Are the four Grand Alliances still fit for purpose?

[RuneBrush]

12 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

The problem happens when an advantage is so strong or unavoidable that the opponent has no counter-play available. I can prioritize killing the unit or unbinding the spell that is good against my army, I can alter my deployment to keep certain units away from others that might hard counter them. But what if I show up as ogors against a coalesced army? That -1 damage ability puts me at an insurmountable disadvantage and there is nothing I can do. One might also note; that ability isn't based off keyword.

In short; problems arise not from the concept but the execution.

I'd also include advantages that are hugely one sided.  At one point there was a huge number of Order armies that simply gained bonuses against Chaos.  One or two Chaos hunting units makes sense, especially when given something like a reroll.  Straight up additional damage has always felt bad from both sides of the table.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

15 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

On the one hand, I totally get this. However, as a narrative player I enjoy such rules as long as they aren't overtuned. Having a unit that re-rolls hits of 1 against Chaos, or a spell that does 3 instead of d3 to daemons isn't breaking a matchup. Having undead ignore the bravery penalties imposed by other undead makes sense (and affects both sides of that equations). Yes they are unfair on a certain level but part of the game is about dealing with the myriad of factors which favor one side or the other. Some units are great counters to others just by virtue of stats and without any sort of keyword-based advantage. Some scenarios favor certain types of army build over others. And so on; there are countless factors like that in the game.

The problem happens when an advantage is so strong or unavoidable that the opponent has no counter-play available. I can prioritize killing the unit or unbinding the spell that is good against my army, I can alter my deployment to keep certain units away from others that might hard counter them. But what if I show up as ogors against a coalesced army? That -1 damage ability puts me at an insurmountable disadvantage and there is nothing I can do. One might also note; that ability isn't based off keyword.

In short; problems arise not from the concept but the execution.

 

I kind of just don't like how these kind of mechanics turn what should just be a decision that is up to the player's taste (which army do you want to play) into a decision with strategic impact. Often highly swingy impact at that. I also feel (less strongly, though) that just giving a unit a bonus against KEYWORDS is a bit of a design failure, because it means that (for example) a Stormcast is not good at fighting chaos units because of how Stormcast and chaos interact according to the core mechanics, but just because there is a that property which is usually without mechanical impact (being CHAOS) that they just get a bonus against. Why do they fight better against chaos? It has nothing to do with the type of attacks chaos is vulnerable against, it just says so.

I also don't really like the -1 damage as a blanket rule for coalesced, to be honest, because "bringing units with damage characteristics of 2+" is not a strategic decision people make, either. You just take what you can get. Whether or not your units deal damage through multiple small attacks or a few large ones is just incidental, there is no decision making involved usually.

Edited July 21, 2021 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[NinthMusketeer]

Exactly; the inclusion of abilities that are too strong and/or too difficult to counterplay is the problem. And that problem extends across the whole game well beyond just anti-keyword abilities. It is GWs ineptitude at considering the mechanical & gameplay implications of rules which sees us having to deal with this problem over and over.