Will More Choice Lead to Less Variation?

[hobgoblinclub]

Thought for the Day: will these new battletomes, which offer people greater options and allow wider choice of units within each allegiance, actually serve to reduce the range of different armies we see on the table?

The reason being that offering players a wider range of units/factions to pick from means you increase the number of players actually able to access each warscroll. For example, instead of Tzeentch daemon players picking filthy lists, Tzeentch mortal players picking filthy lists, and Tzeentch Arcanites players picking filthy lists, will all three now simply gravitate towards the filthy Tzeentch list?

Bigger ranges should mean more variation but small factions allegiances are a way of compartmentalising players' scope for unit choices. If competitive types are given free reign (or at least longer reigns) will they all weed out the same filth? 

[CoffeeGrunt]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: How will more options mean less armies? That literally makes no sense. Even if you make the case for people gravitating towards powerful factions, the more factions there are, the more there are that will be perceived as powerful.

People who have a Tzeentch Daemon list will still have a Tzeentch Daemon list. The Grand Alliance books moosh everything into 4 2 large books and 2 anorexic ones, but that didn't reduce the army choices that were out there.

[Requizen]

I don't think releases remove choices. It's the meta that reduces things you see on the table - new releases being powerful means the top players will gravitate towards power builds, and netlisters will latch on to them. Many of those power builds will take advantage of the new things with  their new toys, but not exclusively. 

[GreenMarine]

More choice can lead to less variation if a large set of auto-include type units eventually filter to the top. Games like Magic have lots of variation because set cycling means that there isn't much time for this kind of selection effect to take hold. Whereas, Hearthstone has a big problem with top decks crystallizing because they don't cycle cards fast enough. So, it can be the case that more choice leads to less variation.

This could be offset by some kind of cycling mechanic or by having enough variety in core army playstyles that no one army can field a single 2000 point answer to everything.

[Vasshpit]

I think fewer armies with more options is better because players won't have to wait as long for an update or shiny new toy for their chosen army.

[Wundlesprut]

If a player was already taking filthy lists then that is their preference and they will lean towards filth regardless of the options that get them there.

A question this raises instead is about general balance between scrolls, not keyword linking of choice amongst different variations of a central concept.

The only way to counteract leaning towards filth (of this nature) has been to find out what 'balanced' means within a tabletop system and make efforts to get there. Not easy since I doubt it is possible in any game with as many variations and exceptions as most miniature games generally have.

And some approaches cannot be fixed by changing the object, when it is the user who styles how the object is being used: example being a tendency to play the zero-sum game of maximising domination through efficiency.

[Veterannoob]

Possibly depending on scene, event type and player type. I'm not concerned as the types of games I play don't make this a threat. Not that you meant it necessarily as a bad thing. 

[Mossback]

There are actually many scientific studies on consumer choices, and most agree people get overwhelmed when they have to process more than 7 to 10 choices. Think about the last time you went to buy toothpaste. How many different brands, or even options from the same manufacturer, we're on the shelf? But buying toothpaste is different than assembling a plastic army. No one would field 2,000 points of only Dryads in a battle because they only liked that model. People like variation in things like that, so we buy a few Kurnoth Hunters, maybe a Treelord or two, etc. and see how it goes. Can you imagine only having one size and color of Lego blocks to build with? Building armies stimulates your imagination and creativity, where as brushing your teeth is more about scraping the crud off your teeth and having better smelling breath. Sometimes more is better.

[NoTurtlesAllowed]

If you look at the 40k meta, you will see trends with plug and play units that can ally with lots of different armies. It becomes, "How best do I abuse the rules from this unit in this army." This was even especially bad last edition when more armies were Battle Brothers. Now with the release of the Triumpherate, lots of lists are popping up featuring 1 of those characters. There was a time when it was almost required to have an Inquisitor with servo skulls, even playing chaos, or taking Coteaz no matter the list. Taking Blood Angels to get access to Drop Pods for any unit, etc. 

However, while these kind of things were annoying, it was part of the meta, which means it changes. Also, with as many options as there are in 40k, it meant you had a good chance of fighting armies without any of them. In AoS, I think we are most likely to see a few choice characters as we do now, and chaff battleline units spread out. 

[Turragor]

5 hours ago, Mossback said:

There are actually many scientific studies on consumer choices, and most agree people get overwhelmed when they have to process more than 7 to 10 choices. Think about the last time you went to buy toothpaste. How many different brands, or even options from the same manufacturer, we're on the shelf? But buying toothpaste is different than assembling a plastic army. No one would field 2,000 points of only Dryads in a battle because they only liked that model. People like variation in things like that, so we buy a few Kurnoth Hunters, maybe a Treelord or two, etc. and see how it goes. Can you imagine only having one size and color of Lego blocks to build with? Building armies stimulates your imagination and creativity, where as brushing your teeth is more about scraping the crud off your teeth and having better smelling breath. Sometimes more is better.

I don't think this applies, like you suggest yourself, more is better in this context.

I think the toothpaste analogy is more about an initial 'shock' of too many options? Without preparation - ie people who didn't know what toothpaste they wanted and are then offered 10 choices? Like: "when they have to process more than 7 to 10 choices in a short time or with no prepration".

I bet if you wanted to create a better analogy you'd go for comparing building an army list to toothpaste in the following way:

"Studies show that when people are given a choice of 1,000 variations of toothpaste together with all information on the contents of the toothpastes, all information about each type of content, peer feedback on the contents and toothpaste as a whole and as much time as they need to make a decicions - people end up with a better toothpaste than if they only had 10 toothpastes to choose from to begin with."

[Mossback]

Actually, most of the studies reported that with consumer products, too many choices resulted in people going with either the brand most prominently displayed, or the brand most common to them. No one wants to stand around in a grocery store while their milk is getting warm and the ice cream is melting in the basket to read all the fine print on the toothpaste box, or Google each brand to find the best one. Most people would grab the most common brand, mint flavor and whitening. Or the cheapest. 

I think the brain works differently for things like art and hobbies. People like to go to an art gallery and see more than a half dozen pictures. Of course, having to trudge through a gallery to see a thousand paintings may seem a chore. I think GW is working on that balance. Build enough variety in their models to keep a gamer's interest without making it so you have to buy 50 kits to make an army. I'm sure they took feedback from gamers who said the SCE troops are too slow, or didn't have enough range attacks. Poof, now we have scouts with better movement, hippogriff riders with crossbows, etc. Stats get tweaked a bit for the new models and now you have happier gamers.

Except for the Death players. They are still sitting off to the side waiting for their battletome and new models, haha.

[hobgoblinclub]

On 27/01/2017 at 4:52 PM, CoffeeGrunt said:

Short answer: no.

Long answer: How will more options mean less armies? That literally makes no sense. Even if you make the case for people gravitating towards powerful factions, the more factions there are, the more there are that will be perceived as powerful.

I think you've misunderstood. Widening the scope of keyword allegiances effectively means fewer factions, not more. All of Tzeentch is, in effect, now a single faction, not three. All the players, who were once consigned to one area of Tzeentch, are now free to pick the same filth. I think it's safe to say there'll be Tzeentch daemons players would be tempted to stray into mortals/arcanites (I'm one such player). 

[Squirrelmaster]

I think the key is to try and keep as many different options as possible equally viable, but different in terms of what they do. If you just bring out two big, hard hitting combat monsters, then people will gravitate towards whichever is most points-effective. Bring out one big, hard-hitting combat monster, and another teleporting, debuffing, shooting monster, and people will choose one or the other based on what type of list they are trying to build.

The question isn't really "how many factions?", but "how many viable builds?".

[wayniac]

I think the key is to try and keep as many different options as possible equally viable, but different in terms of what they do. If you just bring out two big, hard hitting combat monsters, then people will gravitate towards whichever is most points-effective. Bring out one big, hard-hitting combat monster, and another teleporting, debuffing, shooting monster, and people will choose one or the other based on what type of list they are trying to build.
The question isn't really "how many factions?", but "how many viable builds?".

Exactly. And due to how people tend to work, everything will be min/maxed to oblivion the minute it is out. So choice and variety are two different things because there can be five choices and if one of them is better than the other four it might as well only be one.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[hobgoblinclub]

3 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

I think the key is to try and keep as many different options as possible equally viable, but different in terms of what they do. If you just bring out two big, hard hitting combat monsters, then people will gravitate towards whichever is most points-effective. Bring out one big, hard-hitting combat monster, and another teleporting, debuffing, shooting monster, and people will choose one or the other based on what type of list they are trying to build.

The question isn't really "how many factions?", but "how many viable builds?".

Totally agree. It's very, very difficult to do though. I'm sure they're trying to balance things as they are, but we're seeing the same armies emerge on the tournament scene. Hopefully the GHB 2 will shake things up. 

[Squirrelmaster]

Comparing to Magic: The Gathering again (which I know doesn't always work), but I remember reading that the MtG card designers actually planned the meta-game to consist of four equal "buckets" — "aggro", "mid-range", "ramp or combo", "control or disruptive aggro". Each of these focussed on a particular strategy. Cards were then designed to work well for one (or more) of these builds, combined with colours (which are more-or-less equivalent to factions), created enough different options to keep everyone happy. It did mean, though, that if you and I were both building a red aggro deck in the same format, we would likely be using a lot of the same cards.

It also had something of a rock-paper-scissors element, e.g. aggro would have an advantage against ramp/combo but lose to mid-range.

Maybe if GW want to keep the number of viable builds high, they need to put more work into planning what they want those builds to be.

[rokapoke]

13 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Maybe if GW want to keep the number of viable builds high, they need to put more work into planning what they want those builds to be.

However, I'm not convinced that GW is concerned about tournament viability of armies/builds. WotC, when making Magic cards, design in large part specifically for the tournament scene. 

[Lavy]

I'm sure GW is concerned with viability on a tournament level. A new release that is succesful in a tournament setting makes Coin, and let's not forget that GW is a publicly traded company.

[rokapoke]

27 minutes ago, Lavy said:

I'm sure GW is concerned with viability on a tournament level. A new release that is succesful in a tournament setting makes Coin, and let's not forget that GW is a publicly traded company.

Viability of the game? Almost certainly. 

Viability of individual army lists in a tournament setting? I highly doubt it. 

[Lavy]

I think your right in the sense that AoS leans away from hyper-competitive play, but GW's recent shift towards a new sales model does not necessarily mean that models that are inappropriately balanced won't receive the lion's share of purchases. And I tend to agree with your broader point: that the 'honesty' of the game at this stage is extremely important to the net sales of AoS.

[BrAiKo]

19 hours ago, hobgoblinclub said:

All the players, who were once consigned to one area of Tzeentch, are now free to pick the same filth. I think it's safe to say there'll be Tzeentch daemons players would be tempted to stray into mortals/arcanites (I'm one such player). 

 

I think the answer to your initial question is no.  There was nothing consigning you to one area of Tzeentch before, aside from lack of miniature range (you could have run a mixed daemon and warrior list and chose not to).  Even if all mono-Tzeentch players continue in Tzeentch, there will still be some who chose to continue to run all daemon / all warrior lists,  as well as those who play new arcanite lists and mixed Tzeentch lists that never existed before.  Now the only restricton is that we will lose Tzeentch heavy armies that splashed other factions  (though other faction daemons can still be summoned).  

 

 

[hobgoblinclub]

2 hours ago, BrAiKo said:

 

I think the answer to your initial question is no.  There was nothing consigning you to one area of Tzeentch before, aside from lack of miniature range (you could have run a mixed daemon and warrior list and chose not to).  Even if all mono-Tzeentch players continue in Tzeentch, there will still be some who chose to continue to run all daemon / all warrior lists,  as well as those who play new arcanite lists and mixed Tzeentch lists that never existed before.  Now the only restricton is that we will lose Tzeentch heavy armies that splashed other factions  (though other faction daemons can still be summoned).  

 

 

Sorry, I was using Tzeentch as the example because it's the first big 'big allegiance' book. Think of it as if GW had stayed on their original path of smaller factions. Would any Tzeentch daemon players have taken mortals from a different book if it meant losing all their alleigence bonuses? Probably not. 

And yep, some players will continue to run mono lists. My question was simply whether or not we'll see less variation, particularly at the top end. 

[SuperHappyTime]

On 1/27/2017 at 10:43 AM, hobgoblinclub said:

Thought for the Day: will these new battletomes, which offer people greater options and allow wider choice of units within each allegiance, actually serve to reduce the range of different armies we see on the table?

In non-competitive formats, no. Somebody will always like Dwarfs/Elves/Undead/Chaos/Skaven/*Insert Favorite Race Here*.

In a competitive setting, unless designed well, yes. When there is a reason to pick one unit over another (better in combat for the points), there isn't a reason to pick anything else. Only the inclusion of certain rules (spells, command abilities), or the fact that there is no better choice (due to the chosen alliance) would cause you to choose a less than adequate combat choice. 

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think people on this forum put too much stock in the effect some tournaments have on the game.

I mean, how many people attended Blood and Glory, for example? 100? 200? 1000?

How many of them came as hyper-competitive lists? 50%? Less?

And what percentage of the overall playerbase of the hobby does that even represent? 50%? 10%?