chronomatic cogs, do i miss anything or are they super op?

[Skreech Verminking]

3 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:

Even Shackles isn't showing up in all lists everywhere as some had predicted - and everyone thought it was gonna be OP as hell. 

Just you wait!😜

I’ve got a pretty funny skaventide list, involved in the great scheme of shackles

[yukishiro1]

Shackles has an over 50% chance of not doing anything at all against anyone with a priest or a wizard, due to the fact that you get an attempt to unbind followed by an attempt to dispel before it actually does anything to you (except in really weird edge cases). Those aren't odds you can build a competitive list around.

Cogs doesn't have that problem - get the cast off, and you suddenly double your casting potential across most of your list. It's just stupidly overtuned, and it warps the balance of certain things to a stupid degree. Quite a bit like Spellportal, actually. The game would be better off if they just removed both of these spells entirely, like they removed Balewind - which relieved almost everyone, whether they initially admitted it or not. Cogs could be nerfed instead of being completely deleted, Spellportal should just go because it's fundamentally not something you can really balance because the problem isn't Spellportal itself but the spells you can cast through it in a way they were never intended to be casted. 

Edited September 1, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Shackles has an over 50% chance of not doing anything at all against anyone with a priest or a wizard, due to the fact that you get an attempt to unbind followed by an attempt to dispel before it actually does anything to you (except in really weird edge cases). Those aren't odds you can build a competitive list around.

Cogs doesn't have that problem - get the cast off, and you suddenly double your casting potential across most of your list. It's just stupidly overtuned, and it warps the balance of certain things to a stupid degree. Quite a bit like Spellportal, actually. The game would be better off if they just removed both of these spells entirely, like they removed Balewind - which relieved almost everyone, whether they initially admitted it or not. Cogs could be nerfed instead of being completely deleted, Spellportal should just go because it's fundamentally not something you can really balance because the problem isn't Spellportal itself but the spells you can cast through it in a way they were never intended to be casted. 

Just you wait 

[NinthMusketeer]

On 8/31/2021 at 7:07 PM, LuminethMage said:

I didn't mean to be disrespectful.

Then stop acting like your perspective is the only valid one.

[NinthMusketeer]

9 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Shackles has an over 50% chance of not doing anything at all against anyone with a priest or a wizard, due to the fact that you get an attempt to unbind followed by an attempt to dispel before it actually does anything to you (except in really weird edge cases). Those aren't odds you can build a competitive list around.

Cogs doesn't have that problem - get the cast off, and you suddenly double your casting potential across most of your list. It's just stupidly overtuned, and it warps the balance of certain things to a stupid degree. Quite a bit like Spellportal, actually. The game would be better off if they just removed both of these spells entirely, like they removed Balewind - which relieved almost everyone, whether they initially admitted it or not. Cogs could be nerfed instead of being completely deleted, Spellportal should just go because it's fundamentally not something you can really balance because the problem isn't Spellportal itself but the spells you can cast through it in a way they were never intended to be casted. 

The problem with so many endless spells is that making them worthwhile to an average army means they are total cheese for armies that can exploit them, while making them balanced for the armies that get the most use makes them worthless to everyone else. Different endless spells are worth different amounts of points between armies, and not in a minor manner that can be overlooked but by several orders of magnitude. One army may have no problem paying 100 points for a spell that others would not take for 20. This could be overcome by careful attention to balance and clever rules writing coupled with judicious use of errata, but...

[yukishiro1]

I think that's ok as long as they're not particularly powerful. The problem comes with stuff like Spellportal or Cogs that are remarkably powerful effects for certain armies. Like if Cogs just gave a +1 to cast in a 6" radius - or even in a larger radius - I think it'd be fine. It'd be better in some armies than others, but +1 to cast isn't such a big deal that it's going to break the game either way. 

The thing that is weird about it is that the alternate effect is not nearly as powerful - it's useful enough, but not even in the same ballpark as the extra cast. I honestly don't think GW understood how powerful the effect is - the power of the two options are so radically different that it doesn't make any sense, it's not a real choice. That suggests to me this is just a problem of not knowing their own game very well. 

[NinthMusketeer]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was just some mistake where it was meant to affect only one wizard (like the old cogs), no one caught it, and they are too stubborn to fix it.

[Maogrim]

Isn't Cogs' OP-ness at least somewhat mitigated by the Miscast rule?

And perhaps I'm just a filthy @LuminethMage-shill but I do think there's some merit to the assumption that maybe in actual game play Cogs can turn out to be less effective if perceived top players at tournaments don't abuse it at every possible occasion, especially considering how cheap they are.

But I'd also guess that a balanced increase in points could be in order. 

Maybe Endless Spells should have different costs for different factions, based on how strongly they cater to said armies' strengths?

[NinthMusketeer]

Tournaments are currently dominated by a meta focusing on fewer large heroes that need to maintain mobility and/or are casting multiple spells already. That is a hit to the effectiveness of cogs at the top tiers from two sides, and the icing on the cake is that the meta is extremely punishing to small characters who can be easily sniped by sentinels, snakes, and others. Which is to say the tournament meta could hardly be designed to be more inhospitable to cogs.

But tournaments account for ~15% of available entries, if that. To raise up tournaments as an example of the game entire is to imply the other 85% isn't relevant. To defend that implication with 'but there's no statistics on casual armies!' is both untrue and particularly dismissive of people describing their own experience. It comes across as a sentiment of 'if your experience doesn't exist on a data chart it isn't valid' veiled under talk of technicalities. Piled on top of that is how plainly the potency of cogs is displayed on paper, something that was evident and commented upon from the moment the new warscroll was out and now has plenty of people backing it up with real-world experience describing how yes, it does work that way in practice. The icing on the cake was his 'it isn't OP because people will mess up using it' argument which speaks to a dismissive mentality towards other players in general.

Really, the only evidence that cogs are not overpowered is that they don't show up in tournament winning lists. And I very much hope no one needs to explain why the claim 'if it doesn't win tournaments it's not overpowered' is nonsense.

Edited September 2, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Tournaments are currently dominated by a meta focusing on fewer large heroes that need to maintain mobility and/or are casting multiple spells already. That is a hit to the effectiveness of cogs at the top tiers from two sides, and the icing on the cake is that the meta is extremely punishing to small characters who can be easily sniped by sentinels, snakes, and others. Which is to say the tournament meta could hardly be designed to be more inhospitable to cogs.

But tournaments account for ~15% of available entries, if that. To raise up tournaments as an example of the game entire is to imply the other 85% isn't relevant. To defend that implication with 'but there's no statistics on casual armies!' is both untrue and particularly dismissive of people describing their own experience. It comes across as a sentiment of 'if your experience doesn't exist on a data chart it isn't valid' veiled under talk of technicalities. Piled on top of that is how plainly the potency of cogs is displayed on paper, something that was evident and commented upon from the moment the new warscroll was out and now has plenty of people backing it up with real-world experience describing how yes, it does work that way in practice. The icing on the cake was his 'it isn't OP because people will mess up using it' argument which speaks to a dismissive mentality towards other players in general.

Really, the only evidence that cogs are not overpowered is that they don't show up in tournament winning lists. And I very much hope no one needs to explain why the claim 'if it doesn't win tournaments it's not overpowered' is nonsense.

Given that people reasonably tend to look for evidence to support assertions. And, personally I think everyone has been fairly charitable in this thread. Could you give even anecdotal evidence to suggest that having the opportunity to cast more spells than ordinary is "OP", and not simply just a fun option available for less punishing play than tournament level but is unequally worthwhile across factions? 

In my opinion the rule of one mostly makes cogs a very niche. Really cogs in my mind has two possible "strong" effects. Turning Vanari units into full utility spell casters for LRL. And, super charging DoT summoning. After that I'd say it's actually pretty underwhelming as it requires a second caster to even enjoy the benefit of the endless spell right away. 

[Maogrim]

But tournaments are perhaps the strongest instance of when supposed overpowered entries are problematic because your opponents aren't necessarily your friends and can just invalidate your concerns by saying 'It's legal'.

Of course experiences of casual players are valid, but these issues are easier to solve without the need for official GW FAQs. You and your friends/regulars can just agree on banning Cogs if all of you feel that they have too much of a negative impact on your games and you are fine eith house rules, at least until GW takes care of it. 

By the way, I don't think that 'You're invalidating the majority's experience!' is a very fair argument to make because it, in turn, invalidates minority positions. And that's just counterproductive if we as a communinty want a healthy discussion.

[greg19190]

6 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

Given that people reasonably tend to look for evidence to support assertions. And, personally I think everyone has been fairly charitable in this thread. Could you give even anecdotal evidence to suggest that having the opportunity to cast more spells than ordinary is "OP", and not simply just a fun option available for less punishing play than tournament level but is unequally worthwhile across factions? 

In my opinion the rule of one mostly makes cogs a very niche. Really cogs in my mind has two possible "strong" effects. Turning Vanari units into full utility spell casters for LRL. And, super charging DoT summoning. After that I'd say it's actually pretty underwhelming as it requires a second caster to even enjoy the benefit of the endless spell right away. 

Excuse my spelling.. Zeench with the extra spell on warlord battalion... Lots of good spells, buffing, endless spells and using them to send stuff through them (now) if a list has 5 wizards it's and extra 5 spells which is easy to do in lrl or Zeench. In the case of Zeench it adds to there summoning points which leads to it being op in that situation.

I know everyone has an opinion on whether it is op but the points cost alone with just adding an extra wizard in effect should make it more than 45 points. With hero's costing normally over 100 points it's a saving and it just brings more bang for the buck the more wizards you have arround it. 

It needs a points change or a re wright or both. The subject topic is bias towards the feeling for the group but for its points it is op...

[NinthMusketeer]

8 hours ago, Maogrim said:

But tournaments are perhaps the strongest instance of when supposed overpowered entries are problematic because your opponents aren't necessarily your friends and can just invalidate your concerns by saying 'It's legal'.

Of course experiences of casual players are valid, but these issues are easier to solve without the need for official GW FAQs. You and your friends/regulars can just agree on banning Cogs if all of you feel that they have too much of a negative impact on your games and you are fine eith house rules, at least until GW takes care of it. 

By the way, I don't think that 'You're invalidating the majority's experience!' is a very fair argument to make because it, in turn, invalidates minority positions. And that's just counterproductive if we as a communinty want a healthy discussion.

Given that I specifically took time to address the tournament data and account for its place in the overall picture, can you explain exactly how I was invalidating that position?

[Maogrim]

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Given that I specifically took time to address the tournament data and account for its place in the overall picture, can you explain exactly how I was invalidating that position?

Well, for one thing, arguing that your supposed 85% of player experiences (subtracting your "~15%" from the total) is more important basically says: 'The majority says cogs are OP henceforth your opinion which represents only a minority of total data points is not useful'. And this, as I said before, values all minority positions less than majority positions.

But more importantly you said that the whole concept of entries being prevalent in tournament winning lists being an indicator of what might be overpowered in AOS was 'nonsense'. Which is rather invalidating of LuminethMage's whole point, if you ask me. 

[NinthMusketeer]

Ah, that's not what I said so I suppose the misinterpretation makes sense in that regard.

[NinthMusketeer]

Here is a practical experiment anyone can try:

At the start of a game, before sides or deployment are chosen, give the opponent a free cogs. Explain to them that it is for an experiment and they are encouraged to make the most of it. At 45 points cogs is less than 2.5% of a 2k game. Making an opponent 2.5% stronger isn't even noticable in a single game behind the natural swings of randomized dice rolls.

Do that a few times then reflect back; did the cogs make a difference? Did they make a 2.5% difference? If they are indeed balanced the difference should be rather subtle.

[Sarouan]

5 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Here is a practical experiment anyone can try:

At the start of a game, before sides or deployment are chosen, give the opponent a free cogs. Explain to them that it is for an experiment and they are encouraged to make the most of it. At 45 points cogs is less than 2.5% of a 2k game. Making an opponent 2.5% stronger isn't even noticable in a single game behind the natural swings of randomized dice rolls.

Do that a few times then reflect back; did the cogs make a difference? Did they make a 2.5% difference? If they are indeed balanced the difference should be rather subtle.

Not sure it will prove anything. I mean, I don't mind my opponent having a free cog, but one of them plays a Cities of Sigmar army with only dwarves (just a priest, no mages) and the other sure does play a verminarch but he has only one sorcerer (his other army being Kharadron Overlords, so no better).

Thus I'm not sure the impact will be really meaningful, here. I'm not even sure the skaven player will bother to cast it, since he usually use his verminarch quite agressively (actually he needs to, since it's one of his most enduring assets ) and isn't really interested in staying in 6'' of one point of the battlefield for multiple turns.

It's really specific to magic-heavy armies to be significent and, to be honest, it's indeed also applying to armies content with being quite static with his mages concentrated in a very small area (and, with Lumineth, I tend to think mostly about sentinels here...and I believe their shooting will be the most impactful, the second spell will just be a cherry on top here). It's definitely situationnal enough to be not that great in every battleplan.

Sure, it's always nice to have one (especially for free) but the cogs in itself doesn't win the battle. It really needs to be used in a specific configuration. It also depends of the other spells casted (saturing the enemy dissipation is one thing, but having spells actually interesting to cast is also another - sure, you can always cast small things like doing a mortal wound here and there, but will it be really that impactful on the battle ?

That said, I agree it should certainly be costed appropriately, but I don't think the effect in itself needs to be changed...nor that the price should be doubled, TBH.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Sarouan

[whispersofblood]

5 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Here is a practical experiment anyone can try:

At the start of a game, before sides or deployment are chosen, give the opponent a free cogs. Explain to them that it is for an experiment and they are encouraged to make the most of it. At 45 points cogs is less than 2.5% of a 2k game. Making an opponent 2.5% stronger isn't even noticable in a single game behind the natural swings of randomized dice rolls.

Do that a few times then reflect back; did the cogs make a difference? Did they make a 2.5% difference? If they are indeed balanced the difference should be rather subtle.

Let me put it this way. I play MSU Vanari and I dropped cogs for hyshian twinstones because it's better to get the spells you do want cast than just casting more spells. 

I can see a world where maybe you go light in heroes and take more Vanari but most of the LRL spells people talk about are 8+ to cast spells. Which is kind of my point about the rule of 1. If I could just try and cast the same key spells repeatedly sure it be great. But, imo to be OP something needs to disproportionately increase a player's ability to affect the game. The more games I play with LRL the less magic I invest in tbh it's just very unreliable and the control elements are either extremely short range or can be shrugged off by the opponent as an inconvenience.

Why cogs is so good with DoT is because they get to cast a whole bunch of useless low casting value spells, not for the spell itself but for the fate dice the casting generates. Which is a DoT problem as they use cogs to create an entirely different economy, by definition an unintended consequence. 

[Sarouan]

And even so, in some battleplans where you need to move to win (mainly focused on objectives that aren't in your deployment zone), actually focusing too much on the cogs may become a weak point, since it really shines when you have multiple wizard units around it. If you try to optimize the cast and put it way too far from the places your army needs to be - and focus too much on the spell saturation - it may be actually the cause of your defeat because what you manage to kill in your opponent army may not be enough to catch up the difference in victory points for securing objectives. Especially in battleplans where objectives can be removed in later turns...or moved at all in any way (Sons of Behemat).

[KrispyXIV]

8 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Here is a practical experiment anyone can try:

At the start of a game, before sides or deployment are chosen, give the opponent a free cogs. Explain to them that it is for an experiment and they are encouraged to make the most of it. At 45 points cogs is less than 2.5% of a 2k game. Making an opponent 2.5% stronger isn't even noticable in a single game behind the natural swings of randomized dice rolls.

Do that a few times then reflect back; did the cogs make a difference? Did they make a 2.5% difference? If they are indeed balanced the difference should be rather subtle.

I think you'll find that - 

Most armies aren't willing to risk one of their small number of spells to cast cogs, especially if they brought only one or two important ones, due to the risk of it being shut down.

Many armies don't run the requisite two wizards to actually come out ahead on casting it, IF they manage to get it off. 

Many armies don't want to cluster and position to take advantage of the +cast benefit of cogs.

Most players won't be familiar enough with the scenario to properly manage them once in play, knowing when to dispel them to be able to maneuver and bring them forward.

And

In order to get even 45 points worth of use out of them, many armies will be considering whether it's worth it to try to cast them for the movement bonus.

I'd predict what you'll find is that whether cogs are even useful to spend a (typically limited) cast on is extremely variable based on army and build, and that many times even for free they won't make any difference at all. 

Remember, Cogs aren't free casts. They're a mechanism for gambling for extra casts at a cost in positioning, which is a subtle (but extremely impactful) difference. 

[Marcvs]

Funnily enough cogs just got nerfed hard in the new GHB faq (now only works on one wizard)

[AaronWilson]

Cogs now changed to only be one wizard as per new FAQ - 

‘If it is decreasing the flow of time, if a player has any friendly Wizards within 6" of this endless spell in their hero phase, they can pick 1 of those Wizards to attempt to cast 1 extra spell in that hero phase.’

[KrispyXIV]

27 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

Funnily enough cogs just got nerfed hard in the new GHB faq (now only works on one wizard)

Yep, may as well just be the move bonus.  9 times out of 10, it's a bad gamble to risk a spell cast to try and "transfer" a cast from one wizard to another. 

[Sarouan]

Welp, now they may be overpriced.

I think the debate about them being OP will go to an end, here.

[Perturbato]

Ah ! *imagine nelson*