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

[whispersofblood]

Back to the bin.

[PrimeElectrid]

[yukishiro1]

Lazy way to deal with the problem, but better than doing nothing. Maybe when they have some time they can come up with a more interesting effect that isn't so problematic. 

 

[NinthMusketeer]

In response to people saying that a low-cast army doesn't want to use it's spells on cogs: as explained previously, there is no loss. If the wizards tries to cast cogs and either fails or is unbound then whatever other spell they tried to cast would have been too so there is no penalty. If it does go off, they immediately get another spell and can cast whatever they originally intended. Plus the cogs are still there; a low-casting army is perfectly happy letting them be and forcing the enemy to burn unbinds to get rid of them. The idea that there is a downside to casting cogs is only relevant if the alternative was a casting value of 5 or lower (in which case that can be done instead; one is not forced to cast cogs if it is not tactically ideal).

In response to limiting mobility; it can be put 6" in front then has 2" on its base, and the wizard needs to only be within rather than wholly within. So that is 14"+wizard's base of forward movement possible. Getting multiple wizards in range will reduce that obviously but it is not heavily restrictive. It can also be unbound in the enemy's turn and recast should significant repositioning be required. And as explained above, there is no downside to casting it.

In response to rule of 1 limiting multiple casts; arcane bolt, mystic shield, warscroll spell, allegiance spell, realm spell. Two wizards are already rocking 7 different spell options, three wizards 9. It is a downside, but not a significant one. LRL in particular don't care because all the vanari want to cast their warscroll spell anyways and it can be cast multiple times a phase. Instead of choosing between casting their allegiance spell OR buffing sunmetal they do both. And if the rule of 1 on spells is of particular concern an enhancement can be spent to give EVERY wizard in the army another one.

But really GW put the debate to bed themselves. They would not have acted on cogs unless they were getting a lot of feedback that they were too strong.

Now it's underpowered XD

[EldritchX]

On 9/4/2021 at 2:53 AM, NinthMusketeer said:

In response to people saying that a low-cast army doesn't want to use it's spells on cogs: as explained previously, there is no loss. If the wizards tries to cast cogs and either fails or is unbound then whatever other spell they tried to cast would have been too so there is no penalty. If it does go off, they immediately get another spell and can cast whatever they originally intended. 

Incorrect. If the Cog cast fails, yes, there wouldn't have been a difference if you'd rolled that for another spell instead. However, if you passed, you'd need to roll successfully and avoid unbind a second time, whereas just casting the other spell instead would already be successful.

But yes, it's terribad now.

[NinthMusketeer]

Gambler's fallacy. The % chance of getting the intended spell off won't have changed. Unless the opponent used their last unbind to try to stop cogs, in which case the odds just went up.

It's not totally unusable now, just too many points. Which isn't that big a deal, knock it down to 25-30 pts and it'll be fine.

[Joseph Mackay]

How many of those saying it’s overcosted now or unusable, play Tzeentch or Lumineth I wonder..

[whispersofblood]

53 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

How many of those saying it’s overcosted now or unusable, play Tzeentch or Lumineth I wonder..

Well I play LRL but I've also played AoS since launch so I've played like 10 or 11 factions, and I've never seen cogs as a good endless spell. Even when people were hammering it onto the table for the movement bonus. 

It might be alright in something with a lot of innate MV/charge bonuses and has wizards and those wizards don't have spells they would rather cast. 

[NinthMusketeer]

1 hour ago, Joseph Mackay said:

How many of those saying it’s overcosted now or unusable, play Tzeentch or Lumineth I wonder..

As vocal as I was before about it being OP, I play neither of those armies and I'd say it's UP now. Not worthless, but in need of a points drop.

[CeleFAZE]

For Slaanesh our only real use for cogs was giving Synessa the 2nd cast she should've had from the start. As it stands it really hasn't changed for us, but it does reign in problem armies like Tzeentch where the additional spells were a huge force multiplier.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

4 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Gambler's fallacy. The % chance of getting the intended spell off won't have changed. Unless the opponent used their last unbind to try to stop cogs, in which case the odds just went up.

It's not totally unusable now, just too many points. Which isn't that big a deal, knock it down to 25-30 pts and it'll be fine.

The Gambler's Fallacy is about treating unconnected random events as connected. But in the case of cogs, casting an extra spell is conditional on the success of casting cogs. If you just cast a spell normally, you can fail or succeed. But if you cast cogs first, you can fail cogs, fail the spell itself or succeed. You are currently not considering the chance to succeed with cogs but fail the spell. So @EldritchX is correct.

Two ways to make this more obvious:

Imagine successfully casting cogs made you auto-succeed at casting another spell. The probability of casting that spell would then be equal to the probability of successfully casting cogs. But if you have to cast the extra spell as well, that obviously reduces the probability of getting that spell out. But according to your previous post, casting a spell with lower CV than cogs is free. But surely it has to be less likely than the auto-success scenario.

Or imagine that instead of casting cogs once, you actually do it 10 times. Cast cogs1, get an extra spell, use it to cast cogs2, get an extra spell and so on until you reach cogs10, get an extra cast and cast the spell you actually want to cast. At least to me, it becomes clear that successfully doing this is much harder than just casting the final spell by itself.

[Skreech Verminking]

7 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

How many of those saying it’s overcosted now or unusable, play Tzeentch or Lumineth I wonder..

well I do play skaven (and not txeentch) so I guess I’m the exception (although I do consider almost 75% of the endless spells of being currently overpriced or just not too interesting enough.

 

[NinthMusketeer]

22 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

The Gambler's Fallacy is about treating unconnected random events as connected. But in the case of cogs, casting an extra spell is conditional on the success of casting cogs. If you just cast a spell normally, you can fail or succeed. But if you cast cogs first, you can fail cogs, fail the spell itself or succeed. You are currently not considering the chance to succeed with cogs but fail the spell. So @EldritchX is correct.

Two ways to make this more obvious:

Imagine successfully casting cogs made you auto-succeed at casting another spell. The probability of casting that spell would then be equal to the probability of successfully casting cogs. But if you have to cast the extra spell as well, that obviously reduces the probability of getting that spell out. But according to your previous post, casting a spell with lower CV than cogs is free. But surely it has to be less likely than the auto-success scenario.

Or imagine that instead of casting cogs once, you actually do it 10 times. Cast cogs1, get an extra spell, use it to cast cogs2, get an extra spell and so on until you reach cogs10, get an extra cast and cast the spell you actually want to cast. At least to me, it becomes clear that successfully doing this is much harder than just casting the final spell by itself.

That's the odds of getting both off. Your math is entirely accurate, but there's more to it.

If I fail the casting roll with cogs, I would have failed the intended spell. It doesn't matter which option I picked, I am not getting the intended spell off. That is key here. The second roll is an automatic failure because it is not made, there is no option where I fail cogs first then my intended spell goes off. Either way I get one 2d6 roll to beat the casting value of my intended spell.

Think of it this way; by casting cogs first, what do I lose?

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

3 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

That's the odds of getting both off. Your math is entirely accurate, but there's more to it.

If I fail the casting roll with cogs, I would have failed the intended spell. It doesn't matter which option I picked, I am not getting the intended spell off. That is key here. The second roll is an automatic failure because it is not made, there is no option where I fail cogs first then my intended spell goes off. Either way I get one 2d6 roll to beat the casting value of my intended spell.

Think of it this way; by casting cogs first, what do I lose?

Let's say your goal is to get off a CV 6 spell. You have one cast.

If you hard cast that spell, the odds are 72% to get that spell off.

If you cast Cogs first for the extra spell, you need to succeed one 72% roll (Cogs CV is also 6), and then another 72% roll to get the actual spell off. So your odds of actually casting that spell go down to ~52%. That's what you lose: 20%.

It is correct that you would have failed the original spell if you fail to cast Cogs. But having to cast the original spell on top of Cogs afterwards introduces another chance to fail to cast it. That is what makes the difference, and why casting Cogs is not actually free if your main goal is to get out a different spell.

[NinthMusketeer]

Hm, I did not communicate my concept adequately. But rather than write out a flow chart for an endless spell none of us are using, I would prefer to concede the point. Certainly you have explained yours more effectively.

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Think of it this way; by casting cogs first, what do I lose?

I think the more relevant question might be: what did you gain? Unless you're running Tzeentch where the number of spells you cast matters, the bonus you get from Cogs is... you might get to cast an extra spell on your next turn, if it manages to stay on the board that long.

[NinthMusketeer]

Which gets into the other problem with this line of discussion--the context has changed dramatically because the spell has been nerfed. It's explaining out the dynamics of reasoning for rules that no longer exist.

[EldritchX]

19 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Let's say your goal is to get off a CV 6 spell. You have one cast.

If you hard cast that spell, the odds are 72% to get that spell off.

If you cast Cogs first for the extra spell, you need to succeed one 72% roll (Cogs CV is also 6), and then another 72% roll to get the actual spell off. So your odds of actually casting that spell go down to ~52%. That's what you lose: 20%.

It is correct that you would have failed the original spell if you fail to cast Cogs. But having to cast the original spell on top of Cogs afterwards introduces another chance to fail to cast it. That is what makes the difference, and why casting Cogs is not actually free if your main goal is to get out a different spell.

Exactly. The events ARE connected, and there NO gambler's fallacy in any shape or form.

To be fair, you do gain the Cogs on the table, which is essentially a chance of extra spells on subsequent turns or a reduction of 1 spellcast or unbind. I doubt that's worth it though.

[EldritchX]

11 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Which gets into the other problem with this line of discussion--the context has changed dramatically because the spell has been nerfed. It's explaining out the dynamics of reasoning for rules that no longer exist.

Not so. The case described is, in fact, the ONLY case now, rather than something that only happened for a single wizard list, and helps to explain why the spell is so terrible after the nerf.