General Lumineth Realm Lords Rules Discussion

[Ragest]

12 hours ago, Indecisive said:

I don't even see how the windarchers are all that imposing, all they've got is speed and some pile-in shenanigans.
They don't pack much of a punch for their cost and are very squishy. The models look too big for W2 Sv5+

3 matches with Kangaroos, got nothing with them.

12” shooting is so so close, you are going to get charged and deleted with 2w and 5+ And your movement shenanigans are useless when charged, because the opponent pile in first and you can’t flee

Edited March 28, 2021 by Ragest

[Marcvs]

Just now, Joseph Mackay said:

I’m seeing a lot of people taking issue with Teclis autocasting spells, which brings me to Nagash: although he doesn’t ‘autocast’ he does have enough buffs that he mostly can’t fail and/or you can’t stop his spells. Why does nobody take issue with him? it’s because of a bias against Aelves that a lot of people seem to have lately

I think this hits a good point actually. While it is true that people ALSO have had issues with Nagash, the different mechanics makes it so that players feel Nagash's casting much more "part of the game" than Teclis. My hypothesis as to why this is the case: even with high bonuses to cast, you can still fail an important spell, or roll low enough that an unbind is possible. So, while it can be highly reliable, there is still uncertainty and a risk/reward mechanic at play. With Teclis instead, the Lumineth player can be 100% certain of casting that one spell that (s)he needs. Since in the end we are talking about perceptions of faireness, I can see why Teclis would seem more "unfair" than Nagash -leaving aside, as always, their relative power level etc etc.

Edited March 28, 2021 by Marcvs

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Instead, I think it's better think about NPE in terms of interactivity and decision making. If a mechanic makes you feel bored, frustrated or upset because it makes you feel like your choices and actions during the game (or even during list bulding) are not meaningful, that's the type of neagtive experience we should be concerned about. Because that undermines the reason why we play the game in the first place: To make interesting and meaningful tactical and strategic choices.

That's exactly my point. I'm not sure if rooraiders are going to be an "auto-cast and can not be unbind" mechanic or another thing to take in consideration when I play the game (as Ambushes/teleports , FNP 4+HGB, Overwatch units, etc...). As I said before, I need to play some games to know if that mechanic is going to be unhealthy, or just another trick to take in mind (like KOs ol'Grundstock Thunderers slingshot).

If I must make a bet (ignoring power-level, just NPE), I would say that Teclis is going to (still) be the main issue with so many new spell options (mainly Howling Gale and Transporting Vortex) followed by the usual Scyar battletrait and Sentinels gameplay and maybe Sevireth.

[Ragest]

11 minutes ago, Beliman said:

That's exactly my point. I'm not sure if rooraiders are going to be an "auto-cast and can not be unbind" mechanic or another thing to take in consideration when I play the game (as Ambushes/teleports , FNP 4+HGB, Overwatch units, etc...). As I said before, I need to play some games to know if that mechanic is going to be unhealthy, or just another trick to take in mind (like KOs ol'Grundstock Thunderers slingshot).

If I must make a bet (ignoring power-level, just NPE), I would say that Teclis is going to (still) be the main issue with so many new spell options (mainly Howling Gale and Transporting Vortex) followed by the usual Scyar battletrait and Sentinels gameplay and maybe Sevireth.

Actual teclis-syar with maybe a loreseeker or 5 blademasters will be the competitive Lumineth, that's for sure.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

37 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Actual teclis-syar with maybe a loreseeker or 5 blademasters will be the competitive Lumineth, that's for sure.

Why do you think Bladelords will be part of the meta build? They don't seem very good to me.

[Kugane]

3 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Why do you think Bladelords will be part of the meta build? They don't seem very good to me.

I would assume Loreseeker to cap an objective and using Teclis to auto-teleport bladelords to guard the Loreseeker, making it very tough to get off an objective.

(I never played Lumineth, just guessing. )

[Ragest]

14 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Why do you think Bladelords will be part of the meta build? They don't seem very good to me.

15 potential wounds for cathallar, plus 16 wounds for Teclis both with fnp 5+ ignoring spells (and bouncing back MW) on a 4+ (double ignore in blademasters because of their warscroll) you are basically forcing all those nasty top tier armies (tzeentch/seraphon/Kharadron) to focus elsewhere or waste all their tricks (now teclis can heal 1d3 if neccessary)

[El Antiguo Guardián]

New units are cool but they´re not going to (probably) change the meta lumineth list a lot. Maybe one balista for the -1 or one fox bcs of movement.

 

The most horrible thing is the new wind lore for Teclis. So if Eclipse was not enough, now he can cast MW on 5s, avoid you to use habilities, teleport some spearmen... just crazy. 

 

PD: I´m printing my own lumineths.

[Beliman]

56 minutes ago, Ragest said:

ignoring spells (and bouncing back MW) on a 4+ (double ignore in blademasters because of their warscroll) you are basically forcing all those nasty top tier armies (tzeentch/seraphon/Kharadron)

Are KOs affected by Celennar's aura? If I remember it right, it's just endless spells and spells cast by enemy Wizards 

[whispersofblood]

42 minutes ago, Ragest said:

15 potential wounds for cathallar, plus 16 wounds for Teclis both with fnp 5+ ignoring spells (and bouncing back MW) on a 4+ (double ignore in blademasters because of their warscroll) you are basically forcing all those nasty top tier armies (tzeentch/seraphon/Kharadron) to focus elsewhere or waste all their tricks (now teclis can heal 1d3 if neccessary)

I disagree. If LRL had problems filling battleline you might have seen a 5 man instead of a 3rd Warden unit, but the unit itself is just too mediocre and Cathallars not essential enough to invest in a bodyguard. If Cathallars are that essential to your build its probably better to just take a second and duplicate all the benefits. 

I'm also not sure keeping a Cathaller alive is an issue, at least it's not one I'm generally afraid of. 

Either way list building is an interesting discussion, and dependant on a lot of things. Namely if you even have a strong desire to use the models. 

[yukishiro1]

5 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

I’m seeing a lot of people taking issue with Teclis autocasting spells, which brings me to Nagash: although he doesn’t ‘autocast’ he does have enough buffs that he mostly can’t fail and/or you can’t stop his spells. Why does nobody take issue with him? it’s because of a bias against Aelves that a lot of people seem to have lately

I actually already addressed this earlier in the thread with regard to the way the Lord of Change works (who is actually more reliable than Nagash). Although Nagash, the Lord of Change, Kroak etc cast very well, they don't cast automatically. This creates a large difference in how being on the receiving end feels. There is still the possibility of things going wrong for the opponent, or of them casting on a low enough value that you can unbind. What makes Teclis so frustrating is that you never get a chance to interact with him as the opposing player unless the opponent wants to give you that chance (and if they do, it's probably because your chance of unbinding is insignificantly low). And then to add insult to injury, he also automatically unbinds one of your spells too. Again, a Lord of Change unbinds really well - actually arguably better than Teclis, when you consider it gets its bonus to both unbinds...but it's not automatic. It doesn't feel completely futile. You can still interact with its casting - at a disadvantage, but you can still interact. Having no interactivity is precisely the sort of thing we have identified in this thread and elsewhere as the sort of mechanic that produces feelings of NPE. 

Please don't gump up the thread with accusations of bias, they're essentially akin to personal attacks in that they don't relate to the point but instead try to cut off discussion by pointing at the individual instead, which isn't useful. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[yukishiro1]

3 hours ago, Ragest said:

15 potential wounds for cathallar, plus 16 wounds for Teclis both with fnp 5+ ignoring spells (and bouncing back MW) on a 4+ (double ignore in blademasters because of their warscroll) you are basically forcing all those nasty top tier armies (tzeentch/seraphon/Kharadron) to focus elsewhere or waste all their tricks (now teclis can heal 1d3 if neccessary)

I don't think you'd get the ignore from the bladelords unless the spell actually effects them directly; the bodyguard rule just passes on the wounds. Unless there's a FAQ on the topic that ignores the normal way the game works and says otherwise (it's GW, it's possible I suppose). 

I'm also not sure that any of the armies that can do so really care much about sniping out the cath; the cath is usually good against melee armies, not ranged ones (like much of the LRL book).  If they have the potential to do so they'll just kill Teclis; if they don't, they'll do the normal plan vs LRL of neutralizing their scoring units and trying to win on the mission. Though that is going to be way harder now that LRL have an auto-casting teleport that even works in melee. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Ghoooouls]

13 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

I don't think you'd get the ignore from the bladelords unless the spell actually effects them directly; the bodyguard rule just passes on the wounds. Unless there's a FAQ on the topic that ignores the normal way the game works and says otherwise (it's GW, it's possible I suppose). 

I'm also not sure that any of the armies that can do so really care much about sniping out the cath; the cath is usually good against melee armies, not ranged ones (like much of the LRL book).  If they have the potential to do so they'll just kill Teclis; if they don't, they'll do the normal plan vs LRL of neutralizing their scoring units and trying to win on the mission. Though that is going to be way harder now that LRL have an auto-casting teleport that even works in melee. 

Yeah you wouldn't get the 4+ ignore from their guardian rule. They're taking wounds from their guardian ability, not the spell. The spell is affecting the hero, not the blade masters.

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

I actually already addressed this earlier in the thread with regard to the way the Lord of Change works (who is actually more reliable than Nagash). Although Nagash, the Lord of Change, Kroak etc cast very well, they don't cast automatically. This creates a large difference in how being on the receiving end feels. There is still the possibility of things going wrong for the opponent, or of them casting on a low enough value that you can unbind. What makes Teclis so frustrating is that you never get a chance to interact with him as the opposing player unless the opponent wants to give you that chance (and if they do, it's probably because your chance of unbinding is insignificantly low). And then to add insult to injury, he also automatically unbinds one of your spells too. Again, a Lord of Change unbinds really well - actually arguably better than Teclis, when you consider it gets its bonus to both unbinds...but it's not automatic. It doesn't feel completely futile. You can still interact with its casting - at a disadvantage, but you can still interact. Having no interactivity is precisely the sort of thing we have identified in this thread and elsewhere as the sort of mechanic that produces feelings of NPE. 

Please don't gump up the thread with accusations of bias, they're essentially akin to personal attacks in that they don't relate to the point but instead try to cut off discussion by pointing at the individual instead, which isn't useful. 

Teclis autocasting isn't uninteractive. The interaction between players remains, he does greatly reduce the tension in the moment though.

I guess the question is if the small chance of failure presented by Kroak, the LoC and Nagash is actually sufficient; so that literally autocasting vs effectively autocasting produces NPE. Check my math but a 9 to cast is unbound what 1/9 times? These are some narrow margins. 

[yukishiro1]

No, there isn't any interaction. It's all up to the Teclis player, and if they really want, they can just autocast it at 12 (or even at 12 with no ability to unbind). If you consider that still interactive, everything in AOS is interactive. 

But I don't want to argue over a technical point - the point is the feeling of powerlessness it engenders in the opposing player. It's not about the math. A LoC casts almost as reliably as Teclis in math hammer. But the feeling is very different because of the lack of an absolute guarantee.

I don't like the approach of reducing NPE to math. That doesn't work. NPE is about feelings. Saying "well a LoC only actually casts 5% (random number) worse than Teclis so Teclis isn't NPE if the LoC isn't" ignores how people actually process things. The mechanics often matter far more than the result when it comes to NPE. 

I mean if you ask me personally I would say magic needs a general rework, and that powerful spellcasters shouldn't render less powerful casters as useless as they currently do. But that is separate from the question of whether Teclis' autocasting is itself NPE, independent of the general strength of strong spellcasters. 

IMO a good rule of thumb is that any special rule which allows a player to bypass the normal rules of the game by removing the possibility of failure for something that normally has a chance of failure has a high probability to produce NPE. That doesn't mean such abilities should be completely absent from the game, but they should be treated very carefully. If Teclis could only autocast once per game, that'd probably be fine from a NPE perspective because the opposing player at least feels that they've accomplished something by having the Teclis player have to expend a limited resource. It's the fact that he just keeps doing it spell after spell, turn after turn that creates the feeling you have no agency over the experience. 

It would be like if you had a unit that you just point at something and that something takes X damage. This is more NPE than a unit that costs the same points that has to apply its damage through the normal rolling to hit, wound, damage, etc - even if the average damage output is actually higher for the second unit. And it's not only because of the value reliability provides. There's something more fundamentally upsetting to the opposing player about the former unit, and it's the lack of agency. You can't cure that feeling by adjusting the math, because the problem isn't mathematical. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Lucky Snake Eyes]

7 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

I’m seeing a lot of people taking issue with Teclis autocasting spells, which brings me to Nagash: although he doesn’t ‘autocast’ he does have enough buffs that he mostly can’t fail and/or you can’t stop his spells. Why does nobody take issue with him? it’s because of a bias against Aelves that a lot of people seem to have lately

Nagash is undeniably competing for best caster in the game, but keep in mind the 200+ point difference between him and teclis meaning a significant difference in chaff hanging around to protect him (for argument lets discount LoN as they're being replaced with an army we don't know enough about yet and use bonereapers as our example) Sure points aside both have crazy casting in two different flavours, but Nagash also has the caveat of his casting weakening as he brackets, which is easy to do with some shooting. Melee armies will have a harder time at bracketing Nagash but that logic also applies to teclis. I feel while nagash can be a game changing caster in the early game his overall effectiveness is hampered by the spells he has access to, Nagash gets one spell list in OBR consisting of mostly single target debuff spells, a buff spell for their exploding 6s, a mortal wound save that doesn't stack with existing saves and is only applicable with units with shields, a spell to give himself a 5+ negate that doesn't stack and a teleport if he lives and a spell fro d3 RDP which he'll be religiously casting as taking him cripples the armies RDP generation. And we don't know what or how may he'll get in gravelords if he makes it in it. Meanwhile Teclis has 3 spell lores at his disposal, sure he can only cast 4 at a time but he's got a tool in his toolbox for every occasion and all he needs is a spell portal for the harder to reach spells.

I feel people are failing to articulate that the biggest difference between nagash and teclis as spellcasters isn't the quantity or reliability of their casting, but the quality of spells they can cast. Yes 8 acrane bolts can wreak some havoc, but doubling CP costs, mass bravery debuffs and now a teleport spell can be pretty game changing. I do feel nagash could use some tweaking but honestly if he's playable in gravelords and they have some strong spells then even current nagash will be drawing the same ire as teclis, possible even more.

[Chaos Shepard]

8 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I actually think it's just a flavour thing. The sister teleports herself and the brother out to heal him. Why should they count as slain if they can't return to battle because of that? That would be literally the opposite of what the fluff say is happening.

Mechanically, it's very unimpactful, anyway. How often will there be literally no place on the board to put down one small hero model?

It's just that slain is nothing more than a game term. While this could and often does mean that the model dies, it really just a catch all for no longer being able to participate in the fight. This rule will mostly never come up, but this to me is just braking a carnal rule of the game.

[yukishiro1]

Here's another way they could have handled Teclis' casting, that would keep him as the preeminent spellcaster in the game, but create tradeoffs for that power - and ones that are actually quite fluffy re: Teclis' fate in the world-that-was. 

Teclis casts 4 spells a turn. When casting a spell, choose to either cast normally (at +1 to cast/unbind/dispel), or to channel the winds of magic. If Teclis chooses to channel the winds of magic instead of casting normally, the spell automatically casts at either a value of 10 or 12, chosen by the caster; Teclis can only choose to channel at a value of 12 once per turn. If Teclis channels at a value of 10, add 1 Arcane Channeling token to Teclis; if he channels at 12, add 3. If Teclis has any Arcane Channeling tokens, at the end of every turn, and every time Teclis attempts to cast a spell that is successfully unbound, take an Arcane Channeling test by rolling one d6. If the result is less than or equal to the number of Arcane Channeling tokens on Teclis, remove all those tokens, and Teclis takes a number of Mortal Wounds equal to the number of tokens. If there are 6 Arcane Channeling tokens on Teclis, and you roll a 6 when taking an Arcane Channeling test, Teclis is dissolved by the winds of magic and removed as slain. If the result is higher than the number of Arcane Channeling tokens, there is no effect; do not remove the tokens, and continue to make tests as appropriate until one is failed.  Once per turn, when attempting to unbind a spell, Teclis can channel the winds of magic; if he does, the spell is automatically unbound, and add 3 Arcane Channeling tokens to Teclis. Once per turn, when attempting to dispel an endless spell, Teclis can channel the winds of magic; if he does, the endless spell is automatically dispelled, and add 1 Arcane Channeling tokens to Teclis. In your hero phase, Teclis can  focus on dispersing the winds of magic; if he does, remove all Arcane Channeling tokens from Teclis, but he cannot cast any spells that hero phase.

This still allows Teclis to autocast when he needs to (and actually powers him up slightly, allowing him to autocast one spell at a 12 and still cast or autocast 3 others), but it provides a strong check on just willy-nilly autocasting or autodispeling spells because there is a potentially heavy price to be paid for it. It also introduces a measure of RNG into the system, and does provide for some interactivity, in that if you do manage to unbind any of Teclis' cast attempts, that has the chance to trigger the MWs as well. I strongly suspect this would reduce the frustration people have with Teclis' autocasting, as it would make it feel more like a tradeoff than just a straight trump card. 

The point here isn't the specific rule I came up with after 2 minutes of thinking in the shower BTW, it's that powerful abilities that ignore the normal rules of the game should usually have some sort of limitation or tradeoff; when they don't, that often leads to feelings of NPE. 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[whispersofblood]

2 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

No, there isn't any interaction. It's all up to the Teclis player, and if they really want, they can just autocast it at 12 (or even at 12 with no ability to unbind). If you consider that still interactive, everything in AOS is interactive. 

But I don't want to argue over a technical point - the point is the feeling of powerlessness it engenders in the opposing player. It's not about the math. A LoC casts almost as reliably as Teclis in math hammer. But the feeling is very different because of the lack of an absolute guarantee.

I don't like the approach of reducing NPE to math. That doesn't work. NPE is about feelings. Saying "well a LoC only actually casts 5% (random number) worse than Teclis so Teclis isn't NPE if the LoC isn't" ignores how people actually process things. The mechanics often matter far more than the result when it comes to NPE. 

I mean if you ask me personally I would say magic needs a general rework, and that powerful spellcasters shouldn't render less powerful casters as useless as they currently do. But that is separate from the question of whether Teclis' autocasting is itself NPE, independent of the general strength of strong spellcasters. 

IMO a good rule of thumb is that any special rule which allows a player to bypass the normal rules of the game by removing the possibility of failure for something that normally has a chance of failure has a high probability to produce NPE. That doesn't mean such abilities should be completely absent from the game, but they should be treated very carefully. If Teclis could only autocast once per game, that'd probably be fine from a NPE perspective because the opposing player at least feels that they've accomplished something by having the Teclis player have to expend a limited resource. It's the fact that he just keeps doing it spell after spell, turn after turn that creates the feeling you have no agency over the experience. 

It would be like if you had a unit that you just point at something and that something takes X damage. This is more NPE than a unit that costs the same points that has to apply its damage through the normal rolling to hit, wound, damage, etc - even if the average damage output is actually higher for the second unit. And it's not only because of the value reliability provides. There's something more fundamentally upsetting to the opposing player about the former unit, and it's the lack of agency. You can't cure that feeling by adjusting the math, because the problem isn't mathematical. 

We've already discussed the subjective component, see @Neil Arthur Hotep post earlier today. Not all feel bads are NPE, some things are just knowledge gaps or specific bugbears. We've moved on to identifying exactly what the objective mechanics that produce the thing are, so that we can rigoursly test each instance. Math is useful because it lets us delineate between instances of similarish things.

If going from less than 15% chance to a zero percent chance is NPE that's fine if we can show that is replicatable. But, I'd be hesitant to declare it with certainty. There needs to be some level of wherewithal from players so that factions can be deliberate and interesting. We can very quickly end up with a bunch of sylvaneth books which are interesting but filled with such pointless drivel they are unplayable.

A good example where this clarity helps is Marauders and Ard Boyz. Marauders change their lowest die to a 6 (adding on average between 3 and 5 to a roll), and a +1. Ard Boyz depending on build add between 3 and 4 to a roll. One changes a die, the other adds modifiers. Both have access to teleports. Marauders are complained about, Ard Boyz hardly get a mention. The process should be are the complaints are a feeling or a reaction to NPE. Then what does the reaction or lack thereof to a very similar thing mean. Is this similar thing evidence of a feeling (personal but shared discomfort) or legitimate NPE.

Personally I think it's fine for Factions to do their specific "thing" without much interactivity from the opponent, and a high degree of mechanical reliability. And, that thing should flow from their allegiance abilities and be mostly certain. To me it's unacceptable that HoS have to roll a die for their Locus to work for example. These are the things that make playing against different factions worthwhile. And form an identifiable identity for a faction.

The Contemplation rule is really cool to me in this regard. Trading the present for the future is a really interesting design space.

Regarding magic. It's a tricky one personally I've not been able to imagine a system that lets minor casters engage against major casters better than the one we have at the moment. It's actually better than what we had in WHFB. Which is probably why I'm fine with God tier casters, Teclis amoungst them. Narratively it checks out.

I do think that generally casters heroes should have at least 2 casts and 1 unbind and 1 dispel though. Also, each caster needs a consistently useful warscroll spell. Rubbish like stream of corruption shouldn't pass the first draft. Most wizards aren't useless in the face of the major casters they are frankly just useless in most cases. Even the "good" ones are only good because of things outside their warscroll, most often that thing being a teleport.

 

[yukishiro1]

There's no such thing as objective, non-feeling-based NPE. It doesn't exist. Math only lets you distinguish between things that are mathematically similar. The whole point I am making is that mathematical similarity is not what determines whether someone experiences NPE. Human brains don't work that way. NPE is as much about the way you get to the result than the result itself, because NPE is about enjoyment, and enjoyment is as much about the journey as the result. 

I just don't think we're going to agree here, you seem to fundamentally reject the idea that NPE is anything except whatever you personally agree is NPE based on your criteria, and I in turn fundamentally reject that approach. Like to me, your example with 'ardboyz shows exactly what I am talking about: mechanics matter, not just the end mathematical result. To me, that's an example of exactly what I am talking about: Marauders are NPE because they effectively guarantee a result (only a 1/36 chance of failing the charge from deepstrike, before a reroll); 'ardboyz are not because they don't (even at +4 to charge in the best case scenario, that's still a roll that is realistically failable, even though it will usually succeed) - even if you think that's an illusory difference because the average result is not all that different, it's a critical one in the way people perceive what is fun and what isn't. To me, this should be a lesson for GW: if you want to increase the chance of something to make a charge, do it with +s to the roll, not by guaranteeing a minimum value that essentially guarantees a charge out of deepstrike. But to you, from what I can tell, you think that this is an example of precisely the opposite - something that isn't actually "real" NPE and just a case of people needing to learn to do math. 

We can talk about what is likely to lead to NPE because human brains work in predictable and similar ways; a feeling of powerless seems to be the most common denominator. But that's only useful for identifying how people are likely to feel, not for policing their feelings and saying "nope, that's not actually NPE even though you say it is, because I know better as a more educated and better player." Now some NPE can obviously be addressed through teaching people to play in a different way, but that doesn't mean it isn't NPE, it just means that there may be a solution other than changing the game (if teaching them to play in that different way leads to greater enjoyment). 

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Feii]

12 hours ago, Ragest said:

3 matches with Kangaroos, got nothing with them.

12” shooting is so so close, you are going to get charged and deleted with 2w and 5+ And your movement shenanigans are useless when charged, because the opponent pile in first and you can’t flee

actually you don't use them as a ranged units but you use their 3 inches meele range (what the f*ck their meele bows have 3 inches range, my dracolines don't have that or slaneeshi seekers with their giant glaives have 2 inch range) and  you ignore normal pile in rules SO what do you do? Rules loophole!   Watch the time stamp https://youtu.be/DfK73qp_nuc?t=15989


Basically windchargers are a mediocre skirmish unit but an amazing NPE overload.  (that -2 rend on the bow is just an icing on a  cake)

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Feii

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

There's no such thing as objective, non-feeling-based NPE. It doesn't exist. Math only lets you distinguish between things that are mathematically similar. The whole point I am making is that mathematical similarity is not what determines whether someone experiences NPE. Human brains don't work that way. NPE is as much about the way you get to the result than the result itself, because NPE is about enjoyment, and enjoyment is as much about the journey as the result. 

I just don't think we're going to agree here, you seem to fundamentally reject the idea that NPE is anything except whatever you personally agree is NPE based on your criteria, and I in turn fundamentally reject that approach. Like to me, your example with 'ardboyz shows exactly what I am talking about: mechanics matter, not just the end mathematical result. To me, that's an example of exactly what I am talking about: Marauders are NPE because they effectively guarantee a result (only a 1/36 chance of failing the charge from deepstrike, before a reroll); 'ardboyz are not because they don't (even at +4 to charge in the best case scenario, that's still a roll that is realistically failable, even though it will usually succeed) - even if you think that's an illusory difference because the average result is not all that different, it's a critical one in the way people perceive what is fun and what isn't. To me, this should be a lesson for GW: if you want to increase the chance of something to make a charge, do it with +s to the roll, not by guaranteeing a minimum value. But to you, from what I can tell, you think that this is an example of precisely the opposite - something that isn't actually "real" NPE and just a case of people needing to learn to do math. 

We can talk about what is likely to lead to NPE because human brains work in predictable and similar ways; a feeling of powerless seems to be the most common denominator. But that's only useful for identifying how people are likely to feel, not for policing their feelings and saying "nope, that's not actually NPE even though you say it is, because I know better as a more educated and better player." Now some NPE can obviously be addressed through teaching people to play in a different way, but that doesn't mean it isn't NPE, it just means that there may be a solution other than changing the game (if teaching them to play in that different way leads to greater enjoyment). 

 

Actually what I'm saying is we don't have enough data to say definitively either way. Which is why examples of things that are similar but not the same are so important. 

All things have definitions and an objective core, we are limited by our imperfect human perception and ability to communicate, not by the nature of things. Subjectivity is much later in the process and more marginal than the layman believes. Even things like beauty have objective cores, the exact dimensions of human beauty are known, variance from that core is subjectively acceptable to viewers.

The math helps us figure out what is actually similar so we can then identify what is different about these things so we can narrow down what the core of the NPE is.

If people are experiencing a variance between Marauders and Ard Boyz making a 9" charge to be NPE that's valuable to the determining what other things could be NPE. And, what the general player can tolerate and not tolerate.

In this case Marauders fail a 9" charge 2/36 times, Ard Boyz worst case 12/36 times. Boundless Ferocity works out to be equivalent to +5 in regards to completing a charge from 9". But bonuses to charge can be more powerful then the Marauder rule in other circumstances as you spike very high. Marauders go on average 11-12inches. Ard Boyz between 10-11, Marauders spike to 13, Ard Boyz spike at 15".

So there are some trades offs to consider for designers, simply going one route over another may not solve the issues of NPE. In this case having a different drummer rule means The Marauders would have a 6/36 chance to fail off the teleport. Maybe that degree of certainty would have been tolerable. We don't know unless we can measure how people are reacting to different sources of stimulus. 

One of the great ideas was 6s always succeed to wound tanks in 40k. There was some arguing at first but the chance was so small the opposed group could hardly argue it was impactful overall, and, the for side were seemingly satisfied with even a slim chance of success. Just the idea of some possibility of completely changed the narrative of the argument.

A part of human psychology is to generalize bad experience into the present and future. I don't think designing to the worst aspects of human nature is a benefit to the game however. As I said before people can feel whatever; that acid sure can feel like fire. But it's still acid, and not fire. The point of the discussion is delineate between ordinary things that might make the average person feel bad (like things which cause feelings of inferiority), and the sorts of things that the average person might actually be powerless in the face of. Because, it's not legitimate to say you are powerless because you feel powerless that isn't how reality functions. 

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by whispersofblood

[yukishiro1]

Oh yeah you're right, it's 1/18 to fail, not 1/36. Compared to 1/6 for 'ardboyz at +4, or a bit under 1/3 for 'ardboyz at the more typical +3. I think it is fair to say that 1/18 is close enough to zero that human brains perceive it that way, whereas 1/3 certainly is not, and 1/6 may be on the borderline (I think you might well see more complaints about 'ardboyz if they had +4 in all factions instead of only in one suballegiance of one subfaction). The NPE here is the guaranteed charge from deepstrike; marauders are close enough to guaranteed to get there as far as human perception goes, but 'ardboyz are not. Though I think guaranteed charges from deepstrike are honestly pretty low on peoples' NPE lists these days. 

I think just the fact of rolling dice itself can have some impact on the feelings of NPE too, beyond the strict math. Part of what makes Teclis more frustrating than the LoC is the Teclis player doesn't even have to roll, breaking one of the key rules of the magic phase; the LoC meanwhile stacks the dice quite heavily in its favor, but the simple fact of still having to roll the dice helps make the opponent feel like less unfairness is occurring. I think there are a lot of design lessons there about how human brains work. 

The acid vs fire example though is interesting though. If someone is feeling like their skin is being burned off, it doesn't really matter what the precise mechanism is - even if in reality it's a completely harmless erroneous sensory perception, you're not going to have much luck getting them continue doing whatever it is you want them to do by telling them "don't worry, it only feels like your skin is burning." Whether it's fire or acid or just some strange sensory perception might be useful in deciding how to fix it - but you have to fix it either way, because your game isn't going to survive if most people perceive it as being akin to having their skin burnt off, whether or not said skin is actually burning. The feeling is ultimately what you have to fix; it doesn't work to say "just live with the feeling because it's not objectively a problem." 

Edited March 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Ragest]

Tried today a match with my NPE lumineth vs Kharadron.

First turn 1/3 my army gone, just throwing dices to save and retiring dudes. Double turn, 1/3 my army left.

Hope I could be as NPE as some people claim to be to, at least, compete vs not NPE enemies.

[novakai]

12 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Tried today a match with my NPE lumineth vs Kharadron.

First turn 1/3 my army gone, just throwing dices to save and retiring dudes. Double turn, 1/3 my army left.

Hope I could be as NPE as some people claim to be to, at least, compete vs not NPE enemies.

the snark here is real