Jump to content

3.0 Actual Games Conversation


Sleboda

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I think they just need to bite the bullet and errata save stacking so that it can never go above +1 to save, with further bonuses just wasted except to offset minuses to save, i.e. not used to offset rend. That way rend 1 always takes someone to a 3+, which is the issue - saves that end up as 2+ even against rend are too much and make stuff effectively unkillable except with MW, and that's not good for the game. In my games, it's really only stuff with a 3+ that have seemed problematic, and it really doesn't feel like GW has pointed a base 3+ save for how valuable it actually is. It's like they didn't quite realize the monster they were creating. 

This would have a very limited impact on most stuff in the game, because you're really not stacking more than +1 to save on it anyway. So it effectively addresses the issue with hardly any collateral damage. For the small handful of stuff it would impact that isn't on a problematic 3+ save to begin with, mainly stuff with native +1 to saves that then can't double up with anything else, you could just errata their scrolls to have their native bonus either actually increase their save - i.e. put marauders with shields on a 5+ instead of a 6+ with a +1 to save, make iron golems have a 3+ base save when they don't move instead of a 4+ with a +1 to save, etc - or to reduce rend by 1. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am firmly on the side that the game needs more rend across the board, and always has. I bring it up all the time; more units deal MW via attacks/abilities than have rend -2 for better.

Think about that. Ignoring armour entirely is more common than imposing a -2 penalty to the roll.

Heroic recovery and amulet of destiny (and especially both put together) are also skewing things in favor of huge heroes. A 5+ ward can be thought of as 50% extra wounds; it takes 3 damage average to get 2 wounds through. It also means healing being worth 50% more. On a bravery 10 hero that amounts to, in a practical sense, healing 6 wounds a round.

Vlord doesn't even need the amulet thanks to his 6+ native ward and healing d3 in the combat phase. It's a 3+/6+++ model that has no trouble healing ~8 wounds a round. Save stacking is just icing on the cake at that point.

Edited by NinthMusketeer
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To help myself not focus on the negative (an unfortunately persistent flaw of mine that keeps making save rolls despite my continued attacks against it), I can say that everyone I have met and talked to about the new edition likes it and feels it is an improvement. Literally every single person. There is universal agreement in my local community that regardless of its classic-GW-flaws 3rd edition is just really fun to play. Further; it is fun to play because of the core rules. I think that bodes very well for the future, doubly so when the biggest issues are not integral parts but exploits of specific options. Heroic recovery can be oppressive, but the concept of hero actions is fantastic. The amulet may be completely overpowered, but having a basic set of allegiance options anyone can draw from is great. An extra cp for going second may do next to nothing against double turns but it does address the inherent first-turn advantage in a manner both effective and interactive (seriously just skipping random initiative outright works fantastically now).

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

A 5+ ward can be thought of as 50% extra wounds

Skewed math: It's 33% more wounds. It's only 50% in your example which deosn't even refer to wounds, but damage :D

a 14 wound model would have 2/6 more wounds -> 1/3 more wounds.

But agreed. Big Models should be prohibited from taking the amulet it makes scary monster utterly stupid.

 

6 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

healing 6 wounds a round.

Absolutely not. I usually fail my HR rolls even with my Vampire Lords. you still have a ~8% chance to fail and a 8,33% chance that you only heal 1 wound due to rolling a 10. Which sums up to ~16,33% ~ 1 out of 6 times not receiving much of anything. And this does not include rolling a 1 for the D3 healed.
Which would add another 27,89% of rolling 1s for the heal.
To sum up: Each Player Turn you have a chance of ~ 44% of not receiving much of anything.

 

6 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Vlord doesn't even need the amulet thanks to his 6+ native ward and healing d3 in the combat phase. It's a 3+/6+++ model that has no trouble healing ~8 wounds a round. Save stacking is just icing on the cake at that point.

... the 6+ save is utter garbage. You ignore 1 out of 6 wounds, it's neither op nor really good. It's just a "meh, whatever". Getting the amulet hurts somewhat since you pay double for a ward that's only better by 1/6.
You only heal D3 if you didn't whiff since you need to kill a model, so pick your targets wisely. The VLoZ however is a trap sometimes since it's hungry for CP to do anything with all of its 4+ to hits attacks and the low volume of lance attacks, which are swingy. However I am the Overlord of rolling bad, so I might be biased.


I love the stand and shoot for the breath though :D

Edited by JackStreicher
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Skewed math: It's 33% more wounds. It's only 50% in your example which deosn't even refer to wounds, but damage :D

And hence ward 5+ can be tought of as additional 50% wounds as @NinthMusketeer wrote.

If you have 12 wound hero you need to deal 12 wounds to kill it. But if it is equipped with amulet of destiny it goes to 18 wounds as it will resist 33% of those. Ward 5+ does not increase wounds by 33%, it reduces incoming damage by 33% and this reduction is important thing in how it maths out.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm unsure which is the best thread to ask this in, but i hoepd here would be best given the dicussion of experience with the new rules.

 

Could somebody explain to me the value in single drop deployments and why it is seen as an advantage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As @NinthMusketeer said, many (including myself) think 3e is overall a large positive and improvement over 2e. However, there are some rather large issues with it that will hopefully be fixed:

- The new Amulet of Destiny reminds me of the Doppleganger Cloak. Not anywhere near as strong, but rather an artifact that is stronger than most the faction artifacts and so gets used in 80% of lists.

- The heal is too easy and too common, mostly on large monsters. As has been discussed, monsters/heroes with a 2+ save and a ward save (often from the amulet) healing 2d3 a round become close to unkillable without a lot of pressure applied, which isn't always possible. Whereas small 5 wound 5+ save support heroes don't benefit anywhere near as much. I think the heal needs a look at, either making it only a single wound (or maybe a single wound if above 10 wounds), or once per battle per hero (or try at once per round at least). 

- 2+ saves are too easy to come by with the only real answer being MWs. While rend becoming more common could help, that would only help battletomes going forward and would create a large divide between old and new tomes. Perhaps a command ability to increase rend would have helped. 

- Big killy god models seem to rule the roost, as least in casual games. While Archaon losing his rerolling saves is a big hit, he hardly went up at all despite getting access to monster abilities, lots of healing a turn, and all of those extra command abilities. This leads to hero hammer, which can be fine, but from playing 2019 Slaanesh I can say it gets boring quickly.

Unfortunately big nigh immortal monsters tend to be casual stompers - it doesn't take much skill in a casual setting to crush a meh/casual/unprepared army with Archaon, or a 2+/5++ Mawkrusha or Zombie Dragon, or Gotrek etc. I think this can lead to a pretty toxic casual environment. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, every 2nd ed player wanted 2 things to be improved, one was the reduction of lethality, the other was heros surviving more than 1 turn. Now is what we get.

 

I think we are missing some rend, at least to match mystic+CA, but I prefer matches that ends with some minis than getting tabled in 1 turn.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Well, every 2nd ed player wanted 2 things to be improved, one was the reduction of lethality, the other was heros surviving more than 1 turn. Now is what we get.

 

I think we are missing some rend, at least to match mystic+CA, but I prefer matches that ends with some minis than getting tabled in 1 turn.

 

I think the issue is that the reduction in lethality isn't even - a Mawkrusha has had much more added to its defences than a Cygor, for example. And unfortunately super killy monster heroes being much harder to kill doesn't reduce overall lethality, it just increases durability of death stars. 

That said, overall, I think durability has increased for the better - the issue is more in relation to invulnerable death star monsters who will turn their targets into paste and roar to ensure the target lacks defences. 

*edit: I should say, this is based off 10+ games experience where the MVP has nearly always been a monster or a large hero with a 3+ save mulching through lesser units while not taking a scratch it couldn't heal. 

So I agree that it's good durability has been increased in most cases - I like it a lot actually - but it's a shame that fringe megamonsters with base 3+ saves and a lot of damage are even more durable and even better at killing things. Seeing games with Archaon in often have them go more lopsided and more quickly than in AoS 2.

Edited by Enoby
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Vurtias said:

So I'm unsure which is the best thread to ask this in, but i hoepd here would be best given the dicussion of experience with the new rules.

 

Could somebody explain to me the value in single drop deployments and why it is seen as an advantage?

Basically, in matched play whoever finishes deployment first gets to decide who takes first turn. Some lists want to go first because they have the ability to hit the opponent hard early and the opponent will not have any buffs up turn 1, which makes these attacks more devastating. Other lists want to go second because it allows them to potentially set up a very impactful double turn round 2 or 3. There are some more nuanced benefits as well, but these are the most imporant reasons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boar said:

And hence ward 5+ can be tought of as additional 50% wounds as @NinthMusketeer wrote.

If you have 12 wound hero you need to deal 12 wounds to kill it. But if it is equipped with amulet of destiny it goes to 18 wounds as it will resist 33% of those. Ward 5+ does not increase wounds by 33%, it reduces incoming damage by 33% and this reduction is important thing in how it maths out.

12 * 1,3 = 15,96, just saying :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

12 * 1,3 = 15,96, just saying :P

And 15.96 (or more accurately 16) is not equal to 18.

Decreasing damage by one third is, mathematically, exactly equal to increasing wounds by 50%. This is an example of an "inverse relationship", where there is a fixed ratio (which can also be expressed as a fraction) between the two quantities. To convert one to the other, you literally invert the fraction.

This might be clearer with a more extreme example. Let's say you had a 3+ ward save, i.e. you're reducing incoming damage to one third. Our example model needs to suffer 12 wounds to be killed. How much damage do we need? Two thirds more, maybe?

Since two out of every three wounds will be warded, it requires 36 damage to kill the 12-wound model. So a model without that ward save would need to have 36 wounds to be equivalently "tough". That's increasing the 12 wounds by 24, which is a 200% increase. Quite a bit more than two thirds!

So, a 66.6% decrease in damage results in a 200% increase in effective wounds. Or looking at it another way, reducing damage to one third is the same as having three times the wounds - because the inverse of one third is three.

This works for other ratios as well - a 4+ ward (50% reduction) is the equivalent of doubling your wounds (a 100% increase). And as noted, a one third reduction is the same as a 50% increase, because the inverse of two thirds is three over two, 1.5, 150%.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

You are getting the math wrong on this one. A 5+ ward blocks incoming damage in 1/3 of cases, so 2/3 of damage goes through. You divide damage suffered by 2/3, which means multiplying base wounds by 3/2, which is x1.5.

Ah different way of looking at this! Interesting, thx for the infos @Kadeton. Makes a hell lot of sense :)
To put it into a more visual format: 
Damage * reduction = Wounds * ((6/6 - reduction)-1)  

Redution of 1/6
Damage * 1/6 = Wounds * 6/5

Redution of 2/6
Damage * 2/6 = Wounds * 6/4

.
.
.
Redution of 5/6
Damage * 5/6 = Wounds * 6/1
 

 

Makes sense. Thx for the input again. It's funny that this was neither part of my bachelor nor masters degree, maybe I simply didn't attend the reading. (Or the Professors were too stuck on fourier and incidence relations)

Edited by JackStreicher
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of @Enoby's summary of some of the issues.  

I think a lot of it is pushing monsters being a strong them, and i think this is fine and kind of fun for a year. Like a season of the beast.  That said it makes some of those hero models really stupid and just unfun, and so much some it pushes some of the cool monsters out of the space. 

I think my 3e or well 4e wish list would be:

Make low investment wizards worth it and mid tier wizards worth taking "Aspect of the sea" has been dead on arival for a while, i think even at 200pts you wouldn't take it to tournament because it'd just get shut out. 

Reduce bloat. I think keeping the game simple is the best way to go. I think it's the only reason AoS had the huge growth it did when the first GHB dropped. Just like 5e DnD showed all of nerd gaming, simpler rule sets are more inviting. Also i like winning game based on superior tactics, not on remembering page 33, subsection 3, paragraph 2, line 2. I'm a gamer not a lawyer.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the fact that most of my lists really want to take a generic artefact over a tome one is SUPER FANTASTIC.

That means that the game is resistant to tomes being printed with inferior artifacts- everyone at least has access to Really Good ones in the core book (I also consider Tome to be really good). 

Same with spells, and command traits, etc.  

I think the tome options should be more flavorful, but generally tuned to be just a big behind a 5+ ward or +1 cast or what have you.  That helps even the playing field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After more games, I think that there definitely shouldn't be stacking modifiers, especially for armor saves. It's too easy to get units on 2+ saves, largely ignoring -1/-2 rend. It means units without -2 or more rend are much worse and less able to do anything useful.

You should be able to get a +1 modifier and that's it--no stacking to negate further modifiers. Being able to get cover, mystic shield, all out defense, finest hour, and any other relevant ability is crazy. We're leaning even more into a world where you MUST have mortal wound output to do any damage, and that's not a good place to be.

Edited by Mutton
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, or they need to go way up in points, which is problematic too because it makes MW even stronger. The Vengorian lord is a perfect example of GW pretty clearly not really understanding how their new system really works in practice. 280 points for a 10 wound 3+ 10 bravery monster wizard who reduces rend by -1 within 3", heals d3 every combat phase if it killed anything, and has a command ability that gives a d6 heal to a unit that killed another unit in the combat phase. It's just a crazy amount of abilities that stack together to make the model virtually unkillable except through MW and easily able to heal itself up to full if you don't kill it in a single turn. All out Defense alone and it's on a 2+ vs rend 1. And it can arcane shield itself on top of that, along with best day. It can quite conceivably be on a 2+ against rend 3.

It's just silly, and I really don't think GW actually realized what it was doing. 

Models saving on a 2+ vs even rend zero ought to be extremely rare, having dozens of models that are frequently saving on a 2+ vs rend 1 or 2 is just absurd. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

and has a command ability that gives a d6 heal to a unit that killed another unit in the combat phase. It's just a crazy amount of abilities that stack together to make the model virtually unkillable

Scrap that. If the Vengo goes nuts, he can’t issue Commands. Imo Vengorians are a little overpriced due to being mostly blocked from the command ability game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

But agreed. Big Models should be prohibited from taking the amulet it makes scary monster utterly stupid.

I'm headed into a team tournament in a few months. We're both taking Sons. There was absolutely zero discussion about what our first artefact would be.

Taking a giant from 35 wounds up to 47? Yes, please!

This item should not be allowed on characters with 10 or more wounds.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chances of that happening are quite low until T3. But it doesn't even need that ability, the faction is full of healing even on top of its own d3 heal and heroic recovery. I only mentioned it to drive home the point about just how fully GW has created a game where a lot of models are effectively immune to anything but MW while also having massive healing capacity on top of that virtual immunity. If healing was very limited for models capable of getting to a 2+ save easily even against rend, what GW did might make sense; it's the combination of healing and the easy access to the 2+ even vs rend that results in stuff that can't be killed except by buckets of MW all at once. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

This item should not be allowed on characters with 10 or more wounds.

Yeah, agreed. Might potentially need to stop heroic monsters from being able to do heroic actions, too - or, at a minimum, force them to pick between doing a heroic action and using a monstrous rampage in a given turn. They just feel like they are all advantage and zero disadvantage right now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Vurtias said:

Could somebody explain to me the value in single drop deployments and why it is seen as an advantage?

I'm in a similar place.

Yes, I understand the "over a beer discussion" excitement of the idea. I get the actual things it provides. 

What I don't get is the rabid enthusiasm and supreme emphasis a lot of players seem to place on it. In other words, it seems highly overvalued.

I place a ton more value on being able to react to my foe's positions on a unit by unit basis, and to be and to hold off revealing the position of my key pieces until after my opponent is committed.

I just really think one-drop "advantage" has reached almost unquestioning meme level of undeserved importance.

I'm happy to be shown how I'm wrong, though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on your list. It's extremely strong for shooting lists that can safely give away the first turn, because when one of those lists gets the double from T1 to T2, it pretty much just wins. This may be slightly less true in AOS3, but in AOS2 a top competitive shooting list that got the T1 to T2 double had a win rate in the mid to high 80s. Absurd levels. 

Essentially winning 40% or more of your games without even trying because you gave away the first turn and then got the double made going for low drops absolutely worth it for those lists.

Now that you have to actually one-drop your one-drop battalion, that advantage is slightly mitigated. But you're still going to see those shooting lists going for it, because it's just such a massive advantage.

As long as games can still be over by the middle of T2 against shooting lists that get the double, you're going to see people chasing low drops with those lists IMO. 

Some lists that rely on buffs for survivability also needed to go low drop to avoid sometimes just losing the game on T1 because their key pieces got killed before they could be buffed. This is much less of an issue in AOS3 due to all out defense and best day, so for these lists you probably won't see so much emphasis any more on it. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...