Lumineth are such a dull and uninteractive army to go up against, their rules are just so oppressive to the opponent.  If I can win and have a kinda rubbish time, that is not good. The new stuff from the supposed leaks solidify this further, they are adding further rules to reduce interaction with them. 

The future of Lumineth does not bode well for me, whoever thought 30 inch archers (getting even more range now! Hooray!) are fine need their content looked over before submission. I hope to be wrong, but time will tell, if they do have more  design flaws hopefully it is fixed quick because right now they kill any excitement I have for the future of AoS 

Edited March 26, 2021 by JonnyTheKing

[yukishiro1]

The problem with LRL isn't really that it's overpowered - though who knows, after this release it may well be - but that it's just a tiresome, boring army to play against, because it's such a one-sided experience. They get like 3x as many rules as anyone else for no apparent reason, and the worst bit is that many of those rules are ways to get around the normal way the game is played. So playing against LRL is totally different than playing anyone else, but in a frustrating way, not a refreshing way, because they shut down the stuff you selected your army to do.

People don't play games to not be able to do stuff with their dudes, or to not be able to mitigate what the other person does to their dudes, and LRL is designed around both those things. It's just a bad design archetype. Control armies are just fundamentally a bad fit for tabletop gaming, where the whole point is feeling a sense of agency. LRL make the other player feel like a powerless victim when they're working correctly, and that's not something anybody plays the game to feel. 

The new rules previews giving even more control tools (seriously - who on earth thought what LRL needed was more reliable casting and dispelling? really?) and even more ways to ignore the base rules of the game also suggest that, if anything, GW is going even further down this particular path, rather than realizing it's the wrong one to go down. 

It doesn't help that they are also a castle faction, another thing that tends to create stale game experiences. What AOS needs is not more ranged damage and tougher buff-stacking castles, and yet that's what LRL specializes in. It's no wonder people dislike them so much, even if they're not necessarily overpowered. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by yukishiro1

[LuminethMage]

4 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

I don't play, but I am firmly in the "Dislike" camp. The rules seem to be written to reduce the effect the opponent can have on the game, which I think is a rather bad thing.

It diesn't matter where you put your models or what your armour save is when 36" LOS ignoring mortal wounds come for you.

On the other hand, it's harder to hit them.

Similar to increasing CP cost while generating a lot themselves.

Many of the rules are written to be either non interactive or specifically to feel unfair (Cathaller, looking at you).

It's like fighting Skaven inTW:WH2, I enjoy losing vs another faction more than winning vs Skaven, because it's just so tedious.

I'm not even saying they can't be balanced. A nerf could make them bottom of the pile and it could still be a bad time, but if it's tedious to play, did GW not get this from their playtests?

When the Lumineth came out first - TGA had an interview podcast with play testers, and they liked playing with and against the Lumineth. My opponents haven't complained either - but to be fair I haven't had that many in-person games so far. So it's a very limited sample size. 

Like Athrawes said, a lot of this seems overblown. I don't mean yourself, but there are many people who just don't like elves, don't understand how an actual Lumineth list looks like, or have ulterior motives when complaining about "NPE". And NPE is such a fuzzy concept, which also has a lot to do how someone general feels  towards an army or a certain playstyle. For example, I have problems when certain DoK players complain so much about LRL ignoring game rules (Morathi?) or interactivity (priests?). 

Another example - your case - and I don't mean you aren't right, if you don't like something, you don't like it, that's fine. But generally speaking "reducing the effect an opponent can have" is something that most armies have in some form or another. It's also something that if you can overcome it, will contribute to your own fun. On top if it, it can be fun for the player to have such abilities, and it contributes to having all kind of play styles and player types in the game, which are good things. 

"Control"-like armies/characters, relying on debuffing your opponent are a staple in strategic, fantasy, RPG games. So in my view, it's good to have one or two armies in the game who can do that (although you can disagree with that of course). The same is true for magic heavy, or shooting armies. Not everyone likes going up against those, but they contribute to the overall variety and health of the game in my view. Of course that doesn't mean, they shouldn't change some of the abilities if they are too powerful or limiting, but all the complaining about NPE seems a bit much to me. 

AoS started as a game with many melee focused armies. Shooting and magic were just "flavor" for the most part. The more the game grows, the more they need to offer different play styles, which will bring in new players, but  this naturally will also annoy some of the older players who basically don't want the game to change, or get back to the old game (or just players who don't like certain play styles). Which is fine. But that doesn't mean that the game got objectively worse, or armies that work differently are objectively "NPE" and have to be changed. 

For you the Cathallar might feel unfair (an ability once per turn on one unit on a 5 W, 5+ save hero no less). For me it could be a Mawcrusher, Witch Aelves, a KO boat, or any other thing. 

I think most of those issues can be solved easily in non-tournament settings. You can always talk to your opponent, but also accept that not every faction and game must be fun for both sides equally all the time,  if we want a big variety of playstyles in the game. And in a competitive tournament setting NPE shouldn't play a big role anyway. 

I and my opponents had fun games so far with LRL, but apparently not everyone does. I just don't think it's that big of a deal, and also unavoidable in a game that's not all about you and what you want. 

[yukishiro1]

There's no such thing as "objective NPE." NPE is inherently a subjective feeling.  That's the whole point of the term. There is no right or wrong, it's peoples' feelings. If someone feels something is NPE, it is NPE. The question is how representative their feelings are of the player bas a whole; if those feelings are widely represented,  that thing is NPE; it's what the word means.

And there's very much a problem if people don't enjoy playing a particular faction; you can say "it's not about only you," but the fact of the matter is that people play to have fun, and if they aren't having fun, they'll stop playing. We saw this with Slaanesh back in the day, when large numbers of players just refused to play against Slaanesh because the experience was miserable. I'm not saying LRL is that bad, but the point is that it's a huge issue for a game if there's a faction that people actively dislike playing against. Games need to be enjoyable for both parties, and if they aren't, you have a big game design problem on your hands. 

[Icarion]

You know what my favorite moments in game are? 

It's not when the opponent fails to stop my super spell/ability going off, or when I stop theirs. It’s not even when I manage to outplay my opponent through some masterfull strategic move.

My favorite moments, are when my opponents stack the deck in their favor for something like a combat, debuff my guy, buff up theirs, all sorts of shenanigans thrown together, and then miraculously, they flub their rolls, or I spike my saves, and that guy/unit of mine which was soo obviously doomed, hangs on with 1 wound left.

Winning when things are even between players is boring. Winning when the deck is stacked in your favor by moves/choices you engineered feels strategic. And winning when the deck is stacked AGAINST you feels best of all.

I can lose the game and be crushed, and that moment makes the game fun, and worth it to me. If other armies, didn't have their abilities that let them try to stack the deck in their favor, so that I can try and overcome it. My enjoyment of the game wound diminish. 

To each their own.

I imagine most people if they're honest, choose to play warhammer for (among other reasons) the wacky and weird things that can happen in a constantly tilted game, which can never find true balance. If you are after True balance, boy are you in the wrong game. Try Chess, but even then...  wait till you play against white, they get to go first always which is SERIOUS NPE. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Athrawes

[LuminethMage]

5 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

There's no such thing as "objective NPE." NPE is inherently a subjective feeling.  That's the whole point of the term. There is no right or wrong, it's peoples' feelings. If someone feels something is NPE, it is NPE. The question is how representative their feelings are of the player bas a whole; if those feelings are widely represented,  that thing is NPE; it's what the word means.

And there's very much a problem if people don't enjoy playing a particular faction; you can say "it's not about only you," but the fact of the matter is that people play to have fun, and if they aren't having fun, they'll stop playing. We saw this with Slaanesh back in the day, when large numbers of players just refused to play against Slaanesh because the experience was miserable. I'm not saying LRL is that bad, but the point is that it's a huge issue for a game if there's a faction that people actively dislike playing against. Games need to be enjoyable for both parties, and if they aren't, you have a big game design problem on your hands. 

Yup, but if you only count the feelings of the current player base (which you'd first would have to judge correctly, and not by the loudest voices), and just take everything that said about "NPE" at face value, you might be lead to the wrong conclusion. That's what I meant. 

If someone really doesn't like playing Lumineth because they aren't fun for them, ok, that's their choice. Someone else might not find playing against Giants fun. Or DoK, or KO, or Seraphon, etc. Alternatively you could try to work things out together. Especially with the new units LRL players can build more varied lists.

If someone leaves the game because they don't like playing against one faction - that'd be weird. On the other hand, it's more likely that someone won't get interested in a game if they don't find an army that offers the playstyle they like. I don't think it's that huge of an issue if there is one army like that among -  what 24 - now. 

It's a social game. My fun comes out of playing together, weird dice rolls, stupid things I do, great things I do, unexpected things my opponent does etc. It's not only tied what I think about my opponents rules. There is so much more to the game than that. 

[yukishiro1]

Yeah but that actually illustrates one of the problem with LRL, doesn't it? So many of their abilities eliminate the normal sources of RNG in the game. Teclis can't flub a key cast, it just isn't possible. He can't flub a key unbind; it just automatically succeeds on whatever is most important for it work on. You can't spike your saves, because  most of the damage bypasses saves and wound rolls entirely. Etc etc.

That's why the army feels so non-interactive to play against: they just do their thing super reliably no matter what, and if you're on the receiving end, all you can really do is take it and play for the mission (because LRL are actually really bad at playing the mission) and hope to win on the mission despite the fight going the same way every game because LRL are rewarded for playing their own game, not for reacting to yours. 

LRL are a really weird army in that they are really easy to play badly...but the way you play them badly is, ironically, by playing them the way you'd play other factions well - by moving out and focusing on the mission aggressively. When LRL aggressively plays the mission, which is the right way to play almost any other AOS faction, it loses, because so many of its rule are designed around a cagey castle approach that only works if you keep all your auras and buffs stacked.

LRL win by castling up into an unassailable ball, playing extremely passively re: the mission, and then tabling the opponent (or at least eliminating any of their threats) early enough to make up for the score deficit, which is a really problematic thing to encourage an army to do from a design perspective. Conversely, you beat LRL by just ignoring their castle because engaging it is suicide, and blocking them off from scoring instead. And although you can win games that way, most players don't find the "I'm going to get tabled here if I try to fight, so instead I won't even try to fight" an engaging game experience. 

[yukishiro1]

4 minutes ago, LuminethMage said:

If someone really doesn't like playing Lumineth because they aren't fun for them, ok, that's their choice. Someone else might not find playing against Giants fun. Or DoK, or KO, or Seraphon, etc. 

But isn't that what we're talking about? That, for the reasons discussed, people don't like LRL more than they don't like other factions - even factions that are objectively more overpowered? Some number of people are going to dislike anything; the issue is when so many people dislike something. All your comments about it being a social game, although true, go both ways - if it's not about the rules, it shouldn't matter to you if they are redesigned to be more fun for the opposing player, should it? 

 

[LuminethMage]

Just now, yukishiro1 said:

But isn't that what we're talking about? That, for the reasons discussed, people don't like LRL more than they don't like other factions - even factions that are objectively more overpowered? Some number of people are going to dislike anything; the issue is when so many people dislike something. All your comments about it being a social game, although true, go both ways - if it's not about the rules, it shouldn't matter to you if they are redesigned to be more fun for the opposing player, should it? 

 

Some people - and as I said, I don't believe everyone, that's it's really just NPE caused by the abilities. That's exactly why NPE is such a problem. If I want, I could complain every day about all the NPE Sylvaneth have - fight last, can't target them, can teleport. What would you think? Or if I all of a sudden would start complaining about the NPE of say DoK or Idoneth (talk about rule-breaking abilities and interactivity ...)? Would you think that's my honest concern and that I'm a good representative of "the people"? 

[yukishiro1]

If lots of people felt Sylvaneth were NPE, that'd be a reason to redesign them. But lots of people don't think that.

If you are challenging the idea that LRL are more disliked than other factions, that's fine, although a little surprising to me. I thought we were all on the same page re: LRL being more disliked than other armies, and that your argument was just that it doesn't matter. 

You didn't really answer my question, though. If it's not about the rules to you, it's about having fun with your mates, why would you care if the rules were redesigned to be more fun for the person on the receiving end? 

Like let me give you a concrete example here of what I'm talking about. Compare Teclis to a Lord of Change. They both have super powerful casting and dispelling abilities - but the LoC still has to roll dice (or use a limited resource that is better used for other things). It's possible for it to fail casts, and it's possible for it to fail that key unbind. It's not likely, but it's possible. Teclis just auto-passes, and auto-unbinds, and can even change the value of the automatic success if he needs to, just to be doubly sure the opponent absolutely won't be able to do anything to stop him. Would it really be such a travesty if Teclis was reworked to cast and unbind more like the LoC does - i.e. with very high but not absolutely guaranteed success? If this makes the opponent feel more engaged in the game and less like a passenger just watching you do your thing, isn't that a better way to design a warscroll? 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Kaladreon]

Redesigning a range because some players don't like to play against them would be absurd. If they start with that, some group or other would always come out with not liking the new style. There would be no winning. A player can ask their friends to play something else or give them more points if they really think it is a problem. If they enter a tournament (where they cannot do that), then they have no excuse for expecting people to only play their preferred armies to face. Honestly, the biggest NPE for me (and I hate how widely that term is being used nowadays) is people labelling anything they don't like as NPE. You not being psyched about everything that happens is not a negative play experience, its playing a game. Next thing you know people will say losing their queen in chess is and NPE so they should redesign the game.

[BigNStinky]

5 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

I’ll just say that in regards to Total Eclipse (have to spend 2cp for command abilities), when it was first previewed I was amongst the complainers, I thought it was overpowered, unfun and quite frankly ridiculous. However, I’m actually fine with it now, as I feel like the fact there’s no ‘interaction’ between your opponents using command points is a pretty serious issue: Stormcast Eternals and Gaverial Surehearts +3” to charge command ability that can stack? There’s no interaction with a unit of 10 Evocators turning up 9” away from you and then getting a guaranteed charge. Idoneth Deepkin getting +3 attacks to each weapon for every command point Volturnos spends? Things like this are a bigger issue than a spell that makes you spend 2cp instead of 1 in my opinion 

I guess you don't play a lot of factions that have no CP generation then. You might as well not have command abilities

[yukishiro1]

NPE is "anything they don't like" - at least, anything someone doesn't like enough to impair their enjoyment of the game. That's the definition of the term. It's right in the name, it's not hidden or anything. 

Fixing things people don't enjoy is how games survive and thrive. The only question is how widespread the dislike is. If a significant portion of the player base finds a particular mechanic unfun, the game designers would be incompetent not to address it.

Incidentally, "redesigning a range because some players don't like to play against them" is exactly what the Slaanesh book is. Essentially all the major changes to that book are reactions to stuff people didn't like and found unfun to play against. Fight last locus got removed because people hated facing it. Depravity got redone because people hated the way it functioned. Etc etc. 

 

[Kaladreon]

3 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Incidentally, "redesigning a range because some players don't like to play against them" is exactly what the Slaanesh book is

You're absolutely right, and now look at what people are demanding. Doing it once makes it so everyone can demand they axe the army that beat them last Saturday or didn't let them stack command abilities. I didn't read anyone saying the meaning of NPE was hidden, what I'm seeing is people saying someone's NPE has no right to dictate the game for everyone else.

[yukishiro1]

I don't see anyone in this thread really saying they want LRL nerfed because it's too powerful in absolute terms. Instead, the comments are all about how the design of the faction makes playing against them unenjoyable. I think you are building a big straw man there re: people whining because they got beat last Saturday, and straw men just waste everyone's time.

Obviously one person's NPE is irrelevant; the question is whether something is NPE to enough people to impact overall enjoyment levels. If it is, it needs to be fixed; it is not convincing to say that it doesn't matter how many people dislike a given feature of a game, because if enough people dislike something, it literally causes the game to die. Games need to be enjoyable, or they don't survive. 

Reworking Slaanesh was absolutely the right thing to do; as a general rule of thumb, any time a significant number of people just start refusing to play a particular faction, that's almost always a strong sign it needs a rework. People in this hobby tend to be very easy-going, and it takes a LOT to get them to just straight up say they're not interested. It only happens with the very worst of design errors- Slaanesh in AOS, Space Marines after the infamous 2.0 codex and before the Iron Hands nerf, etc.  I don't think people are quite as fed up of LRL as they are of those other factions, but we're also getting a LRL 2.0 book, so we'll have to see if it reigns things in or pushes the faction into Slaanesh / SM 2.0 territory. 

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by yukishiro1