Save stacking - Menace or necessary?

[pnkdth]

24 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

I never disagreed with people having a problem with save stacking, I disagree that its a general problem that must be „fixed“ 😉 

Yeah, what I'm saying is it doesn't come down to not being able to deal with it on skill/player level. I think there's a nuance to the problem being presented, as in save stacking is more of an issue on certain models and for certain armies who have a limited toolset. Like with the general enhancements, it might have given the "have nots"-armies extra tools but it also gave the "haves armies" even more tools.

I can definitely get behind enjoying the challenge and figuring stuff out though. I didn't choose the new HoS because it was known to be easy street, for example. Throughout my time in the hobby (going 20+ years now) I massively enjoy playing counter/anti-meta lists. I don't mind taking a thrashing because the moment you make it click is so satisfying. Then again, I'm not particularly concerned with going 5-0 or going to tournaments either. I guess I'm more of a casually competitive player.

The larger issue usually comes down to how GW releases armies, which creates situations where creating viable lists becomes a chore as they're pushed into a place where they gotta game the system. While that's true for all armies it isn't an even field and I can also get behind that can be really frustrating if you really happen to love a certain faction.

However, if you're enjoying the ride as it is, I hope you keep having an awesome time.

[Kadeton]

The more games I play of 3rd Ed, the more I think the implementation of save stacking was a good idea. Let's get this out of the way first: Yes, there are armies which really struggle under the new rules, as there always are during edition changes, and it sucks that their only recourse is to wait for a new battletome. That's GW's release model, and the only real solution is to pressure them to adopt a better one.

But! For those armies that are currently viable in the new edition, save stacking really separates players with an adaptable tactical approach from those with a more rigid, inflexible mindset. Classical wargaming wisdom was always to pick the most valuable target and focus fire on it until dead, and this worked because defences were largely fixed. Now we have a bunch of adaptable defences (primarily Finest Hour and All-Out Defence) that can be deployed to alter the tactical situation, and the old staple of focus fire no longer works.

That's where I see most of the complaints about save stacking occurring over the board - someone throws everything they have at a hard target with multiple defensive buffs and it doesn't die. They were playing "correctly" - using the well-worn tried-and-true tactic of focusing fire - and it didn't work, therefore the game is broken. The reality is that they're stuck in an outdated mode of thinking and as a result they made a horrible tactical blunder.

The fundamental thing that makes these mechanics work, and makes the game more interesting, is that they're limited; good luck getting +2-3 to saves on more than one unit. Every defensive ability that gets stacked on that big monster hero is a defence that's now denied to every other unit in their army. Bait them out, then switch. Attack their weak points, not their strengths! Figure out a game plan that carries you to victory without killing Archaon, or Nagash, or whoever their big centrepiece is. That's the tactical puzzle that makes the game an engaging challenge, not "How many dice do I need to roll to win?"

[Sagittarii Orientalis]

What is so tactically brilliant about stacking as many saves on centrepiece monster model then? This does not seem more novel and advanced than the "classical" and "inflexible" tactic you have mentioned. All you need to do is include good 3+ save monster, supporting characters in your roster, and then just effortlessly apply buffs to the said monster. Might as well just play MTG at that point.

I think the issue is exacerbated by large number of battleplans with objectives clustered at the centre of the board. It basically degrades the game into melee brawl. Tactical manoeuvre becomes less meanigful than battleplans with objectives spread around the board. And winning is easier said than done without removing fully buffed 3+ monsters.

However If I were to change rules while maintaining save stacking, first I would remove all sources of re-rolling saves, including the ones so much favoured by many Archaon lists sporting winning rate of 60% or more. 

Then change all out attack so that it gives extra rend to the weapons used by the unit receiving the command. OR change all out defence into giving -1 penalty on to hit rolls to enemy units instead. Save stacking still works, but players will have to become more considerate before throwing out extra saves wantonly.

P.S. I prefer Finest Hour giving +1 bonus to Hit rolls instead of save rolls, but that change might not be necessary.

 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Sagittarii Orientalis

[Doko]

Save stacking is a bad balance and never had to go beyong playtesting.

Also mortals on 6 to hit must go away and changed to wound.

But gw is giving the mortals on hit to almost every new book and units so.....

At this point was so much funnier 2.0 than 3.0  that many of my group have jumped back to 2.0 rules

[Kadeton]

3 hours ago, Sagittarii Orientalis said:

What is so tactically brilliant about stacking as many saves on centrepiece monster model then? This does not seem more novel and advanced than the "classical" and "inflexible" tactic you have mentioned. All you need to do is include good 3+ save monster, supporting characters in your roster, and then just effortlessly apply buffs to the said monster. Might as well just play MTG at that point.

If the game was decided by who could buff their big monster the most, then there wouldn't be much to it. Fortunately, big monsters don't win games by themselves.

What makes save stacking more tactically interesting? You have multiple decision points on when and where to do it, and you can use these to respond to your opponent to foil their plans for the turn.

Without save stacking: You suspect your opponent is going to launch an attack against your centrepiece model this turn. They move into position, and then launch their attack. The only thing you can do is hope for the best, and watch the model die. Your opponent made a single tactical decision (kill that dude) and you had no way to affect the outcome of that choice.

With save stacking: You suspect your opponent is going to launch an attack against your centrepiece model this turn. Do you use Finest Hour? You decide it's worth it to protect that model for a turn. Does your opponent change their plan and go for a different target, or do they still think they can kill your model? They move into position to threaten multiple units, so you're not sure what they're going to do. One of their units targets your centrepiece. Do you use All-Out Defence right away, or do you need it to help keep another unit alive? Have you got enough CP spare? You want to keep that model safe, so you go for it. Does your opponent keep going for that target now that it's heavily defended, or do they switch? Oh no, you popped it too early, and you've run out of ways to defend the rest of your army. Both you and your opponent made several decisions on how to allocate the resources available to influence the outcome. None of those resources are infinite, and they all have trade-offs for their use. That decision-making is where the engaging gameplay happens.

Stacking saves on one monster hero isn't tactically brilliant. It's so easy to beat people who mindlessly do this. The bit that requires good tactical play is understanding the right time and the right target to apply the available save buffs to. If your opponent puts every attack they can muster into one target and you stack all your save bonuses on it, congratulations - your opponent made several terrible decisions and you successfully punished them for it. If you stack every save bonus you have on one model and your opponent turns around and wipes out your objective holders and support heroes instead, uh oh - you made bad decisions and now you're the one getting punished.

This doesn't have to involve save stacking, of course - the important thing is having a selection of limited defensive resources that can be deployed proactively and/or reactively. 3rd Ed's design does this with save stacking, but any other mechanic would be fine as long as the fundamental outcome is preserved: when your opponent says "I'm gonna kill that dude," you can muster enough defensive resources to force them to reconsider.

[Sagittarii Orientalis]

Of course the timing of save stacking is important. Question is, why would you not stack the saves for your Archaon, Vhordrai or Nagash when entire KO fleet or 6 vanguard raptors are shooting at your monster? How often does it happen, and how meaningful is it in actual competitive play?

However, let us suppose outmanouevring lists with save stacking powerful 3+ save monsters is far from problematic. As you have explained, removing objective holders and support heroes are valid options. Why then do multiple factions with access to such lynchpin models perform very well in competitive tournaments? 

Stats provided by HonestWargamer show Slaves to Darkness or Tzeentch lists boasting winrate of 60% or more, with Archaon being a staple choice in large number of winning lists. There might be other examples such as soulblight lists with Nagash or Vhordrai too. Although as of now I will cite Archaon lists as an example since I haven't looked up tournament stats for Death factions.

Unless you want to argue that most players who played against Archaon lists at top tables were tactically incompetent, I think using actual game examples would be more helpful to demonstrate your point effectively.

Maybe there is subtle nuance of gameplay I overlooked. Or perhaps I misinterpreted statistics, or in the worst case I was referring to misleading statistics. Any in-depth discussion citing cases of actual competitive gameplay would be very helpful

Edited November 7, 2021 by Sagittarii Orientalis

[Skreech Verminking]

I personally Like the addition of the save stacking, Yet I have met some matches that I can’t say were fun.

for example a Mawcrusher.

this guys are currently extremely tanky while also being able to deal damage to a banning potential.

being able to have a 2+ save  ignoring rend up to -2 with the right buffs and a 5+ ward, does mean, that some armies might need 2-3turns to kill that beast, with or without shooting, yet you might say that ignoring it is another option, but when 1 model is able to deal so much damage that you’ve basically lost everything at turn 2, I’m not certain that this is something those armies can do. At that point someone would have to ask, why even keep playing, when a loss is already determined by a single enemy model before the game even has begun

Edited November 7, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Phasteon]

2 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

I personally Like the addition of the save stacking, Yet I have met some matches that I can’t say were fun.

for example a Mawcrusher.

this guys are currently extremely tanky while also being able to deal damage to a banning potential.

being able to have a 2+ save  ignoring rend up to -2 with the right buffs and a 5+ ward, does mean, that some armies might need 2-3turns to kill that beast, with or without shooting, yet you might say that ignoring it is another option, but when 1 model is able to deal so much damage that you’ve basically lost everything at turn 2, I’m not certain that this is something those armies can do. At that point someone would have to ask, why even keep playing, when a loss is already determined by a single enemy model before the game even has begun

You‘re overestimating the Mawkrushas Output. 

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, Sagittarii Orientalis said:

Of course the timing of save stacking is important. Question is, why would you not stack the saves for your Archaon, Vhordrai or Nagash when entire KO fleet or 6 vanguard raptors are shooting at your monster? How often does it happen, and how meaningful is it in actual competitive play?

It's the wrong question, IMO. The real question is: if you have a stack of saves available, why is your opponent's entire KO fleet still shooting at Archaon?

How often does it happen that a whole KO fleet continues shooting at Archaon through a stack of save bonuses? Quite often. A lot of players are still stuck in the "focus fire until dead" mentality, which was my entire point. How often do those players then go on to complain that save stacking is broken, rather than recognising that they could have made different choices? Quite often.

1 hour ago, Sagittarii Orientalis said:

However, let us suppose outmanouevring lists with save stacking powerful 3+ save monsters is far from problematic. As you have explained, removing objective holders and support heroes are valid options. Why then do multiple factions with access to such lynchpin models perform very well in competitive tournaments?

Because dealing with those lynchpin models is more challenging than just blowing units with poor saves off the board. You need a game plan that doesn't rely on killing them, which requires that people change their long-established wargaming habits. A lot of people are struggling to adapt... which, again, was my point.

1 hour ago, Sagittarii Orientalis said:

Unless you want to argue that most players who played against Archaon lists at top tables were tactically incompetent, I think using actual game examples would be more helpful to demonstrate your point effectively.

Maybe there is subtle nuance of gameplay I overlooked. Or perhaps I misinterpreted statistics, or in the worst case I was referring to misleading statistics. Any in-depth discussion citing cases of actual competitive gameplay would be very helpful

The problem with the statistics is that they don't tell you anything about tactical play, they just give army composition (or often, only the faction). We don't know how each players' resources were used turn-by-turn. Archaon lists are definitely strong, but it's impossible to say from the stats how much of that 60%+ winrate is strength on paper versus tactical nous. There's no data.

I can give anecdotes instead, if that helps? I went to a tournament on the 30th of October, and played against a Slaves to Darkness list with Archaon in Feral Foray. It was easily the most intense, hard-fought games I've ever played - it's a powerful army, and was piloted by a skilled player. Use of defensive resources was extremely important: I had to carefully sacrifice units and spend resources to keep Archaon busy while dealing with the rest of my opponent's army. Only after his support was eroded and his own defensive buffs spent and unavailable did I seize the opportunity to take him out (on turn 4).

My opponent made sure to keep defensive buffs available for Archaon as much as possible, but he also wasn't brainlessly buffing him when it wasn't needed and would use those resources elsewhere when he knew it was safe to do so. However, I do think that the emphasis on keeping a "safety net" for Archaon made him more hesitant to buff other units, and that eventually gave me the edge I needed to scrape out the win (it was something like 29 to 27 VP in the final tally).

If I'd just charged in against a fully-buffed Archaon I would have lost the game, no question. The list is way too strong for that. But recognising that, and having to work out how to survive and win without just taking Archaon off the table right away, led to the most enjoyable game of AoS I've ever played. Hence my position: save stacking makes the game more interesting.

[Sagittarii Orientalis]

40 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

I can give anecdotes instead, if that helps? I went to a tournament on the 30th of October, and played against a Slaves to Darkness list with Archaon in Feral Foray. It was easily the most intense, hard-fought games I've ever played - it's a powerful army, and was piloted by a skilled player. Use of defensive resources was extremely important: I had to carefully sacrifice units and spend resources to keep Archaon busy while dealing with the rest of my opponent's army. Only after his support was eroded and his own defensive buffs spent and unavailable did I seize the opportunity to take him out (on turn 4).

My opponent made sure to keep defensive buffs available for Archaon as much as possible, but he also wasn't brainlessly buffing him when it wasn't needed and would use those resources elsewhere when he knew it was safe to do so. However, I do think that the emphasis on keeping a "safety net" for Archaon made him more hesitant to buff other units, and that eventually gave me the edge I needed to scrape out the win (it was something like 29 to 27 VP in the final tally).

If I'd just charged in against a fully-buffed Archaon I would have lost the game, no question. The list is way too strong for that. But recognising that, and having to work out how to survive and win without just taking Archaon off the table right away, led to the most enjoyable game of AoS I've ever played. Hence my position: save stacking makes the game more interesting.

That explanation is definitely more helpful. I really appreciate it.

However, I think you missed out the most important part: what army, and what roster did you use? There are still power discrepancies across the board, and some armies might lack the tools to achieve the goal you have mentioned and hence struggle even with right tactics. For example Lumineth Realm-lords and the new Stormcasts(which I play) might have little trouble removing enemy support piece from afar, whereas some other factions with older tomes do not have such luxury.

As many members have already pointed out, newer tomes and already powerful tomes might leisurely deal with 3+ save monsters with stacked saves. But I am not so sure about other numerous factions who do not have such privilege. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Sagittarii Orientalis

[Skreech Verminking]

37 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

You‘re overestimating the Mawkrushas Output. 

No I’m really not.

buffs from a warchanter, and the fast un trait really makes it an ideal punching tank.

can’t be killed even with focus fire (always depending on the focus fire, will try out 3 warp-lightning cannons next), and punches enough to deal around 45-50wounds per turn after a 4+ save.

one double turn from that beast and most skaven armies have already lost

Edited November 7, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[JackOfBlades]

20 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

No I’m really not.

buffs from a warchanter, and the fast un trait really makes it an ideal punching tank.

can’t be killed even with focus fire (always depending on the focus fire, will try out 3 warp-lightning cannons next), and punches enough to deal around 45-50wounds per turn after a 4+ save.

one double turn from that beast and most skaven armies have already lost

I get the mawkrusha's average damage potential to 53. This assumes it has the gore-hacka profile, mean 'un that it rolls 4+3 for, and every single melee and ranged attack hits, wounds and goes through. If you add destroyer to that, it goes up to 80. I dont know whether you mean a 4+ save before or after rend, but in neither case does it do 45-50 wounds per turn, and when it does reach a damage potential of 80 is "only" in one combat phase per game with a 2'' range (so it's not like it can spread the damage out over your whole army).

Edited November 7, 2021 by JackOfBlades

[Kadeton]

32 minutes ago, Sagittarii Orientalis said:

That explanation is definitely more helpful. I really appreciate it.

However, I think you missed out the most important part: what army, and what roster did you use? There are still power discrepancies across the board, and some armies might lack the tools to achieve the goal you have mentioned and hence struggle even with right tactics. For example Lumineth Realm-lords and the new Stormcasts(which I play) might have little trouble removing enemy support piece from afar, whereas some other factions with older tomes do not have such luxury.

As many members have already pointed out, newer tomes and already powerful tomes might leisurely deal with 3+ save monsters with stacked saves. But I am not so sure about other numerous factions who do not have such privilege. 

I played Ogor Mawtribes (Beastclaw Raiders in all but name) - definitely not a newer battletome, but one that was lucky enough to wind up very well suited to the new edition. We don't remove support pieces from afar, we prefer to do it up close and personal and with extreme prejudice.

And I totally agree: there are a whole bunch of battletomes that are currently not competitively viable. That was the first thing I stated in my first post, and I think it sucks. But if all the previous edition's battletomes were just as viable in the new edition as the old one, I'd personally view that as a huge problem - it would indicate that nothing of significance had changed. Changing mechanics to improve the game will always end up disadvantaging factions that don't yet have the ability to fully engage with the new system. The fact that some of those armies won't receive their 3rd Ed update for some time only supports the argument that GW's release model is bad, not that save stacking is. Most other companies would endeavour to update all their rosters as quickly as possible after an edition change.

I suppose I should really put a pile of caveats around my core statement: In a game between armies of roughly equal strength, with players who understand and embrace the tactical considerations, save stacking enhances the game... but plenty of other limited-use defensive mechanics could have done the same job, or better, this just happens to be the one we got.

[Orbei]

46 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

The fact that some of those armies won't receive their 3rd Ed update for some time only supports the argument that GW's release model is bad, not that save stacking is.

Can't both be bad?

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, JackOfBlades said:

I get the mawkrusha's average damage potential to 53. This assumes it has the gore-hacka profile, mean 'un that it rolls 4+3 for, and every single melee and ranged attack hits, wounds and goes through. If you add destroyer to that, it goes up to 80. I dont know whether you mean a 4+ save before or after rend, but in neither case does it do 45-50 wounds per turn, and when it does reach a damage potential of 80 is "only" in one combat phase per game with a 2'' range (so it's not like it can spread the damage out over your whole army).

Well that one mawcursher was able to remove a unit of 40 clanrats (turn 1) a verminlord deceiver, a Arch warlock, a Warlock bombardier, 2 warplightning cannons and a doomwheel (turn 2)

at that point I didn’t really have anything left but 2x20 clanrats.

and that the mawcrusher was able to move twice a turn (fast un activated in his second turn to be able to move instead of having to charge) didn’t really help either.

[Skreech Verminking]

36 minutes ago, Orbei said:

Can't both be bad?

I do like the current save stacking, yet it isn’t perfect.

maybe a limit set on the save stacking would help.

like something that says, a save cannot be better then a 3+ yet, the ignoring certain amount of rend stackable effect would stay.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Horizons]

4 hours ago, Sagittarii Orientalis said:

However, let us suppose outmanouevring lists with save stacking powerful 3+ save monsters is far from problematic. As you have explained, removing objective holders and support heroes are valid options. Why then do multiple factions with access to such lynchpin models perform very well in competitive tournaments? 

Stats provided by HonestWargamer show Slaves to Darkness or Tzeentch lists boasting winrate of 60% or more, with Archaon being a staple choice in large number of winning lists. There might be other examples such as soulblight lists with Nagash or Vhordrai too. Although as of now I will cite Archaon lists as an example since I haven't looked up tournament stats for Death factions.

I honestly think the stats highlight that, other than Archaon, the other big God models aren't really problematic. I completely agree that many armies, as it stands, don't have the tools to deal with 2+ saves but I hope that the trend we see in the new SC/Warclans book continues and new armies also gain ways to break through tough armor saves.

Nagash OBR and Soulblight Gravelords lists dance around the 50% win rate. Which I think is a great place, they are viable tournament builds but aren't dominating and in the case of Gravelords aren't the only tournament build the faction has access to.

When we look at the Disciples Tzeentch list I think it simply has access to too many tools on top of Archaon. Destiny Dice, turn 1 auto unbind, 6" pre Game move, Once a game change the result of a dice, it can't be modified. It really helps you protect Archaon before the buffs go up. Once they do we have reroll saves and multiple +saves to Ignore rend.

StD shows a similar trend, Demon Prince of Khorn really messes up alpha charges and base line access to 5+ Spell Ignore an Reroll 1's to save are so strong.

I'm curious to see if a blanket removal of those rerolls would help lower the win rates of these two lists.

I think they need to change rerolls, I like how Celestial Vindicators, Big Yellerz and God Armor(name?) are designed. Rerolls are there But generally more limited, Once per unit/save dmg characteristics 2+. 

Personally I think it's important to be able to protect your big centerpieces, else they'll never see play, that's also not fun. I think stats show that save stacking isn't too problematic, it's mostly save stacking + Rerolls that is.

Sucks for armies that don't have access to this, hopefully they get new books soon. GSG, BoC, Nighthaunt need books ASAP.

[Kasper]

On 11/5/2021 at 9:49 PM, Phasteon said:

I watched a batrep today where 2 Mega Gargants + Kragnos got shot to pieces by KO without dealing any significant damage back to them. 

Kragnos put finest hour AND all out defense on himself but still failed enough 2+ Saves against the KOs shooting to die in one phase. 

Yes, 2+ Save (even against rend) rerolling 1s is problematic, as its really quite unlikely to pierce through, but a 2+ Save alone without ward won‘t save you against masses of wounds. 

Add in some MWs and those 14+ Monsters aren‘t really that scary - it‘s just a matter of having the right tools for the job, if not change your list. 

 

But lets be real here: 

Nagash costs 1k points and counts as 5 models towards objectives. 

If you absolutely cant kill him you can just kill the other 1k points and then split your forces to hold more objectives than Nagash, with proper screening / tarpitting he can‘t be everywhere at once. 

If you pay 1k points for a single model its only fair that anyone is struggling to kill that model. 

I think this whole „save stacking discussion“ is just about people being too focused on „being able to kill everything point and click style with ease“ instead of adapting to those tough units. 

I prefer a unit getting to a 2+/3+ „invuln“ by buffing them up instead of them just having a 3+ invuln like in 40k without doing anything for it (except paying points). Those save bonusses are costing ressources and often can be countered by killing off support heroes or forcing the opponent to leave wholly within X“ bubbles to maximize damage or models on objectives. 

I prefer Retributors fighting with a 2+ Save (all out defense) against rend 0 chaff - instead of them dying to clanrats because of their (former) 4+ Save as they did in 2th. 

Long story short, I think save stacking is probably one of the best tactical tools in 3.0 and I don‘t care if people can‘t deal with it. 

 

The game is probably "fine" if you play one of the top 5 armies because they all have the tools to deal with the whole thing and as such it isnt as big of a deal, but the moment you slip down into the "fat middle" it is like playing a completely different game. Yes the meta is diverse and yes a lot of different armies are doing well in the tournament scene, but that doesnt mean the game is "fine" or it is "fun" which is ultimately what a toy soldier hobby should be about. 

The whole "I think people just need to play better" is such a ****** stupid take. We have tournament stats that indicate it is a problem and not just a "play better" thing. Even many top tier players agree that there currently is an issue which warps the meta in a certain way.

[Kasper]

3 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

No I’m really not.

buffs from a warchanter, and the fast un trait really makes it an ideal punching tank.

can’t be killed even with focus fire (always depending on the focus fire, will try out 3 warp-lightning cannons next), and punches enough to deal around 45-50wounds per turn after a 4+ save.

one double turn from that beast and most skaven armies have already lost

This is the damage output of a Megaboss on MawKrusha with +1 hit from All-out Attack and +1 damage from a Warchanter.

[Kasper]

13 hours ago, Kadeton said:

The fundamental thing that makes these mechanics work, and makes the game more interesting, is that they're limited; good luck getting +2-3 to saves on more than one unit. Every defensive ability that gets stacked on that big monster hero is a defence that's now denied to every other unit in their army. Bait them out, then switch. Attack their weak points, not their strengths! Figure out a game plan that carries you to victory without killing Archaon, or Nagash, or whoever their big centrepiece is. That's the tactical puzzle that makes the game an engaging challenge, not "How many dice do I need to roll to win?"

This is great and all but what happens when the opponent buffs a mobile and killy piece to the high heavens and then uses it to tie up your stuff? Its not that black and white as you make it out to be. There are also armies where they have an absurd abundance of +saves (like S2D) so yes they can buff multiple units in their frontline.

[JackStreicher]

14 hours ago, Kadeton said:

For those armies that are currently viable in the new edition, save stacking really separates players with an adaptable tactical approach from those with a more rigid, inflexible mindset.

Too much generalization. I know people like to think (or to put) things (are) simple, however there’s a lot more to it than that.

You are basing your argument on a single example: Point and kill the highest priority target, which save-stacking stops. That’s not what it is about though.

The issue comes up when armies are able to stack saves on multiple units, making it mathematically impossible to do anything (scoring/killing etc.) about it. No screen, no tactics are going to be any good if your opponent can hit the „nah, you‘re not doing anything in your turn“ over and over again.

One example: I had a game in which I was unlucky enough to not get rid of an endless spell and a mystic shield twice in a row which resulted in half his army having +3 to their save (so ignoring any rend and having +1 save) and he started to mob up my units which were slower and couldn’t deal any damage.

I would not care about save stacking if it was the way you think it is. It‘s not. It can easily reach dimensions that stop the game from being a game.

BTW.: I was playing vs Sylvaneth and he simply projected his save bubble through kurnoth hunters, making them, a Treehero, Alarielle and more trees basically immortal for two turns in a row. While dealing absurd amounts of mortal wound and normal damage. He basically rofl-stomped across my army. What a good game.

This isn’t limited to cheesy Sylvaneth lists however. Other armies can pull of equally braindead combos that stop any game from happening. (S2D comes to mind, though that army has other issues)

Save stacking would be fine IF you could not pull Mass Save buffs off at all.

Edited November 7, 2021 by JackStreicher

[pnkdth]

3 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

I do like the current save stacking, yet it isn’t perfect.

maybe a limit set on the save stacking would help.

like something that says, a save cannot be better then a 3+ yet, the ignoring certain amount of rend stackable effect would stay.

I like this one. Rather than being a "get out of jail free"-card or turning X model into a walking/flying tank you can only increase the odds in your favour. It would also be consistent with how they limit things like command abilities and not being able to stack effects to create crazy combinations.

I also think it would make lists more interesting since you can't just stack everything onto a single lawnmower model + the choice of where to use it becomes more fluid.

[JackStreicher]

4 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

I do like the current save stacking, yet it isn’t perfect.

maybe a limit set on the save stacking would help.

like something that says, a save cannot be better then a 3+ yet, the ignoring certain amount of rend stackable effect would stay.

Sounds good to me!

[woolf]

agree that issue is really in the cross section between save stack / god models. it's just too efficient when u can buff half an army with one single ability, made possible by the huge points concentration into single units. the reinforcements rule kinda fixed that for normal units but god model breaks it

[Kadeton]

11 hours ago, Orbei said:

Can't both be bad?

Yes, but armies being outdated is not supporting evidence for both.

8 hours ago, Kasper said:

This is great and all but what happens when the opponent buffs a mobile and killy piece to the high heavens and then uses it to tie up your stuff? Its not that black and white as you make it out to be. There are also armies where they have an absurd abundance of +saves (like S2D) so yes they can buff multiple units in their frontline.

One model can tie up your whole army?

I do agree that mass save buffs are a bad idea. Defensive tech needs to be strictly limited in order to create meaningful choices. Stuff like the Akhelian Leviadon's aura is just poor design.

7 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Save stacking would be fine IF you could not pull Mass Save buffs off at all.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. Buffing multiple frontline units to un-rendable levels is not good for the game. Anything that creates no-brainer choices is anathema to satisfying tactical gameplay.

(I'd still separate the concepts, though. Save stacking is fine. Abilities that provide save bonuses to multiple units are flawed.)