The State of the Game

[Skreech Verminking]

21 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

Would your opinion on this change if all the rules were in one central, digital location that you could reference all at once? For me the overwhelming comes from having to basically track down rules because they're in multiple locations: separated FAQ PDFs, White Dwarf, Battlescrolls, and/or the app that may or may NOT be correct.

they are actually doing a pretty great job on the app.

currently most white dwarf updates seem to be added to the app.

you don’t even have to buy the white dwarf or download  it from a different place.

 

 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

1 hour ago, Ganigumo said:

I think the issue is the disparity, Stuff like Sylvaneth (on the low end) and Tzeentch (on the high end) can have some pretty fair matchups between them if you aim for a more casual list on the tzeentch side, but stuff like Gitz and bonesplitterz are an uphill battle unless your opponent makes an intentionally bad army.

It was admittedly 2.0 but that just meant Fyreslayers were stronger but we ran an ultimate bragging rights tournament.  Each player submitted a list.  Played a round robin with it.  Then you turned around and played the same battleplan using your opponents list.  One player went 0-3 with Bonesplitterz with their worst loss against my Fyreslayers.  In the rematch I dominated with the Bonesplitterz list.

That’s an N=1 example fine but the bigger point I’d actually like to address is the idea of building an intentionally bad list vs the idea of exploration.  A simple example would be every codex seems to have a clear “best sub-faction” but myself at least I always see one or two that look like a lot of fun but that maybe I’d never take to a tournament.  But if I was playing somebody looking for a more casual game why not explore one of those and see what I can do with it?

To me at least that type of exploration (optimizing a different sub-faction) is very different from making a junkyard list.

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Beer & Pretzels Gamer

[Ganigumo]

18 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

It was admittedly 2.0 but that just meant Fyreslayers were stronger but we ran an ultimate bragging rights tournament.  Each player submitted a list.  Played a round robin with it.  Then you turned around and played the same battleplan using your opponents list.  One player went 0-3 with Bonesplitterz with their worst loss against my Fyreslayers.  In the rematch I dominated with the Bonesplitterz list.

That’s an N=1 example fine but the bigger point I’d actually like to address is the idea of building an intentionally bad list vs the idea of exploration.  A simple example would be every codex seems to have a clear “best sub-faction” but myself at least I always see one or two that look like a lot of fun but that maybe I’d never take to a tournament.  But if I was playing somebody looking for a more casual game why not explore one of those and see what I can do with it?

To me at least that type of exploration (optimizing a different sub-faction) is very different from making a junkyard list.

 

That's heavily dependent on how well the book was written. Something like Tzeentch has some really interesting subfactions that aren't the competitive options, like guild of summoners and pyrofane cult, along with the real stinker of cult of the transient form.

Meanwhile something like kruleboyz gives almost no incentive to ever play anything but big yellers, because its the only subfaction that gets extra options. You can play any kruleboyz list as big yellers, but the same isn't true of the other subfactions. Plus the benefits are pretty sketchy, grinnin blades are very situational and skulbugz is just bad.

If the subfaction doesn't offer a unique playstyle there really isn't any enjoyment in trying to optimize it.
We've also got the problem that we literally have armies so weak they'd struggle to even beat casual lists of mid tier armies, let alone trying to do the same thing with those armies. (I've got like 3k points of spiderfang, it's rough...)

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

6 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Meanwhile something like kruleboyz gives almost no incentive to ever play anything but big yellers, because its the only subfaction that gets extra options. You can play any kruleboyz list as big yellers, but the same isn't true of the other subfactions. Plus the benefits are pretty sketchy, grinnin blades are very situational and skulbugz is just bad.

My Kruleboyz still being built but my understanding is they aren’t exactly the top tier list lower tiers are struggling with.  That said within Warclans there’s still plenty to explore if you’re Orruk, not just KB so in theory you could explore KB models in Big Waaagh!

But hey, exceptions like sub-factions of sub-factions gonna happen in as big a game as this.  BS plus Kragnos took down a tournament recently I believe (or at least a top placement).  But I feel ya as I’ve got Blades of Khorne and agree it’s hard to get the Mortals on the table.  Hard, but not impossible.

One of my favorite lists to play is Trogs plus Squigs list.  Not above .500 with it but not 0.000 either.

 

[Lupercal]

2 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

But hey, exceptions like sub-factions of sub-factions gonna happen in as big a game as this.  BS plus Kragnos took down a tournament recently I believe (or at least a top placement).  But I feel ya as I’ve got Blades of Khorne and agree it’s hard to get the Mortals on the table.  Hard, but not impossible.

One of my favorite lists to play is Trogs plus Squigs list.  Not above .500 with it but not 0.000 either.

 

I’m certain to be in the minority, but I’m firmly entrenched in the camp that was unhappy with their errata loosening roster restrictions for Kragnos and Nagash. To my mind, that was the original “band aid” tossed out for underperformers…and a wildly expensive one at that. Don’t “balance” my faction by allowing me a $100+ “auto-include or get wrecked” hero. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

1 hour ago, Lupercal said:

I’m certain to be in the minority, but I’m firmly entrenched in the camp that was unhappy with their errata loosening roster restrictions for Kragnos and Nagash. To my mind, that was the original “band aid” tossed out for underperformers…and a wildly expensive one at that. Don’t “balance” my faction by allowing me a $100+ “auto-include or get wrecked” hero. 

I’m mixed on the massive investment models (outside of Sons where it’s kind of their thing).  As a change of pace I think it can be fun to have an “epic” throw down with or against a Nagash, Archaon, Bel’akor, etc.  Similalrly for something completely different it can be fun to put a big Horde out on the table.  Most of the time though I prefer something in the middle.

Again, my biggest curiosity is whether once we move on from Ghyran where the battle tactics have favored Monsters with bonus VP if they’ll reward some other model archetype (e.g. bonuses for battleline? Bonuses for completing tasks where Wound Value less than 5?) that will create different incentives?  If that was combo’d with something like priority targets would that see more list changes (i.e. you no longer gain bonus VP for Monsters but can still give them up?) could that see an evolution?

With a lot of game flexibility AND a gaming community where the social contract is still strong though I’ll admit it is probably easier for me to be cautiously optimistic.

[yukishiro1]

6 hours ago, acr0ssth3p0nd said:

Yeah, this is what rubbed me the wrong way about this balance update - it addresses win-loss rates but does nothing to address the actual experience of play.

I'm a fairly casual player, but I have a background in game development and design, so I love to engage with and think about the mechanics of the game and the experience they create in play (I follow the competitive community not because I myself plan to play in tournaments, but because the high end of the competitive community tends to be very fluent in the language of the game and can articulate gameplay problems in a way that, frankly, more casual players often can't). So when I ask for balance, it's usually as part of mitigating Negative Player Experience across the game, and this balance update doesn't meaningfully address that.

 

This is very true. It's kind of like back when LRL were all over the place and people were like "stop complaining about how unfun it is to play against sentinel spam, you can still win" which was really missing the point. The issue wasn't that sentinel spam was impossible to beat, it's that it wasn't fun to play against.

What this system does it it just gives you sympathy points for having a bad army and bad units when you're playing against someone with a strong army and strong units. But your army is still bad, and theirs is still good. They still stomp you and you still feel inferior throughout the game. You just score more points than they do.  

I don't think what people with bad armies wanted was for their armies to still be just as bad but to win because GW said they get extra points. 

 

[pnkdth]

7 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Community comp always loses to GW's own attempts. It only ever works when the company itself isn't filling the void at all. Like in early AOS before AOS had point values, community comp caught on because there was no alternative. As soon as GW started giving out points values, it completely fell apart. And that's not because GW's point values were better. It's just because they're official.

The community could come up with a much better handicap system than the one GW just came out with. It wouldn't matter. You'd never get enough buy-in for it, because there's an official alternative and that's always what people will gravitate towards. It's just the reality of the situation.

Right now GW is showing that it wants to be the final arbiter of its own game (see these releases, them taking over the ITC, etc) - it's just not doing a great job at it. Community comp never works in those situations historically. It only works when the company is ceding that space to others. 

It worked well in WHFB and comp scored tournaments outnumbered official GT rules. It is a matter of how you do it and who you are doing it for.

It has to come from the competitive scene and TOs. The community will follow whatever they do, i.e. if Rob and the gang suddenly said "this comp system/tournament pack/etc is the best and this what we'll use" that echo chamber would sound far and wide. I wouldn't put it past them either. As in them deciding, hm, we have all the best data so we're going to do what you (GW) do but better.

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by pnkdth

[Lavieth]

7 hours ago, Ganigumo said:

If the subfaction doesn't offer a unique playstyle there really isn't any enjoyment in trying to optimize it.

Why though?

Just to continue using Kruleboyz as the example, but how does big yellerz fit in as a unique playstyle? All it does is promote a mortal wounds gun line. I do not see how that is unique at all. It gets old very quickly for your opponent when all they are doing is remove their models without any interaction. After awhile it will also get very boring as the player. There is very little opportunity to actually master your army when you limit your playstyle in such a way and that isn't healthy for the game.

I think the other two subfactions are actually more unique because they do something more than just mortal wounds. Grinnin Blades and Skullbugz might not be the obvious "winners", but it takes a deeper understanding of one's faction to find ways to be successful with it. It also requires a willingness to accept a player will lose some games while trying learn new ways to play their faction. Who knows, if less people took the "obvious" choices maybe a world of new tactics could be discovered. 

Edited March 16, 2022 by Lavieth

[Kadeton]

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

What this system does it it just gives you sympathy points for having a bad army and bad units when you're playing against someone with a strong army and strong units. But your army is still bad, and theirs is still good. They still stomp you and you still feel inferior throughout the game. You just score more points than they do.  

I don't think what people with bad armies wanted was for their armies to still be just as bad but to win because GW said they get extra points.

This might be another one of those differences in perspective, but doesn't that seem like a good way of recognising the struggle of a weaker side?

Let's say you're, just to pick an example out of thin air, a plucky Ukrainian militia going up against the full might and resources of the Russian Army. They're occupying your city and taking the strategic objectives, but every time you manage to take out one of their tanks with an RPG, doesn't that feel like a win? Obviously it would be better if NATO backed you up with armoured divisions and fought the enemy on more equal terms, but the hopelessly-outgunned guerilla forces are still the heroes of that story, and every bit of damage they can inflict under those circumstances is its own small victory.

I don't mind playing the underdog - I've been building my Nighthaunt and having fun with them, even though they lose way more than they win. If I manage to take down a unit of Stormdrakes, damn right that feels like a win... and now there's a chance the game's outcome might reflect that sense of achievement too.

[Skreech Verminking]

Yeah well, I do agree the latest update was somewhat disappointing, and with maybe some exception, I doubt that this extra victory points will help the struggling faction (considering that killing one of those things is already hard enough on them)

But personally I prefer this over a 5points decrease for 3 or less units in every struggling factionz.

of course there is a good change all of the overly performing units would have gotten a nerf, but through fully said, how would that help the worser armies.

they will still be struggling with their not so well thought out points reduction on units that have been overcosted for years, have literally no role and won’t even see the game when taken for the price of 40points

[RuneBrush]

13 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:

Would your opinion on this change if all the rules were in one central, digital location that you could reference all at once? For me the overwhelming comes from having to basically track down rules because they're in multiple locations: separated FAQ PDFs, White Dwarf, Battlescrolls, and/or the app that may or may NOT be correct.

I think my answer would be "ish".  I'm a big fan of physical books, there's something really satisfying about having a reference book to flick through when playing a game.  Having rules distributed throughout a load of different places is certainly a pain in the bum - as you say we've some in White Dwarfs, some on WarCom, etc.  Having these in a central repository of some kind would certainly be beneficial - even more so a living battletome.  My reservation (hence ish) is that I just don't like having the requirement to have a phone/tablet when I game.  As someone who works on a computer for work I love that my miniature based hobby gets me away from screens if that makes sense.  I also think that in the case of organised events, there aren't enough sockets to keep devices charged which is probably more of a sticking point.

Now one idea that I have muted around in the past is that we have a Filofax style generals handbook - so a mini-ringbinder with all the GHb bits in.  Each army would have a collection of inserts that could be added into your own personal GHb.  When a rules update comes along we can download (and print) the insert pages that have changed - could easily have them as freebies in White Dwarf too.  You could easily have the pages available through the app as well.

[Ganigumo]

11 hours ago, Lavieth said:

Why though?

Just to continue using Kruleboyz as the example, but how does big yellerz fit in as a unique playstyle? All it does is promote a mortal wounds gun line. I do not see how that is unique at all. It gets old very quickly for your opponent when all they are doing is remove their models without any interaction. After awhile it will also get very boring as the player. There is very little opportunity to actually master your army when you limit your playstyle in such a way and that isn't healthy for the game.

I think the other two subfactions are actually more unique because they do something more than just mortal wounds. Grinnin Blades and Skullbugz might not be the obvious "winners", but it takes a deeper understanding of one's faction to find ways to be successful with it. It also requires a willingness to accept a player will lose some games while trying learn new ways to play their faction. Who knows, if less people took the "obvious" choices maybe a world of new tactics could be discovered. 

Opening up a glass cannon gunline is a different playstyle for kruleboyz, it may not be a "fun" one, but it is a different playstyle. Whats even worse about big yellers though is that by opening up boltboy battleline it opens up listbuilding in a huge way. Stuff like kruleboyz monster mash is much easier to build with cheaper battleline, and even the list I like, which runs 40 gutrippaz, still needs to be big yellers to fit into 2k points without major sacrifices.

Meanwhile, Grinnin blades and skulbugz open up LITERALLY 0 new playstyle options. This isn't an opinion, grinnin blades gives you some anti-shooting utility (this doesn't change how you play, it changes how your opponent interacts with you for a turn) and skulbugz is both unreliable, and unimpactful, meanwhile big yellers offers a new battleline option.

[novakai]

For the Kruleboyz, it  sort of egregious that Big Yellerz have like two more sentences in their abilities compare to the other two that it just become the brain dead choice that even casual can’t deny it.

[BadDice0809]

14 hours ago, pnkdth said:

It worked well in WHFB and comp scored tournaments outnumbered official GT rules. It is a matter of how you do it and who you are doing it for.

It has to come from the competitive scene and TOs. The community will follow whatever they do, i.e. if Rob and the gang suddenly said "this comp system/tournament pack/etc is the best and this what we'll use" that echo chamber would sound far and wide. I wouldn't put it past them either. As in them deciding, hm, we have all the best data so we're going to do what you (GW) do but better.

 

I think you are grossly overstating the importance of Rob and his T sport gang.

How well did his super series idea catch on?

Hell if we go by his subscribers numbers the vast majority of AoS players don't know who he is.

[novakai]

It would have to be the ITC doing something for anything to get community traction but the only time they had to comp situation was when Ironhands where too strong that they had to ban a paricular list in a tournament

[pnkdth]

31 minutes ago, BadDice0809 said:

I think you are grossly overstating the importance of Rob and his T sport gang.

How well did his super series idea catch on?

Hell if we go by his subscribers numbers the vast majority of AoS players don't know who he is.

It is an example of how an idea could spread.

The point here is that you don't have to like Rob & CO if TOs starts collabing with them. You do not need to convince everybody since casual players will almost always end up using the same rules as tournament players.

[Rebluff]

13 hours ago, Lavieth said:

Why though?

Just to continue using Kruleboyz as the example, but how does big yellerz fit in as a unique playstyle? All it does is promote a mortal wounds gun line. I do not see how that is unique at all. It gets old very quickly for your opponent when all they are doing is remove their models without any interaction. After awhile it will also get very boring as the player. There is very little opportunity to actually master your army when you limit your playstyle in such a way and that isn't healthy for the game.

I think the other two subfactions are actually more unique because they do something more than just mortal wounds. Grinnin Blades and Skullbugz might not be the obvious "winners", but it takes a deeper understanding of one's faction to find ways to be successful with it. It also requires a willingness to accept a player will lose some games while trying learn new ways to play their faction. Who knows, if less people took the "obvious" choices maybe a world of new tactics could be discovered. 

If a subfaction doesn't do anything unique vs other subfactions then you go with whatever the most powerful one is.

[yukishiro1]

13 hours ago, Kadeton said:

This might be another one of those differences in perspective, but doesn't that seem like a good way of recognising the struggle of a weaker side?

Let's say you're, just to pick an example out of thin air, a plucky Ukrainian militia going up against the full might and resources of the Russian Army. They're occupying your city and taking the strategic objectives, but every time you manage to take out one of their tanks with an RPG, doesn't that feel like a win? Obviously it would be better if NATO backed you up with armoured divisions and fought the enemy on more equal terms, but the hopelessly-outgunned guerilla forces are still the heroes of that story, and every bit of damage they can inflict under those circumstances is its own small victory.

I don't mind playing the underdog - I've been building my Nighthaunt and having fun with them, even though they lose way more than they win. If I manage to take down a unit of Stormdrakes, damn right that feels like a win... and now there's a chance the game's outcome might reflect that sense of achievement too.

Without wanting to get political, I suspect the Ukrainian military would prefer to be on an even keel with Russia than to get bonus points.

AOS is played with 2000 vs 2000 points (or whatever point total you choose). You don't set out to play an inferior force against your opponent's superior force; the whole premise is that you pit equal forces against one another. The reason that forces are unequal is because GW is bad at balancing the game, not because it is supposed to be that way. I suspect almost everyone would prefer their 2000 points to be equal to the opponent's 2000 points than to get bonus victory points for their army being inferior. 

In a balanced game, if you wanted to play the underdog you could always just play 1750 points against their 2000. 

This is all within GW's power to fix. That's why this feels bad. It feels like GW admitting it is incapable of balancing its game so it's just going to give people handicaps instead. 

Edited March 16, 2022 by yukishiro1

[novakai]

Well there is blood bowl where some teams are purposely inferior to other teams or underdogs but that an entirely different system and gaming environment. With the lack of investment when it comes to buy different team that setup works a bit better

[Ganigumo]

Underdog armies could work as a concept, but you've got to give them the tools they need to win by their own terms. I know GW has been shying away from giving armies too many unique tools (i.e the battalion change, and the usually weak/limited allegiance based battle tactics) but it could be a fun idea.
A few hypothetical examples

• Bonesplitterz getting more and "easier" to achieve battle tactics that score more, for doing narrative stuff like taking down monsters, Monster adjacent things (BT: Klose enuff, pick a non-monster unit with 10 or more wounds and you score it if it's destroyed, that unit gains the monster keyword until the end of the turn).
• Gitz getting some wild BTs for strange options like having one of their units destroyed while under the moon, or overfeeding a unit with snuffler mushrooms

The basic idea would be to let these armies win, despite getting clobbered in terms of actual points left on the table, by giving them ways to score BT/VP in ways that are perpendicular to normal "competitive" play, and maybe even incentivize it a bit by having them be worth more VP than standard battle tactics. You could also introduce extra ways for these underdogs to generate VP, like bonesplitterz doubling the bonus VP from slaying a monster, or having gitz score an extra VP if the unit that achieved the BT was wholly under the moon when it happened.

 

Its a design that runs against the normal idea of how to play competitively, but could be fun to play around with.

[BadDice0809]

3 hours ago, novakai said:

It would have to be the ITC doing something for anything to get community traction but the only time they had to comp situation was when Ironhands where too strong that they had to ban a paricular list in a tournament

GW bought then out to ensure this never happens again. And since the ITC now has the 'official' stamp of GW expect ETC and the other competing competitive 40k formats to die off.

1 hour ago, novakai said:

Well there is blood bowl where some teams are purposely inferior to other teams or underdogs but that an entirely different system and gaming environment. With the lack of investment when it comes to buy different team that setup works a bit better

But at least in Blood Bowl you are told up front (at least now) that you are playing an underdog or stuntie team in the rating system the game itself tells you about.

Nothing like that exists in AoS, a game with a MUCH higher investment in time and money. Nothing in AoS tells a new player that BoK or BoC are nowhere near the strength of literally any aelf army or LotFP or whatever. Caveat emptor isn't a good philosophy if you want to keep people in your game or if you want it accessible for growth BEYOND the initial starter set buy in. Then again, since starter set sales apparently the main metric GW store sales are measured in... maybe they don't care.

[stratigo]

On 3/14/2022 at 4:24 AM, yukishiro1 said:

Yeah, basically. Though I think AOS at this point is probably beyond "not good." Maybe "pretty decent"? The core mechanics I'd even call "pretty good" at this point, while the balance has gone from "atrocious" to "tolerable if far from ideal." 

Balance to me seems about as bad as it ever was. The games hasn’t become more balanced and the rules have simply shifted from one kind of death star unit to another

[Dingding123]

22 hours ago, Lupercal said:

I’m certain to be in the minority, but I’m firmly entrenched in the camp that was unhappy with their errata loosening roster restrictions for Kragnos and Nagash. To my mind, that was the original “band aid” tossed out for underperformers…and a wildly expensive one at that. Don’t “balance” my faction by allowing me a $100+ “auto-include or get wrecked” hero. 

What I'd really like to see is for these heroes to bring back the Destruction/Death/etc. grand alliance army, where the rest of the army must be units from that grand alliance and are treated as allies rather than the big hero piece being the ally.  Then Nagash/Kragnos/Archaon can be much more unique for list building purposes and could provide their own grand alliance, command traits and such.  It always rubbed me the wrong way how they got rid of the Destruction army entirely in 3rd!

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

Again, I’ve been focused on 40k for a while but reading this thread and a few others along similar veins but then looking at this weekend’s tournament results guess I was surprised to see 15 factions piloted to 4-1 or better records:

StD 1x (a 1st nonetheless)

KO 2x (inc a win)

SoB 2x (inc a win)

SCE 5x

Seraphon 4x (inc a win)

Nurgle 2x

LofFP 2x

SBGL 2x

BoC 3x

DoK 

Skaventide @Skreech Verminking was that you?

FEC

CoS

Orruks
LRL

Fine.  Just one weekend and 4 tournaments but I guess I would’ve expected far narrower representation after returning to threads like this.  (And obviously battle scroll not in play yet.)