Should competitive list bring magic?

[Perturbato]

29 minutes ago, Liquidsteel said:

I like the concept of removing unbinds, and just letting magic do its thing. 

Make casts harder across the board if needed, and provide bonuses as appropriate to fit the fluff/balance.

let's delete the save caracteristic then and put every hit on a 4+ or 5+

[Rors]

I think that if this discussion shows anyway it's that while we often remark on poor ballance in the game, the moment anyone has a suggestion, there's a plathora of ballance issues that come with it. If we do away with unbinds and make God characters even more godly, we're treading even further down the path of hero hammer and I would be concerned.

I think the answer to Tecnado isn't to kill him, it is to play the game. If the objective was win on kill points, he'd be great, and if your army has a ton of support heros it's a bad match up. Otherwise, he's still probably not causing enough damage to get your units off objectives and scoring secondaries. A similar point can be made about Kroak however lizards just have more toys so they can afford him more within giving up as much.

In a world where there's no unbinds and the damage output of Tecnado increased to be even more godly, he'd probably be broken since he'll simply kill more than he costs every game and tactics won't matter. If he stayed where he is he'd be weak. The ballance point between the two is likely razor thin.

To clarify, I don't think Teclis is bad right now, but in LRL you have an expensive faction and he's a third of the army in a single model. I guess rather than saying he's not competitive, I would say he's not optimal if you don't know what you're facing. He gets hard counters too, Archaon will eat him, and Be'lakor messes him up, I'm sure other factions have strong options too.

@mmimzie

[Honk]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

Arcane bolt is really good is how.

Nagash wreathed in 8 bolts is pretty scary, but then he is out in the open… and probably crushed a turn later.

but I think it is just one of those AoS unfairness, that is kinda baked into the system. Rock, scissors, wet noodle. If your opponent can hard counter your strong, you‘re done for…

Fighting against bastillodons without rend?!

getting eeled?

getting your buff magic noped by bullies

Getting your Horde kroaked?

 

and as stated before, adjustments to tone down some evil outliers might cause a ripple through all the other armies, probably resulting in the next cheese lord rising.

[yukishiro1]

7 hours ago, Maogrim said:

I think you have a few misconceotions here. First is the narrative nature of how magic usually works in fantasy settings. Wizards use energies that are there and weave them into patterns to create effects. These patterns can be unwoven (unbound) by opposing wizards. In contrast priests and clerics pray to their gods for aid. If succesful the prayer reaches the deity's ear and heart and they grant a fraction of divine power. How are opposing priests able to interact with that?! Yell so loud that the deity can't hear the priest? Launch a smear campaign that the priest is in fact a heretic or a satanic pizza child trafficer?!

But these are both totally arbitrary. I could just as easily say: why can't one priest sense the other is invoking his God and respond by invoking his own God to intervene and counter the effect of the other God? Greek myths are literally full of that sort of politicking between Gods. 

On the other end, sure, wizards can unbind one another's spells - but why do they have to be able to do it in a 30" bubble? There's nothing in the lore to suggest that changing that range would somehow bastardize the nature of magic. Do you think there is some strong lore-based reason why the range is 24" in 40k and 30" in AOS? Really? Would the lore of unbinding be destroyed by moving to the 12" of the caster or 12" of the effect I suggested? This would have dramatic impacts on the viability of sub wizards - do you really think it would negatively impact the lore? It fits absolutely as well as the current system does. Wizards still unbind. They just wouldn't do it at quite such absurd ranges, ranges that now cover literally the entire table if the wizard is positioned near the middle. 

The point is all these choices are gameplay choices with gameplay effects. It's a cop out to say "it's fine that better wizards can totally shut down worse ones because of the lore!" when we don't apply that to anything else. It's one thing to say "I think it's good that we have a dom and sub game for wizards that doesn't exist for any other part of the game, I actively it enjoy it and think it's a good mechanic" - but nobody seems to be saying that. And it'd be truly silly to think we're stuck with doms and subs for wizards because of "the lore" when there is absolutely no need to be stuck that way. 

Edited July 20, 2021 by yukishiro1

[stratigo]

1 hour ago, Honk said:

Nagash wreathed in 8 bolts is pretty scary, but then he is out in the open… and probably crushed a turn later.

but I think it is just one of those AoS unfairness, that is kinda baked into the system. Rock, scissors, wet noodle. If your opponent can hard counter your strong, you‘re done for…

Fighting against bastillodons without rend?!

getting eeled?

getting your buff magic noped by bullies

Getting your Horde kroaked?

 

and as stated before, adjustments to tone down some evil outliers might cause a ripple through all the other armies, probably resulting in the next cheese lord rising.

Who do you think crushes Nagash?

 

Like... archaon? Maybe? That's about it.

 

And there's a reason archaon based lists are showing up eeeeeverywhere

Edited July 20, 2021 by stratigo

[Maogrim]

25 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

But these are both totally arbitrary. I could just as easily say: why can't one priest sense the other is invoking his God and respond by invoking his own God to intervene and counter the effect of the other God? Greek myths are literally full of that sort of politicking between Gods. 

On the other end, sure, wizards can unbind one another's spells - but why do they have to be able to do it in a 30" bubble? There's nothing in the lore to suggest that changing that range would somehow bastardize the nature of magic. Do you think there is some strong lore-based reason why the range is 24" in 40k and 30" in AOS? Really? Would the lore of unbinding be destroyed by moving to the 12" of the caster or 12" of the effect I suggested? This would have dramatic impacts on the viability of sub wizards - do you really think it would negatively impact the lore? It fits absolutely as well as the current system does. Wizards still unbind. They just wouldn't do it at quite such absurd ranges, ranges that now cover literally the entire table if the wizard is positioned near the middle. 

The point is all these choices are gameplay choices with gameplay effects. It's a cop out to say "it's fine that better wizards can totally shut down worse ones because of the lore!" when we don't apply that to anything else. It's one thing to say "I think it's good that we have a dom and sub game for wizards that doesn't exist for any other part of the game, I actively it enjoy it and think it's a good mechanic" - but nobody seems to be saying that. And it'd be truly silly to think we're stuck with doms and subs for wizards because of "the lore" when there is absolutely no need to be stuck that way. 

Greek mythology is actually a pretty good example for my point. The gods often held a grudge against each other and plotted. But they usually didn't just just 'nope' each other's curses but instead gave their followers or chosen heroes the tools or help to overcome their foes advantages. Pretty much how it works in AOS, if both sides bring priests.

I wasn't at any time arguing against your idea of shortening their range of unbinding (I actually think that's a good idea!) but against the general assumption that it's wrong for legendary or god-like wizards to be great in their field. Say your opponent brought Teclis. That's, as others have already pointed out, more than a third of a 2000 points list. And if you aren't ready to bring a similar amount of point-wise dedication to your magic phase then, yeah, he deserves to dominate.

Similarly, if a Daughters of Khaine army just brings five Snake Ladies with bows, you can't ask them to dominate the shooting phase like 40 Vanari Sentinels do. And those 40 Vanari Sentinels are also covering basically the whole table. Other armies might have less range, but greater mobility on their shooting, which will make it similarly (almost) impossible to hide.

Now you will say: "But their shooting doesn't negate my shooting. I still get to shoot." And that is a fair point. But Teclis or Kroak don't negate all your magic automatically. You can get spells through if you diversify your magic portfolio, so to speak. And even without spending as many points.

[baiardo]

if they level each unit in the game we could play some napoleonic miniatures game

[yukishiro1]

27 minutes ago, Maogrim said:

Now you will say: "But their shooting doesn't negate my shooting. I still get to shoot." And that is a fair point. But Teclis or Kroak don't negate all your magic automatically. You can get spells through if you diversify your magic portfolio, so to speak. And even without spending as many points.

But you really can't, not the way you can with the shooting example you just gave. The limitations on only attempting a spell once per turn means that if your strategy relies on getting a particular spell off and you're facing Teclis, you just can't. He just auto-dispels it. In theory you could out-range him, but on the current board that's totally unrealistic except maybe turn 1 if you go first. So effectively you just can't use that key spell as long as Teclis is alive. This is a mechanic that isn't replicated anywhere else in the game, it's totally unique to spellcasting. Other dom casters may not statistically be impossible to cast against, but they're virtually impossible. It'd be like if your five snakes' chance of doing damage went down to hitting on 6s and wounding on 6s if your opponent had a lot more snakes than you did. Yes, in theory you might still be able to do a point of damage once in a blue moon - but your unit is effectively unable to do anything simply because the other unit exists. It's fundamentally different. 

The whole reason we're having this discussion is that magic in AOS uses a dom sub system that no other gameplay system uses. One that I don't think hardly anybody actually enjoys. The most defense we've got of it is "expensive models should be good, and you can play around it," neither of which are actually a defense of the sub and dom concept. Expensive models can be good without a sub and dom system, and the fact that you can play around a bad system doesn't make it less bad. 

If you "dominate" the movement phase, your opponent can still move, you just move better. If you "dominate" the shooting phase, your opponent can still shoot, you just shoot better. If you "dominate" the combat phase, your opponent still gets to fight, you just fight better. It's only the magic phase where "dominating" means "stop your opponent from being able to do anything with their guys while you do everything with your guys." People accept this because it's how it's always been, not because there is actually a good design reason for it. 

Edited July 20, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Maogrim]

First of all I think you are really hung up on that "sub-dom" phrase of yours. I personally have no idea what this has to do with foot-long sandwiches or family.

Secondly: A shooting unit can do just these two things: Move and shoot. A wizard can potentially do a lot of things. Dealing mortal wounds via Arcane Bolt, protect a friendly unit, teleport another unit around, summon minions etc. Hence the thought that you would need more reliable protection against a potentially game-changing, crucial effect is feasible.

Thirdly: Yes, Teclis invalidates your cheap 1-spell casters. But that's just one character in the game. And so does also being murdered by teleporting Bloodstalkers, far-reaching Sentinels and lots of other possibilities for deadly alpha strikes that have no issue with killing support characters in turn 1 before you have even had a chance to think about what to cast.

[Honk]

3 hours ago, stratigo said:

Who do you think crushes Nagash?

I did not mean effortlessly wiping off the table, but crippling in his oppressive power <9hp or outplaying 

Double reinforced Skinks with poison 5+ or lumineth sentinels, celesta ballistas or raptors🤔 heartrenders

Mortal shooting or strong high rend shooting softens him up pretty good

6 Bloodcrusher charging , gristlegore terrorgheist munching, Skarbrand, morrsarr eels…

 

Remember, you‘re dealing with half the army, even 20 zombies could just facetank him, his melee is swing&miss. 10 more wolves and your 250 points will hold the objective for 3-4 rounds, while the rest of your army scores and devours his poor scraps…

[stratigo]

26 minutes ago, Honk said:

I did not mean effortlessly wiping off the table, but crippling in his oppressive power <9hp or outplaying 

Double reinforced Skinks with poison 5+ or lumineth sentinels, celesta ballistas or raptors🤔 heartrenders

Mortal shooting or strong high rend shooting softens him up pretty good

6 Bloodcrusher charging , gristlegore terrorgheist munching, Skarbrand, morrsarr eels…

 

Remember, you‘re dealing with half the army, even 20 zombies could just facetank him, his melee is swing&miss. 10 more wolves and your 250 points will hold the objective for 3-4 rounds, while the rest of your army scores and devours his poor scraps…

I think you are missing the meta. Skinks aren't it anymore, and sentinels haven't made it yet.

 

The meta is things nagash is really good at killing right now.

[Honk]

12 minutes ago, stratigo said:

you are missing the meta

Yes, probably… I don’t know about the current meta , just got the book last week. Haven’t played any tournaments yet, nor will I by the looks of it any time soon.

But to get back to the original topic, your tournament list should field the necessary amount of wizzards, Nagash be damned (sry boss) stupid teclis and the toad. One should probably have a plan B (something you don’t have with Nagash) for facing those lists, but what else you‘re supposed to do? 

[Rors]

Okay, here's my pitch for the simplest and best way to solve the magic issue and make it so a diverse range of lists can be competitive.

Team Tournaments.

The format is just better for the game.

 

Taking Teclis as an example: he's a hard counter to lists with lots of small support heros if he goes Tecnado. He looses hard to builds like Archaon. In a solo tournament, if you bring him, you success is dependent not just on skill but also match ups. To go 5-0 you need to be very lucky or you need to take a list that has a more all comers approach sans the big T.

In a teams tournament though he's an amazing choice. The good and bad match ups become a matter of how good your team is at pairing.

This format goes all lists with magic. If you have a small wizard you avoid the big ones in teams and if you have the big one you try to get paired into them. The rock paper scissors nature of it becomes tactical rather than random.

[Lord Krungharr]

8 hours ago, stratigo said:

Who do you think crushes Nagash?

 

Like... archaon? Maybe? That's about it.

 

And there's a reason archaon based lists are showing up eeeeeverywhere

My 2 Stonehorn heroes killed Nagash with their charge rolls and then one of their Frostspears.  That was a fast game.

Since we can't change rules....I think some competitive list can indeed just ignore bringing magic for the most part or at all IF they have either the range or/and the durability to overcome the damage that super duper magic can put out.  Range would include of course shooting/missile attacks, but also just speed and ability to bring the melee pain to the enemy quickly (flight is also good for getting over obstacles).

Durability of course is many wounds, many targets to limit the efficiency of the magical attacks, and armor/ward saves.

Examples of armies that could ignore bringing any magic, or at least little magic might be the aforementioned Beastclaw Raiders monster mash (1 or 2 FLoSHs, 3 SHBRs, a Slaughtermaster or Huskard on Thundertusk for a priest)....Sons of Behemat.....IDK w all the floaty seamonsters.   Also anything that makes enemies fight last is a big advantage too against magic heavy lists, or anyone really.

Another idea is to bring a magical maxiumum threat overload, so a Tzeentch army with 6 tiny casters for example, or a Bloodgullet Ogors list with at least 3 Butchers/Slaughtermasters.  Then pepper with MSU fast tough units.  So they won't be able to unbind everything, and tempt them to unbind some before casting others.  Here a psychological bluffing game is played and sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, but if your strategy doesn't hinge on magic, but benefits from it, then you've got good utility with middling magic.  Especially with Locus type effects or other plain buffs that aren't spells (Slaughtermaster Cauldron for example).

[Rors]

On the comment of armies that have a low to mid level wizard who are dependant on getting a particular spell off... That's a poor strategy irrelevant of big casters. Although yes, if you face Teclis or Kroak with that list life just got even worse for you.

Armies with small wizards tend not to be dependant on said wizards or a specific spell.. or have started the game with a weak strategy given even against a list with no magic it's not exactly reliable.

[mmimzie]

10 hours ago, Rors said:

I think that if this discussion shows anyway it's that while we often remark on poor ballance in the game, the moment anyone has a suggestion, there's a plathora of ballance issues that come with it. If we do away with unbinds and make God characters even more godly, we're treading even further down the path of hero hammer and I would be concerned.

.

@mmimzie

I think you can balance it just fine with points, range, casting values, and casting bonus. Unbind just means if you don't bring any form of unbind he just wrecks your list. 

Archaeon is super powerful and can tear through list, and there are viable play styles where you build list to counter him or not counter him currently he and still win against his army.

 

You don't need to counter magic to balance it because that makes magic very feast or famine. 

 

Just balance magic on its own.  Make wizards that great just wizards who cast spells easily and/or have access to powerful spells. Let us counter it with tools we already counter things with: kill it, range, ignore it.

 

Making unbinding a thing will always make middle tier wizards or just taking a one off wizards for one spell useless in the scheme of only making one list, tournaments, and casual play. 

[Rors]

1 minute ago, mmimzie said:

Just balance magic on its own.  Make wizards that great just wizards who cast spells easily and/or have access to powerful spells. Let us counter it with tools we already counter things with: kill it, range, ignore it.

 

Making unbinding a thing will always make middle tier wizards or just taking a one off wizards for one spell useless in the scheme of only making one list, tournaments, and casual play. 

OR just play team events as your primary source of competitive play. This has the advantage of solving the problem while also actually being viable as a solution. In casual games, well it's casual, although if you can be bothered I suppose casual team events are possible.

Teams makes the 'famine and feast' aspect of the game another element in the tactics, rather than a feel bad.

All the hypothetical changes the rules open up the door to other ballance issues AND let's be honest, no one here is friends with the game designer so it won't happen.

 

[yukishiro1]

28 minutes ago, Rors said:

On the comment of armies that have a low to mid level wizard who are dependant on getting a particular spell off... That's a poor strategy irrelevant of big casters. Although yes, if you face Teclis or Kroak with that list life just got even worse for you.

Armies with small wizards tend not to be dependant on said wizards or a specific spell.. or have started the game with a weak strategy given even against a list with no magic it's not exactly reliable.

This isn't really true, though. I mean yes, if you're 100% relying on something that doesn't work 100% of the time, that's a bad list. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about, say, teleport in slaves to darkness. It's not that you 100% need it to go off - but what you need is the *threat* of it going off to force your opponent to respect it. Magic doms take that threat away by lowering the percentage of getting the spell off to so low that they no longer have to respect it any more. Same goes for, say, wyldwood summoning. There are a lot of spells and factions like this in the game, and magic doms just totally neuter them. It's a "stronger get stronger" sort of dynamic that is not usually considered smart game design.

It should be enough that your magic dom is good at doing his own magic, he doesn't need to also completely shut down the opponent's mages too, especially not in a braindead, passive way. Something like a w/in 12" unbind range (of caster or the target) creates tactical gameplay where it matters where you put your magic dom; they can shut down the enemy wizard, but only if they expose themselves to some level of risk. A 30" unbind on a table that is 48x60 is a joke, it means you move the model up on T1 and it covers effectively the whole board; even if you don't move up, you still cover like 85% of the board. There's no element of tactical thinking involved because you just do it incidentally. Incidentally shutting down enemy units is not great game design, control effects need some sort of tactical limitations to create a feeling of agency in the opponent that avoids NPE. 

Edited July 21, 2021 by yukishiro1

[mmimzie]

6 minutes ago, Rors said:

OR just play team events as your primary source of competitive play. This has the advantage of solving the problem while also actually being viable as a solution. In casual games, well it's casual, although if you can be bothered I suppose casual team events are possible.

Teams makes the 'famine and feast' aspect of the game another element in the tactics, rather than a feel bad.

All the hypothetical changes the rules open up the door to other ballance issues AND let's be honest, no one here is friends with the game designer so it won't happen.

 

I don't wanna play team games they are too slow for me or don't let me bring enough of my own models.   I like 1 on 1 and doing my own jam. I also like playing casually with my 1 list per faction I painted up.

Also again if you play teams and both of you only wanna being like 1 wizard each you are still in the famine category. 

Wizards should be internally balanced as a package. The 3rd party of your opponent as a counter balance makes wizards impossible to balance in away to make wizards fun. I say get rid of unbinding, maybe make once per game spell scrolls available to every army as a 1 of. 

If you compare wizards to other abilities users or command ability havers. Wizards suck unless they are OP wizards. Spells do very low damage per points and few have massive impact such as the above StD teleport reference, and even then they get quite tough to cast. 

Where as the gnaw bomb from skaven is super powerful and can't be dispelled. You have spells that do the same effect as command abilities, but the spell needs a cast roll and needs to make it through unbind such as pile in and attack twice, or +1 attack buffs. 

So for wizards to be worth it in my mind they already have a chance to fail on thier own, giving an undeterminable chance to fail against any enemy army is a bit much, and throughs any sense of balance out the window.   

Anywho I'm not trying to convince you. I'm saying how I feel on the matter. For me spells and wizards should be balances on thier own. This would make wizard reliability based on thier casting values, ranges, durability, mobility, casting power, and points. It will also make the game faster and easier to pick up and learn. 

[yukishiro1]

I'm not sure unbinds need to go away completely to address the problem, limiting range would probably be enough to make them more tactical and less braindead and to restore some internal balance to the magic system. 

Another option would be that "unbinding" just makes it more difficult to cast in the first place by, say, adding +1 to the casting difficulty if there's an enemy wizard within X" when the spell is cast.

Or you could make it more dynamic by requiring the enemy caster to burn a casting attempt on their next turn in order to unbind. At least that way your wizard being neutered is lowering the power of the enemy's wizard by depleting their casts, you're not just getting passively neutered. 

There's a bajillion different things that could be done, on a sliding scale of how different they are from the current implementation, all of which would improve the situation by opening up more build diversity and increasing player agency. 

[Rors]

Look, I'm not trying to argue that magic as it stands is perfect. The original question was in a competitive setting, should players abandon magic if not bring a super caster. I don't think they should and in a solo tournament, mega-casters and skew lists in general won't have the reliability needed. There's no solution to this outside teams unless the answer is remove all skew, but part of what makes the game fun is skew, it's dynamic (within reason).

We can discuss hypothetical rules change but it's entirely hypothetical.

A chaos sorcerer lord with the teleport spell is still viable against magic heavy lists because he's got other support synergies, can remove endless spells and there's still a (sub-optimal) threat he'll block spells or get his own off. The game is full of these dynamics, some combat units will mince others but get trashed/tarpited by another etc. They're still viable with strategy. If you have a Choas sorcerer and they bring Teclis, you don't auto-loose and it'll still be a fun game.

I 100% agree it's possible to imagine hypothetical improvements. They don't answer the question at hand though.

In a solo tournament, your best off having an all comers build rather than being niched to countet a skew list, so yes, bring a wizard.

If you want a viable way to balance list skew, you need to increase match up diversity and create an element tactics in match ups.

[mmimzie]

I think in completive team tournaments don't necessarily fix the issue as list can just skew harder. Kroak and teclis make a good team. 

[Rors]

6 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

I think in completive team tournaments don't necessarily fix the issue as list can just skew harder. Kroak and teclis make a good team. 

They're definitely better in a team environment where they have a chance to avoid the hard counters. That said, everyone has equal chance avoid the bad matches. Teams gives the option to increase skew because it can accommodate it better.

By no means perfect. It's just the best option that can actually be done outside house rules.

[Liquidsteel]

3 hours ago, mmimzie said:

I think in completive team tournaments don't necessarily fix the issue as list can just skew harder. Kroak and teclis make a good team. 

Teams is not 2v2 on the board.

It's 1v1 but you have 3 or 4 games played at the same time, and you draft the match ups.

[Beliman]

4 hours ago, mmimzie said:

Spells do very low damage per points and few have massive impact such as the above StD teleport reference, and even then they get quite tough to cast. 

I disagree. As a KO player, the option to throw a 5+ CV spell that can give an extra VP (Battle Tactic) is better than what people think. Yes, you need to plan ahead but that's not a big deal.

Mystic shield is still ace and counters half of my army dmg (-1 rend). 

My point is that they are really powerful spells with high chance to be cast.