Stormdrake Guard Are Beyond Absurd

[AaronWilson]

4 hours ago, Orbei said:

It's not loads of fun to play against. That's the point. The notion that something can be broken and if you don't enjoy playing against it hey that's your problem is sad to hear. Maybe the problem is with the broken units, not the players. Maybe people want the game to be better than it is.

News flash: Fulminators are broken. Pointing at fulminators and saying they are adds nothing to the conversation. Fulminators are stupid and need a nerf but it's apples to oranges because it is impossible for fulminators to do the specific thing a SDG spam list can do.

SDG are a very poorly designed unit. How the designers of the Stormcast book thought that giving one warscroll 7 different abilities and powerful synergies would be okay is baffling. This unit cannot be fixed with points. You can nerf it to the ground (500 points for 2?) so it becomes unplayable, but at any reasonable point value the unit will be a problem because of spamming them and the unique problems they cause. They need a warscroll rewrite.

I'm sure everyone wants the game to be better then that, I'd like to them to be better then that.

Fulminators, stormdrake guard, whatever will eventually be nerfed.

Then there will be a new release which is busted, spammed, and nerfed.

The same cycle has had happened in 40k in forever and has happened in AoS since release. It won't change anytime soon. 

[yukishiro1]

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

Of course not, they are *good*, likely as good as the lists consistently doing well (gargants, the two versions of LRL, legion of the first prince, seraphon dynos&sallies, morathi&the bowsnakes...) all of which can be absolutely oppressive in more casual settings, most of which can come close to tabling you on a bad double turn, none of which has deserved a whole thread lamenting they are "beyond absurd".

I dunno, I'm pretty sure we've had more than one thread on LRL...🤣

[frenk_castle]

On 1/9/2022 at 10:21 PM, Aphotic said:

Over the weekend saw one of the top US players, Kaleb Walters, lose every model in his army to a SCE Drake list with 11 dragons. Literally no counter play; the second the SCE player dropped in, half of the Tzeentch army evaporated; upon winning the double turn, the game was over. 33-0.

 

Now, I know what folks are going to say. But having seen this list play, 9 dragons and 2 chariots, or 11 dragons, the things are utterly dysfunctional.

 

They have deep strike. Access to a 2+ save. Multiple rampage options per unit. High rend, high damage melee. Ranged mortals that can shoot out of sequence, with no hit modifier. They have quality in faction buffs that make them harder to wound. They have native spell immunity half the time. They can double move, and so on.

 

The warscroll is a bloated nightmare of "buy these please, and if you could, ignore the bloat." 

 

Give it a few weeks and you will see these lists dominating the meta. They have totally shaped my local meta, sweeping multiple tournaments yesterday, and, becoming rampant. IIRC, next weekend there is an event of 26, and a quarter of the field plus will be SCE dragon lists.

 

How the hell does anyone deal with this stuff?

May I just ask how can you make dragons harder to wound with new rules? The command trait "Master of Celestial Menagerie" was FAQed so it does not work on SDG. What is the other way to make SDG harder to wound?

[Vastus]

2 hours ago, Marcvs said:

Of course not, they are *good*, likely as good as the lists consistently doing well (gargants, the two versions of LRL, legion of the first prince, seraphon dynos&sallies, morathi&the bowsnakes...) all of which can be absolutely oppressive in more casual settings, most of which can come close to tabling you on a bad double turn, none of which has deserved a whole thread lamenting they are "beyond absurd".

So what you're saying is...I should make a thread about gargants, one about LRL, one about LotFP, one about seraphon and one about Morathi/snakes and farm likes?

[Abstract_duck]

 I do believe we've had sufficient topics and discussions about gargants, snakes, LotFP and wardens to justify a discussion about dragons, if people feel like they are problematic. Especially considering that dragons stack a few known (possible) issues: too strong of an alpha strike, mobility, ranged. Honestly, I've felt that, in comparison to other factions, SCE players (as a group, not talking about individuals) are very quick to feel victimized - approaching discussion about them possibly being too strong with shock and hostility, and discussing 4-1 and 5-0 tournament results with utmost neutrality as if that is how things should be. I completely understand wanting to discussion the dragons in another environment than the SCE discussion thread with that in mind.  

Edited January 11, 2022 by Abstract_duck

[zilberfrid]

25 minutes ago, Vastus said:

So what you're saying is...I should make a thread about gargants, one about LRL, one about LotFP, one about seraphon and one about Morathi/snakes and farm likes?

Well, if you really need internet points...

But if you want to discuss those rules/units, absolutely. That's what discussion fora are for.

[Marcvs]

25 minutes ago, Abstract_duck said:

 I do believe we've had sufficient topics and discussions about gargants, snakes, LotFP and wardens to justify a discussion about dragons, if people feel like they are problematic. Especially considering that dragons stack a few known (possible) issues: too strong of an alpha strike, mobility, ranged. Honestly, I've felt that, in comparison to other factions, SCE players (as a group, not talking about individuals) are very quick to feel victimized - approaching discussion about them possibly being too strong with shock and hostility, and discussing 4-1 and 5-0 tournament results with utmost neutrality as if that is how things should be. I completely understand wanting to discussion the dragons in another environment than the SCE discussion thread with that in mind.  

to try and give you the feeling from the other side (i.e. a SCE player) what I see it's very quick and outraged reactions every time a list from SCE dares to appear among the good ones -without any sign it's in any way dominating or approaching the win-rate or podium numbers of actually meta-defining lists. Case in point: this thread and it's over the top title appeared after two tournaments in which SCE performed *as well as* many other good factions and many other good SCE lists.

Referring to tournament results is the only way to anchor this to a semblance of reality (because ALL strong lists are horribly oppressive in a casual environment) and try to provide a counterpoint to the outrage.

[Vastus]

24 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Well, if you really need internet points...

But if you want to discuss those rules/units, absolutely. That's what discussion fora are for.

Haha, if only I could pay my rent with them.

Anyway I was just being cheeky. I do like seeing some discussion on this as I don't really have a good overview on the competitive environment since I'm not in it.

 

[pnkdth]

13 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

to try and give you the feeling from the other side (i.e. a SCE player) what I see it's very quick and outraged reactions every time a list from SCE dares to appear among the good ones -without any sign it's in any way dominating or approaching the win-rate or podium numbers of actually meta-defining lists. Case in point: this thread and it's over the top title appeared after two tournaments in which SCE performed *as well as* many other good factions and many other good SCE lists.

Referring to tournament results is the only way to anchor this to a semblance of reality (because ALL strong lists are horribly oppressive in a casual environment) and try to provide a counterpoint to the outrage.

It might be an overreaction but it probably isn't.

Also, I don't think I've seen the community be especially forgiving towards a spammy build that started to cruise to 4-1s+ (or absolutely shredding one of a nation's best players). From my POV I see them as SoB 2.0 since their warscroll has absolutely everything you need to win in 3.0. Exceptional movement and board control (extra move/charge), excellent combat profile, great shooting (which can easily delete key pieces or soften up bigger threats into nothing), 4+ ignore spells, lots of wounds on 3+, monster keyword for abilities and bonus objectives, and SCE abilities. Point is, this unit has redundancy built on redundancy and will never struggled to score or contest an objective for max points.

Stardrakes should have never been able to be battleline for example, not even as conditional. There should not be a single unit who can do it all, much less one you can take as the core of your army... Well, ok, they can't cast spells. I guess that's something.

[zilberfrid]

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

to try and give you the feeling from the other side (i.e. a SCE player) what I see it's very quick and outraged reactions every time a list from SCE dares to appear among the good ones -without any sign it's in any way dominating or approaching the win-rate or podium numbers of actually meta-defining lists. Case in point: this thread and it's over the top title appeared after two tournaments in which SCE performed *as well as* many other good factions and many other good SCE lists.

Referring to tournament results is the only way to anchor this to a semblance of reality (because ALL strong lists are horribly oppressive in a casual environment) and try to provide a counterpoint to the outrage.

I do wish GW would ask someone that isn't the writer of the book to read a warscroll before printing it. If you're writing something, you can get too insular, and warscrolls like Sentinels, this one and abilities like old Petrifex just don't pass the sniff test.

For Stormcast specific: new things being overpowered really hurts them, because players get their old collection lose relevancy, and if you now buy lots of dragons, they will be dead meat two and a half years from now.

In a way, encouraging spam lists makes financial sense. GW controls what units are good to spam, and if players decide to make a new list, they will have to buy a new army.

I made a Pistoleer and Outrider army that realy wouldn't work in AoS 3. Most of those horsies are now useless. Now they were mostly kitbashed and can be reconverted, but still.

In comparison, my old Freeguild Regiment got a few additions and lots of guards were sold, but the core stays the same (I still keep an AoS army, even though I don't play).

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

to try and give you the feeling from the other side (i.e. a SCE player) what I see it's very quick and outraged reactions every time a list from SCE dares to appear among the good ones -without any sign it's in any way dominating or approaching the win-rate or podium numbers of actually meta-defining lists. Case in point: this thread and it's over the top title appeared after two tournaments in which SCE performed *as well as* many other good factions and many other good SCE lists.

Referring to tournament results is the only way to anchor this to a semblance of reality (because ALL strong lists are horribly oppressive in a casual environment) and try to provide a counterpoint to the outrage.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that Sentinels are the most hated unit in the game.

I did a little search about them and just found a lot more posts, forums, reddit threads, etc... complaining about Sentinels than any other unit. Some of them where written when Lumineth had less than 48% winrate.

Imho, dragons are the new fotm, with just a little controversy because they had a nerf before their release.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Beliman

[The World Tree]

It is a boring and one dimensional list. In isolation the warscroll is fine (except the stupid potential damage spike from the breath) for its points.

But the warscroll is just a mess. Why do they get a hero phase move? They are already fast. Why can they then charge? Why can they do that after teleporting via translocation? Why do they get a spell ward (Krondys/karazai don't IIRC)?  I can understand the eating a model and the flame breath - those feel right for a dragon.

Then there's the 3" coherency which makes sense from a practical point of view, but has huge ramifications in play terms (don't allow them to be reinforced imo).

Edited January 11, 2022 by The World Tree

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 hour ago, pnkdth said:

It might be an overreaction but it probably isn't.

Also, I don't think I've seen the community be especially forgiving towards a spammy build that started to cruise to 4-1s+ (or absolutely shredding one of a nation's best players). From my POV I see them as SoB 2.0 since their warscroll has absolutely everything you need to win in 3.0. Exceptional movement and board control (extra move/charge), excellent combat profile, great shooting (which can easily delete key pieces or soften up bigger threats into nothing), 4+ ignore spells, lots of wounds on 3+, monster keyword for abilities and bonus objectives, and SCE abilities. Point is, this unit has redundancy built on redundancy and will never struggled to score or contest an objective for max points.

Stardrakes should have never been able to be battleline for example, not even as conditional. There should not be a single unit who can do it all, much less one you can take as the core of your army... Well, ok, they can't cast spells. I guess that's something.

I think part of the issue was that it was really very obvious to most people that Stormdrake Guard would be really good when spammed. For me, they were the stand-out warscroll of the book after a quick first reading. On top of that, the Knight-Draconis making them battleline is a signpost that "Hey, you can spam these guys!". It's not like the Knight-Judicator, where I know a lot of people didn't consider spamming the model initially and undervalued it as a result.

It's a tough position to be in. I get that as a designer you want to make a new unit exciting. A strong emotional reaction, positive or negative, is seen as better than a unit that nobody cares about. But at the same time, the most obvious thing to do in an army should probably not also be one of the best things the army can do. A list with essentially just one warscroll should probably not be pushing 4-1/5-0. And let's not forget that Stormdrakes have already seen a significant point hike since the inital release of the book.

It just really feels hard to understand how a unit that is so obviously very strong both compared to other units internally and externally (let's avoid the term broken for a bit) can make it into the final version of a battletome. Especially since this was a new model that the people at GW must have known people would be eager to run, not an old model that they maybe didn't look at as closely as they should have while revising its rules.

[Clan's Cynic]

34 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

It just really feels hard to understand how a unit that is so obviously very strong both compared to other units internally and externally (let's avoid the term broken for a bit) can make it into the final version of a battletome. Especially since this was a new model that the people at GW must have known people would be eager to run, not an old model that they maybe didn't look at as closely as they should have while revising its rules.

Remember when GW themselves said they didn't expect people to spam Iron Hands Dreadnoughts, despite there being stories of playtesters warning them exactly that was going to happen?

Either they're wilfully ignorant, do not care, or are woefully naïve when it comes to these situations.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Clan's Cynic

[Backbreaker]

22 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

So to remedy this situation, the designers would have to craft a core game that actually rewards bringing varied lists in some way.

I love that idea soooo much. Rewarding variety. Not being mandatory. Nor penalizing the said broken warscrolls. 

I don't think we would loose so much of the freedom of list building. On the contrary, having to think about your list and making choice about variety (adaptability) /spamming (raw strength) is all you want from a wargame that focus on list building.

It's really a great idea of game design!

[PJetski]

15 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Remember when GW themselves said they didn't expect people to spam Iron Hands Dreadnoughts, despite there being stories of playtesters warning them exactly that was going to happen?

Either they're wilfully ignorant, do not care, or are woefully naïve when it comes to these situations.

Or they make money off it...

[Yondaime]

There are so many stronger list/units atm

Remember if you spam a SDG list you have:

 

-a very low model count

-low dps in melee (for 340 pts theyr damage is relatively low)

-very dice dependant, if you roll bad with the breath attack you are pretty screwed

-very weak vs tought armies, played a game vs nurgle and it was hilariusly bad

 

I really cant understand why people are screaming bloody murder, they were OP with the -1 to wound and the point cost, but after the removal of it and the +60 increase they are pretty fine

 

And i find SDG cool and fluffy if you ask me, 

 

Prob Tier A for me atm, tier S is for Dok Seraphon lumineth and some legion of the first prince builds

 

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

7 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Or they make money off it...

It's certainly a possibility, but after everything I have read from people who worked on GW rules design, I have never seen anyone say that higher-ups push them to make units or books overpowered to push sales. I have seen talk of executive meddling in other areas, but not that one. So personally, I think it's a case of something else going wrong, like the rules writers not having the time or ressources they need to ensure a better level of balance. Say what you will about how Wizards of the Coast handles Magic: The Gathering (there is certainly plenty to criticize), but the level of care and testing they are putting into their rules design definitely put GW's efforts to shame.

[PJetski]

2 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

It's certainly a possibility, but after everything I have read from people who worked on GW rules design, I have never seen anyone say that higher-ups push them to make units or books overpowered to push sales. I have seen talk of executive meddling in other areas, but not that one. So personally, I think it's a case of something else going wrong, like the rules writers not having the time or ressources they need to ensure a better level of balance. Say what you will about how Wizards of the Coast handles Magic: The Gathering (there is certainly plenty to criticize), but the level of care and testing they are putting into their rules design definitely put GW's efforts to shame.

I believe it was confirmed by a former employee that they made Riptides and Wraithknights overpowered in 40k 7th edition on purpose to drive sales.

I'm not sure they are still doing this business model today but it's not impossible to believe they push certain models in the rules because they want to push sales for those models. It certainly would explain a lot of their game design decisions.

[Gitzdee]

13 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

It's certainly a possibility, but after everything I have read from people who worked on GW rules design, I have never seen anyone say that higher-ups push them to make units or books overpowered to push sales. I have seen talk of executive meddling in other areas, but not that one. So personally, I think it's a case of something else going wrong, like the rules writers not having the time or ressources they need to ensure a better level of balance. Say what you will about how Wizards of the Coast handles Magic: The Gathering (there is certainly plenty to criticize), but the level of care and testing they are putting into their rules design definitely put GW's efforts to shame.

I do kind of get it when the new models are slightly overpowered. It would leave a bad taste if i spend 85 euro on a kit that gets removed from the table without doing something usefull. The percentage of people exploiting things like these are so small i actually think GW doesnt care unless it starts winning every tournament without any skill involved. It will probably get nerfed in the next balance update and that will be it.

(If the dragons would be bad, people would also have complained)

Edited January 11, 2022 by Iksdee

[RuneBrush]

Bring back maximum unit limits is my answer.  Appreciate it's not a popular one, but certain units just shouldn't be seen multiple times in one army.  Even 40k's very crude rule of 3 (where you can only take a unit 3 times) tempers the min-max mentality that we see more and more frequently in wargaming.

[ibel]

38 minutes ago, Yondaime said:

very weak vs tought armies, played a game vs nurgle and it was hilariusly bad

can u tell more ?!

[Enoby]

25 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

It's certainly a possibility, but after everything I have read from people who worked on GW rules design, I have never seen anyone say that higher-ups push them to make units or books overpowered to push sales. I have seen talk of executive meddling in other areas, but not that one. So personally, I think it's a case of something else going wrong, like the rules writers not having the time or ressources they need to ensure a better level of balance. Say what you will about how Wizards of the Coast handles Magic: The Gathering (there is certainly plenty to criticize), but the level of care and testing they are putting into their rules design definitely put GW's efforts to shame.

I've been playing a few other table top games recently (mostly Malifaux), and using AoS for narrative, but it's really made me aware of the difference in quality of some rules. That's not to say the other games are perfect, but it does feel AoS often gets loads more "what were they thinking" moments. 

In Malifaux, for example, there are overpowered and underpowered crews (armies) but the most powerful are along the "this needs toning down" lines and the least are "this isn't quite doing what it should be" and can usually be solved with a few tweaks. I don't think, in Malifaux's 3rd edition, there's been any crew that could wipe someone else out first or second turn.

In AoS, we've had things like 2019 Slaanesh which was egregiously overpowered to say the least. A few OP things slipping through the gaps is understandable, but I am genuinly curious as to how some things get greenlit (e.g. 14" move, always strike last, double pile in, summon themselves and more Keepers). I don't know quite where the dragons fall, but in general it is quite telling when a consensus of best in battletome is developed so quickly. 

I don't think the rules writers are incompetent, but I do think they likely have limited time to write the battletome to the best of their abilities. In addition, it does feel like there's not a cohesive way battletomes are designed (but this may be changing in AoS 3). I do hope, in the future, the designers are given more time and space for playtesting, editing, and coalescing ideas for each battletome, rather than having each one as a separate project.  

[TheGrimKnight]

16 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Bring back maximum unit limits is my answer.  Appreciate it's not a popular one, but certain units just shouldn't be seen multiple times in one army.  Even 40k's very crude rule of 3 (where you can only take a unit 3 times) tempers the min-max mentality that we see more and more frequently in wargaming.

I agree with this, though doesn't that rule not work for troop choices which I guess would be similar to our battle line units? but over all I agree that outside standard battle line choices (,I play CoS so like freeguild guard) it should be limited to X amount per army. A varied list makes for more interesting games then spamming a single unit for your army like the dragons. 

[Doko]

8 hours ago, Marcvs said:

Of course not, they are *good*, likely as good as the lists consistently doing well (gargants, the two versions of LRL, legion of the first prince, seraphon dynos&sallies, morathi&the bowsnakes...) all of which can be absolutely oppressive in more casual settings, most of which can come close to tabling you on a bad double turn, none of which has deserved a whole thread lamenting they are "beyond absurd".

Yes +1 this.

Is absurd this post.

Data have showed us that dragon spam havent won anything,also fullminators and raptors are around 7th in rankings.

So we need others 6 posts about armys more absurds than dragons or any sc unit before take serious this post

But we would need a new post about how huuuuuugely useless and overcosted are krondys\karazai.

Monsters with 600 points nameds that cant get enhacement,havent auras,co or any utility,have 0 protection against spells or mortals so die with 18 mortals,have a maw krusha damage output but with 200 extra cost etc,

But i dont see people sad about these new dragons that are umplayable or the others 75 sc scrolls that arent competitives.

But 2 lists that sc have to be playable with raptors\fullmis\dragons and people want them nerfed even if sc rigth now arent even at the top5 in tournaments even with tome3.0 vs tomes 2.0

Ironjaws have many betters data results and i dont see people asking for nerfs to them

Edited January 11, 2022 by Doko