Matched Play events. Are Dual lists good or bad for the game?

[Gauche]

That varies from game to game. AoS currently lacks the type of skill at the highest end of the game compared to what I'd like to see but that could be fixed. The game is still very young with regards to competition and GW games have suffered in the past from inconsistent tournament rules as every entity feels like doing their own thing, to the detriment of the game. Things are looking up though and the game is very enjoyable as is so it will continue to grow.

[Galas]

Yeah, Aos its leagues ahead 40k in that kind of problems with ultra spam list, but its a problem that need to be cut ahead or it will grown overtime. I fell confident with the new trend GW follows. I just desire that the competitive players that are helping GW with the balance of the game are not of the ones that think that spaming the most OP thing its a test of skill.

[Gauche]

1 minute ago, Galas said:

Yeah, Aos its leagues ahead 40k in that kind of problems with ultra spam list, but its a problem that need to be cut ahead or it will grown overtime. I fell confident with the new trend GW follows. I just desire that the competitive players that are helping GW with the balance of the game are not of the ones that thing that spaming the most open thing its a test of skill.

Absolutely agree. AoS has great strategy elements that force varied builds through Scenario, Movement is well done, and there are unexplored options like Retreating that really add a skill cap. They're just all rolled over by spam and the strength of top end shooting armies. All in all, not that big of an ask in terms of fixes.

[wayniac]

2 minutes ago, Gauche said:

Absolutely agree. AoS has great strategy elements that force varied builds through Scenario, Movement is well done, and there are unexplored options like Retreating that really add a skill cap. They're just all rolled over by spam and the strength of top end shooting armies. All in all, not that big of an ask in terms of fixes.

It's not, but I hope it's one that gets looked at.  A lot of the top tournament players just gravitate towards whatever is the most "OP" without care, even GW does this (see; Ben Johnson's Stormcast which were pretty filthy at Adepticon) so I wonder if they see it as a problem or just an "oh well" kind of approach.

[Killax]

I think sideboards are a great addition to the game, however the discussion seems to have leaded into a subject of 'spam' aswell.

The one thing I notice with AoS in it's current form is that 101 models and Battalions reward Spam so in essence it very much looks like Spam is the designed route for thematic gaming, or so it seems. To me this kind of spam isn't unreasonable either. If you for example really like a Character on a Mount and want to have solely units that are essentially mini-versions of that Character on Mount I can't blame the player for going that route, it's spamming things but also very thematic...

Then there is a spam design that is very simply solved when the wording would change for it (all) because again there is a lot of it. Things like stacking Bloodsecrator effects are the abilities that could be changed but there is a LOT of those kinds of abilities found in the game, even within units, the moment you want to have the Horde effect your likely to go 20+ and when you thake that effort it's not uncommon to thake another type of that unit.
Moral to me is that spam is very much integrated in the game, to the point where it's close to impossible to remove unless a new edition will come.

- Things to solve that are relatively easy, continue to finetune costs for General's Handbooks and even re-consider the cost for the unit once it goes behind that 20 models for the Horde effect for example.  

Cheers,

[Gauche]

2 minutes ago, Killax said:

I think sideboards are a great addition to the game, however the discussion seems to have leaded into a subject of 'spam' aswell.

The one thing I notice with AoS in it's current form is that 101 models and Battalions reward Spam so in essence it very much looks like Spam is the designed route for thematic gaming, or so it seems. To me this kind of spam isn't unreasonable either. If you for example really like a Character on a Mount and want to have solely units that are essentially mini-versions of that Character on Mount I can't blame the player for going that route, it's spamming things but also very thematic...

Then there is a spam design that is very simply solved when the wording would change for it (all) because again there is a lot of it. Things like stacking Bloodsecrator effects are the abilities that could be changed but there is a LOT of those kinds of abilities found in the game, even within units, the moment you want to have the Horde effect your likely to go 20+ and when you thake that effort it's not uncommon to thake another type of that unit.
Moral to me is that spam is very much integrated in the game, to the point where it's close to impossible to remove unless a new edition will come.

- Things to solve that are relatively easy, continue to finetune costs for General's Handbooks and even re-consider the cost for the unit once it goes behind that 20 models for the Horde effect for example.  

Cheers,

Indeed. The easiest available solution seems to be lowering max unit sizes in the GHB, which still has issues but will help. Anything beyond that is probably outside the scope of the game.

[wayniac]

Just now, Gauche said:

Indeed. The easiest available solution seems to be lowering max unit sizes in the GHB, which still has issues but will help. Anything beyond that is probably outside the scope of the game.

I think they also need to "fix" shooting by toning it down, since shooting is clearly the "best" choice, but that's another debate entirely.

[Gauche]

Just now, wayniac said:

I think they also need to "fix" shooting by toning it down, since shooting is clearly the "best" choice, but that's another debate entirely.

Shooting does have issues but the truly oppressive shooting units are also a spam issue. Otherwise shooting is just good but wouldn't dominate the game. Whether shooting should be better than melee, I can't say.

[Killax]

For shooting I still think we really still have to wait and see where Games Workshop wants to thake it. As there are many influences comming from 40K and also many influences from AoS going to influence the upcomming 40K edition.

It's truely difficult to say anything reasonable about it, on one side I think it's too good how it operates now, on the other side, if EVERY faction will have decent to great combined arms options available the issue can resolve itself because it's available everywhere and then simply said ranged units can become a notch more expensive to balance it all out again.

Sadly I don't believe that solving the ranged "issue" is a small undertaking. Initially I think something like -1 to hit modifier might work out but it's such a fine line... Perhaps they could implement something like 6's to hit need to be re-rolled, which is quite odd but another design spectrum to consider.

[Gauche]

Very interested to see the next two Battletomes, Skylords and Khorne. Khorne is a very melee focused army so they need tools to deliver themselves, how will they be given those tools? Cheap models, optional anti-ranged tech? Speed? Same with the Dwarves, Transports are a great anti-shooting option and thematic to that faction. Game design speaks the loudest so if those armies have something to counter guns then that's a positive step for the future.

All in all the game could feel brand new when the next GHB comes out if they start applying a ranged tax, or modify some rules. GHB1 already augments Cover for Monsters, will they go further and add complexity to the game ONLY for Matched Play? Maybe, I can see it being a smart option. Very exciting time overall.

[Killax]

@Gauche For Blades of Khorne I have read some spoilers and they are including your basic 'speed it up' and 'kills from all sides matter for Khorne glory'.
I believe that Transports are also bound to come eventually and could very well include things we also see in 40K, such as tanks, monsters carrying units, flyers carrying units, you name it

 

[Fr0]

On 3/18/2017 at 2:02 PM, Ryan Taylor said:

sideboards

What? That's awesome, I loved that from back when I used to go to MTG tournaments. Always thought that would be an interesting addition to WH tournies. Definitely adds flexibility to your list, allowing your list to still flow against whatever is in the meta. As for dual lists, what your R3 opponent sees you playing in R1 might be very different from what he fights so in that sense keeping him on his toes though I'm not sure it should be a different army/faction. However, I think sideboarding is about as far as I'd like to see - set aside like 300 points of models you can swap out.

[Popisdead]

Highlander formats are fun ways to kill fun and weaker armies tactics.

 

They sure are.

 

I don't think the two list format is good or bad, just different and what I worry is they give stronger armies the missing piece to overcome any weakness.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Requizen]

14 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Please don't use quotes on something that I posted and then change my words around as if I spoke them.  

ie... my original quote is "Highlander formats are fun ways to kill spam."

I've done highlander format for a couple of years now.  It has met with mostly positive responses.  Very few people thought that it "killed fun" other than the people that liked to spam, and that is understandable because they enjoyed to spam the max powered units and were not able to at those events.

It is a legit way to play a scenario.  I wouldn't say all the time, but sometimes it can and has been in my events voted as fun enough to do again.

While I like the idea of Highlander, my only concern is single-army lists and Battalions. Some armies don't have the number of various units to play Highlander effectively, and most Battalions already require duplicates. Simply making those Battalions illegal and telling people to break Allegiance seems not the best.

[tokek]

On 3/31/2017 at 9:56 PM, Gauche said:

 

All in all the game could feel brand new when the next GHB comes out if they start applying a ranged tax, or modify some rules. GHB1 already augments Cover for Monsters, will they go further and add complexity to the game ONLY for Matched Play? Maybe, I can see it being a smart option. Very exciting time overall.

By far the easiest way to make shooting spam less of an issue would just be to add weather (or magical realm) conditions. If every battle is held in clear still air on a sunlit day then shooting is going to be rather good. Add in some blustery wind and rain and it is less good. Perhaps some fog for really bad shooting days.

All of which could easily be handled in scenario design. It does not always need to be as drastic as the Verdigris Plains rule in that scenario but that is the general idea - if you add in some flavorful rules you prevent a particular list type and play-style from being so simplistically dominant.

[Gauche]

22 minutes ago, tokek said:

By far the easiest way to make shooting spam less of an issue would just be to add weather (or magical realm) conditions. If every battle is held in clear still air on a sunlit day then shooting is going to be rather good. Add in some blustery wind and rain and it is less good. Perhaps some fog for really bad shooting days.

All of which could easily be handled in scenario design. It does not always need to be as drastic as the Verdigris Plains rule in that scenario but that is the general idea - if you add in some flavorful rules you prevent a particular list type and play-style from being so simplistically dominant.

I don't think that is the easiest option and generally I lean away from things that add randomness to the game as randomness generally removes skill. What you put forth is an option though. I'd rather see some sort of codified, always on rule. Playing a very shooting heavy list I feel I'd lose a lot of my oomph if I wasn't able to either shoot into my own combat OR shoot into other combats. Shooting units are priced to be able to do a lot but I think removing one of the extra, combat oriented shooting options would be a nice swing without crippling guns. That said, I haven't tested that at all and am speaking purely from my gut.

[rokapoke]

2 hours ago, Gauche said:

I don't think that is the easiest option and generally I lean away from things that add randomness to the game as randomness generally removes skill. 

I'm interested in reading how you play the game without using dice... ?

[Gauche]

Just now, rokapoke said:

I'm interested in reading how you play the game without using dice... ?

Seems like a pretty intentional misinterpretation of what I was saying.

[rokapoke]

3 minutes ago, Gauche said:

Seems like a pretty intentional misinterpretation of what I was saying.

Ergo the weird emoji. Internet + sarcasm = failure. 

[Gauche]

Just now, rokapoke said:

Ergo the weird emoji. Internet + sarcasm = failure. 

But I replied with my own emoji. So we were on the same page and then everything fell apart. Fascinating. ;]

[tokek]

On 4/4/2017 at 8:29 PM, Gauche said:

I don't think that is the easiest option and generally I lean away from things that add randomness to the game as randomness generally removes skill. What you put forth is an option though. I'd rather see some sort of codified, always on rule. Playing a very shooting heavy list I feel I'd lose a lot of my oomph if I wasn't able to either shoot into my own combat OR shoot into other combats. Shooting units are priced to be able to do a lot but I think removing one of the extra, combat oriented shooting options would be a nice swing without crippling guns. That said, I haven't tested that at all and am speaking purely from my gut.

It can be exactly as random as the scenario designer desires. A Mystic Mists rule that applies -1 to hit per 12" of distance would be barely random at all for example (i.e. no more random than shooting is already).

I don't think there is really a need to change the core mechanics; or at least not until the much simpler option of tweaking scenario design has been tried.. A variety of conditions on scenarios, each hindering a certain extreme form of list, should incentivize more rounded lists being taken.