WoollyMammoth Posted February 7, 2017 Author Share Posted February 7, 2017 @Lucio exactly. So that is one thing for sure. Personally I feel stacking -/+ to hit should just be leveled. Everyone is going crazy to build that combo. Sure its effective, but its not intelligent or interesting though. I had a game dominated by taking two +1 to hits from terrain. That's pretty silly that that is possible. I've been having a lot of games dominated by mystical and damned terrain, and its starting to get annoying. I think half of players just ignore terrain rules so most people are not aware of how powerful it can be. Archers sitting on Mystical Terrain on the back of the board, or super khorne melee grabbing +1 to hit on their way to you. It can be pretty painful. @Bradifer They should just change it to the rules of 1. I don't think anything is "filth". Objectives take the strain off balance. Most of the time you can win a major victory even if you get tabled. Taking 3 'secrators, 12 kurnoth, 3 Mourngul. People like to do what they like to do. Everyone paid their points. The only thing "filth" in my opinion is doing it with an unpainted army. If you are going to beat me, you haven't earned it unless you have paid the toll in blood, sweat and paint. BCR is not that strong. It is hindered by having only a few models. It can be tarpit hard. Thundertusk lose a ton of value once you cause 4 wounds. It may be one of the strongest "steamroll" army but it is also probably the easiest to steal objectives from and force a major victory regardless of how badly you are killed. It is very simple and therefore easy to deconstruct and counter. It can be super strong for sure but it is not an 'unbeatable power list' in the least. They made the rule for casting attempt on purpose. Many people feel they could change it to success or get rid of it completely. I'm happy they went for a more restrictive ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelmaster Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 I'd favour the "no unit can be targeted by the same spell more than once per turn" approach. Either that or add in at least a lore of "common" magic, so that multiples of the same wizard, or wizards who can cast multiple spells per turn (e.g. Nagash) become viable again. Aside from that, I don't really see that these other proposed rules of 1 would help much. There would still be overpowered units and overpowered combos, it would just shift the best build towards something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoollyMammoth Posted February 9, 2017 Author Share Posted February 9, 2017 Let me spell out the argument clearly:A. The game as-is - Deal with it, you can get better and overcome any obstacle by playing smart.B. Limit all stacking as part of the "Rules of 1" - Break netlists. This means a lot more varied lists overall. - Require people to build smarter lists. They will still turn into netlists, but there are a lot more options for more variety. - Limit being "forced to take X" to be competitive. - Require better tactics over better lists. You would see more varied lists and you would have to know the game better to deal with every situation. Thats it. Neither is wrong. What side are you on? There is not a massive problem with everyone bringing the same netlists and power-lists ruining the game, so this is not a "OH #$%^& WE HAVE TO FIX AOS" argument. Just an idea. Do you think this might make AoS more varied and interesting, or do you enjoy seeing crazy lists and just dealing with them? In my opinion there is not zero issues with AoS. 9/10 death players bring a mourngul to a tournament. 9/10 Khorne players bring two bloodsecrators. etc. And therefore, I'm interested to see if option B might improve AoS. Its not mandatory, just might be cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dez Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Interesting point...but I also find the ability to stack buffs while trying to balance board control a form of counter balance. You can have your super unit of Bloodletters/Warriors/Bloodletters, I'll keep throwing Clan Rats/Ardboyz in your way. I don't think it bothers me all that much. I do want summoning rethought as well as only 1 attempt to cast a spell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volund Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 I think what would be really fun for a summoning re-think would be if they took all the restrictions off, but then you could "un-bind" a summoned unit. Any model that can unbind spells can use that as an attack in the hero phase to remove summoned units. Something like, if your unbind roll is greater than the units wounds the magic that is holding them is unbound and the unit is removed. It really would make preists more useful, and would make the rules that summon understrength units realistic for matched play again. I dont know about the idea that buffs from identical models should never stack. I think that some buffs are written in such a way that they cannot stack and some are not. While certain models might be more "abuseable" than others i think it might make more sense to address the problem models rather than add additional rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dez Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Call it Banish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalozap Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 On 2/7/2017 at 0:45 AM, WoollyMammoth said: - No model can never gain more than +1 to hit or wound (after its own modifiers). id change this to: "No model can benefit from more than one modifier for to hit rolls. When more than one modifier would apply the controlling player may choose what one modifier applies." and "No model can benefit from more than one modifier for to wound rolls. When more than one modifier would apply the controlling player may choose what one modifier applies." On 2/7/2017 at 0:45 AM, WoollyMammoth said: - No model can never be affected by more than -1 to hit or wound. similar to above. On 2/7/2017 at 0:45 AM, WoollyMammoth said: - Abilities from multiple models with the exact same scroll never stack. that is spot on. but it may be redundant with the rewording above. On 2/7/2017 at 0:45 AM, WoollyMammoth said: - When one unit is affected by multiple terrain bonuses, they must pick only one. is this necessary? with the rewording above I think it would be redundant too. I agree in principal with what you're suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelmaster Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 If we were going down this path, with the aim of encouraging players to vary their lists and not just spam multiples of the same model, the only one of those I'd want would be "abilities from multiple units with the same scroll never stack". Why should a model that gives +1 to hit, and a model that gives +1 attack, synergise with each other when two different models that give +1 to hit don't? Even then, I honestly think you'll just find that new netlists will rise to replace the old ones. You aren't creating more options, in fact you are removing the current "best" options in the hope that the remaining ones will be more viable against each other. I don't think that will be the case. There will still be a "best" option that people will gravitate towards, and guys like the Mourgul will still be overpowered auto-includes. 15 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said: Do you think this might make AoS more varied and interesting, or do you enjoy seeing crazy lists and just dealing with them? That's a false dichotomy. I can think that this won't make AoS more varied and interesting, and I can not enjoy seeing crazy lists and dealing with them at the same time. Or I can enjoy seeing crazy lists and just dealing with them, and think that this might make AoS more varied and interesting. If we just made the Morngul and Bloodsecrators each one-per-army, or made them cost a bit more, would there be any other big offenders you'd want to fix here? In programming, we have the idea of "premature generalisation" — trying to fix one or two specific problems with a broad and sweeping change, before you've seen enough specific instances to know whether a broad, general rule is actually a good idea. Programmers are often encouraged to start by fixing problems on a case-by-case basis first, and to only make bigger, more sweeping changes, once it's very clear that a pattern is emerging. That's what this feels like to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoollyMammoth Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 @Dez @VolundSummoning was one of the things strangling the hobby. Every major comp system limited it, then matched play followed suit. You can do all kinds of fun house rules but for matched play you can never summon free points for any reason or you will break the game. Banish type house rules have been used before and might be a lot of fun in a narrative campaign. It is annoying with the rules of 1 but it is what it is. You can play Tzeentch if you want your spells to always be successful. "Units from your opponent’s army must subtract 2 from their hit rolls while within 6" of a Mourngul" - Mourngul already doesn't stack.@Squirrelmaster This is just not true. For example with death simply taking the cursed book can give a decent -1 to hit. If you cannot stack for -2 to hit, you don't need a Mourngul. Its nice to have a backup -1 but you don't need it to be competitive. Mourngul no longer becomes auto-include. At that point you are free to make different lists. With 400 points opened up, you might see all kinds of different things. Sure, there will still be netlists, but there will be a lot more of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dez Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Trust me I know, it's the reason the game didn't take off with me at first. I was loving playing it when it came out, but my main Fantasy opponent wanted to play Nagash in all his glory....game killer. That said, I think GW took too strong a swing at Summoning. In that regard, I think costing points to straight summon something is fine. I think things like The Ring of Immortality, Flamespyre Phoenix or Hellpit Abomination got hit a bit too hard as it's based on a dice roll that the unit comes back and even then (sans FP) it doesn't return anywhere near full health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeGrunt Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 26 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said: This is just not true. For example with death simply taking the cursed book can give a decent -1 to hit. If you cannot stack for -2 to hit, you don't need a Mourngul. Its nice to have a backup -1 but you don't need it to be competitive. Mourngul no longer becomes auto-include. At that point you are free to make different lists. With 400 points opened up, you might see all kinds of different things. Except that just means they can spread that -1 to Hit around, rather than concentrating it on one target. Hardly negates the Mounrgul, which is a ferocious unit even without that. Mourngul isn't auto-include because of -1 to Hit, it's auto-include because it's a self-sufficient monster that moves fairly fast, hits like a freight train, and is tough to kill. The -1 to Hit is just icing on the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimli Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 the only thing I do with the rule or 1 is change it to the rule or 1 and 6 basically 1's always fail and 6 always succeeds when rolling to hit and wound. The 1 spell rule is fine makes sure no one can spam spells non stop. Now summoning that is a hard one to fix cause if set up the old way where you can just summon free dude that was just plain foolish. I don't mind the having to pay for summoning rule but maybe it needs a tweak I just dont know how yet and will ponder this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoollyMammoth Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 @Dez The ring of immortality ruling was dumb as heck. You could come back with 1 wound.. If it was come back with full wounds or even D6 then it makes a little sense, but in 99% of cases its smarter just to take two of whatever you wanted to take and then take a better artifact. The main reason why it is lame is because some games people roll for artefacts, and so in that case if you roll a 6 and you are stuck with a useless piece of ******. I agree that summoning is a bit tight right now in that regard but they wanted to be extra strict and make it not a factor rather than keep it loose and risk it dominating the game. That being said I agree, I think they can loosen up a bit. I think the problem is that they released the game with free open summoning and a lot of things are still in this limbo. They would need a clear plan as to how to keep it balanced and apply that to all existing summoning within a short time frame. Right now they are still releasing things that don't really make sense, like the Brachwrath spell to summon dryads. They could have made it an option to heal dryads instead or be like a once per game ability.@CoffeeGrunt Im not giving my money to FW to get their ugly model just because they gave it broken rules. So, its not auto-include. Mourngul has insane defense but there are a lot of things in death that hit much harder. You can easily tarpit him.@Bimli I might change the spell rule so that you cannot have more than 1 of the same spell active at a time. So once Mystic Shield is active you cant cast again. Bolt you could cast as much as you want, which I think is fair and would fix things that have to give up their spells when there is nothing to cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokapoke Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 13 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said: Right now they are still releasing things that don't really make sense, like the Brachwrath spell to summon dryads. They could have made it an option to heal dryads instead or be like a once per game ability. Those kind of summons make perfect sense. They don't work well in matched play, but in 2/3 styles of play they work precisely as written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoollyMammoth Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 @rokapoke Sure but 99% of people are playing matched play and even adopting points for narrative. So if there is anyone out there who still thinks its fun to play a nothing-matters game where armies like stormcast are stuck with what they put down while sylvaneth can summon 100 dryads on the table, power to them. Almost all of us prefer to play a game where the outcome is not fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeGrunt Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 18 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said: Im not giving my money to FW to get their ugly model just because they gave it broken rules. So, its not auto-include. Mourngul has insane defense but there are a lot of things in death that hit much harder. You can easily tarpit him. That literally does not mean anything. Regardless of whether you personally feel whether he's an auto-include, ugly model, or whatever, the popularity of the Mourngul shows that clearly, many people consider it an auto-include. Additionally, you can't easily tarpit him, because Retreating is a thing in this game, and he can Fly. Additionally, you'd probably only feed him back up to full strength by throwing chaff at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigwarus Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 The no multiple stacking from the same type of warscroll is a great additional rule. We play it like that at tournaments in my area and it stops boring unitspam abuse like the multiple bloodsecrators. It fixes many balance issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thostos Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 The following is in the upcomming SCGT event packet- "Persisting effects & Spells with the same name do not stack however two different abilities giving the same effect do stack" This stops alot of the cloning of hero`s just to get a buff,debuff to stupid levels. We have added this into our event pack for this summers convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhellion Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 22 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said: @rokapoke Sure but 99% of people are playing matched play stats or references to back up this made up number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 23 minutes ago, Thostos said: The following is in the upcomming SCGT event packet- "Persisting effects & Spells with the same name do not stack however two different abilities giving the same effect do stack" This stops alot of the cloning of hero`s just to get a buff,debuff to stupid levels. We have added this into our event pack for this summers convention. If it's in the SCGT packet I feel like it has a high probability of being in the next GHB2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlooDeck Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 31 minutes ago, Thostos said: "Persisting effects & Spells with the same name do not stack however two different abilities giving the same effect do stack. My mate and I have been playing with this ruling by accident from the start. I'm all for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.