Jump to content

Rules thought - limiting bonuses to stats


KnightFire

Recommended Posts

To be honest I am getting a little bored of the current metagame of "how can we give this model a 2+++ save" or "How can I make this model that causes mortal wounds on 6+ cause them on 3+". I was wondering how this could be countered with house rules, and had the idea that you could limit the way models receive modifiers with a fairly simple concept

* A rollmay only have one positive modifier and one negative modifier applied to it. Where multilpe modifiers might apply, the largest positive modifier and largest negative modifier apply.

This would mean that you can't stack multiple "+1 to hit" bonuses to make your model hit on 1+ and cause mortal wounds on 3+. It would cause people to spread their buffs out among their army more, rather than trying to have one unkillable bomb unit and using everything else as chaff, and would perhaps bring some lesser seen models to the table.

 

What are peoples thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is that really such a big problem, i found that most people were taking more unique lists compared to the old ways of one giant deathstar.

To combat them, just make sure you have a decent mobile unit, or long ranged shooting option that can take out characters fairly easily, then most of those units are fairly easy to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's cool to stack bonuses! There is always some way to play against it. If a unit is stacking offensive bonuses then you need to put a pawn in the way to mitigate their damage. If a unit is stacking save bonuses then you need to use mortal wounds to punch through.

I don't think it's cool when bonuses feed off each other, especially when they are both extremely powerful and very reliable. A good example of this is the Lord Castellant's Warding Lantern; if you bring 4 LC you can get +4 to saves and heal 4 wounds every time you roll a 3+.

If a bonus is very powerful and stackable then it should be expensive and/or less reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do disagree, but i will say i don't like stacking the same buffs. 6 copys of the same hrro should be why your killing stuff due to abusing the same buff. Spamming is abit dull. I'd rather people get lots if attacks etc from multiple different sources. 

I like the buff meta because buffs interact very differently with each unit, and it contributes to most units in the game being pretty goos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea I like the buffs as a mechanic, I just don't like seeing them all stacked so deep you can't do anything about it. The star drake or letterbombs are good examples. I have a pretty fighty army, but have no desire to go down that route, and as it is, it doesn't compete. It doesn't have much it can do against a 2++ save and healing wounds on saves of 4+ etc.

 

My question is more about whether people think the proposed suggestion would make for more interesting games. Would you play in an event that had that rule?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

, I just don't like seeing them all stacked so deep you can't do anything about it.

But you can. 

I'm not in favor of changing rules to help me deal with challenges. I prefer to have to improve my play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. If there is one thing I find boring in the AoS gameplay, it's the constant buffs. It is obviously nice to give weak units some viability but it is also detrimental when you just stack elite units and monsters. The fact that all is based around getting the best combo/synergy makes keeping track of all those +1s, re-rolls and extra-actions somewhat tedious and slows down the flow (more so in larger games). I'm not sure what a good solution would be, the game simply seems designed to be this way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sleboda said:

But you can. 

I'm not in favor of changing rules to help me deal with challenges. I prefer to have to improve my play. 

Rule 1 of AOS is that your allowed to change the rules, house rules are a part of the game.

I can play reasonably well, and my regular group has plenty top flight players for me to practice against. This isn't about improving play, its about trying to make more lists viable. At the moment to be viable a list has to have an answer to certian things in the metagame, primarily stardrakes, thunderhorns, mortal wound spam and mass shooting. You can't cover all 4 if you have a list that covers 3 of those 4 and get lucky on the days you will do well in the event, if you have a bad draw you will struggle more. 

I haven't asked how to beat the metagame, or complained that I dont think the rules are fair, I am asking opinions on a particular house rule thought, that I am considering for an event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

Rule 1 of AOS is that your allowed to change the rules, house rules are a part of the game.

Of course you can.  Of course. 

I just think that some kinds of tinkering, well-intentioned or not,  are more likely to have a negative effect than others. 

It seems pretty clear to me that the concept of buffs/synergies is fully baked into the system. It's a string I'd not tug for fear of unraveling the weave. 

Most of the time, these enhancements come from heroes. Heroes are difficult to protect. It's actually sort of an issue for some forces that they rely heavily on heroes and fall apart when those heroes die. 

This idea of heroic support of the troops, but the heroes themselves being exposed is really pretty much a key cog of AoS, I believe. It's pretty risky to mess with that sort of thing. 

The self-improvement factor is in addition to that.  Over the decades,  I've faced lots of WTF situations. With only 2 exceptions experience showed me how to overcome them - experience I never would have had if I had opted to hit the Easy Button instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sent a formal response with a similar proposal to Ben Johnson back in February after the new points adjustments for Fyreslayers/TK were announced.  Most of the significant point increases were not on models for what they could do (per se), but what buff they could grant another unit which would then synergize with another ability.  This is why the Royal Warsphinx is so crazily costed in the proposed document.  If you compare him to every other non-named monster mounted hero in Death, he is way overcosted for what he does.  The only sustained rationale for his increased cost is his +1 to wound command trait, which ironically the Warden King has the exact ability for almost 1/6 the Royal Warsphinx's new cost, but the new cost is rationalized not because of what the Royal Warsphinx does, but how it synergizes with Necropolis Knights.  The issue isn't the ability itself (as shown by the fact that people aren't running around with crazy disposed armies), but in the Necropolis Knight's ability and synergy.

I followed up on this conversation at Adepticon and He/they are well aware of the concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use a house rule that the same ability does not stack. But the effect  does. So 2 castellant  won't give a + 2 save to the target, but a Castellent and staunch  defender  trait  will. Prevents  a lot  of weird spammy  lists. 

To my understandin some tournaments and events  does the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As somebody who enjoys playing games like Magic the Gathering, I have no issues with all the buffs and that there is no limit. But I understand that some people aren't keen and have issues with this. I think as @Thomas Lyons has mentioned, GW are aware of the issue but it's managing all the warscrolls (over 1000+ or something!!!). I suspect they will phase some of this out over time with better wording of how the buffs happen or by costing some key units which do the buffing, but I imagine it's tricky and difficult doing it

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gaz Taylor said:

As somebody who enjoys playing games like Magic the Gathering, I have no issues with all the buffs and that there is no limit.

 

I enjoy playing MTG too, but MTG has much better text templating, so does't have quite the same kinds of problems. A lot of the problems that AoS currently has could be avoided with good text templating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two ways I see them going is either "Same named abilities don't stack" (less severe) or "Same bonuses don't stack" (more severe).  I think the first of these is a patch job but fails to actually address the problem (as you could still have Settra + Royal Warsphinx + Snakes for example).  That said, I suspect we'll see the former in GHB2 (maybe even in the core rules update that seems to be forthcoming with their omission in the KO battletome).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

I enjoy playing MTG too, but MTG has much better text templating, so does't have quite the same kinds of problems. A lot of the problems that AoS currently has could be avoided with good text templating. 

Oh I agree but I don't have an issue with it. You also have to bear in mind that when AOS first started you probably had a handful of people who had to quickly come up with the Warscrolls for everything and then to keep things the same, warscrolls got ported over as they tidied up the ranges. This is probably how the difference in some of the terms crept through. 

5 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

The two ways I see them going is either "Same named abilities don't stack" (less severe) or "Same bonuses don't stack" (more severe).  I think the first of these is a patch job but fails to actually address the problem (as you could still have Settra + Royal Warsphinx + Snakes for example).  That said, I suspect we'll see the former in GHB2 (maybe even in the core rules update that seems to be forthcoming with their omission in the KO battletome).

I think we will see something similar for Matched Play games but the only way you can address the problem is by revisiting all the warscrolls and rewriting them. I suspect this is something that GW do not want to do when they can be coming out with more cool models and rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i said before i like the idea of not stacking the same ability. As it forces more creativity.

 

Though in tgis we have to be mindful of how this effects other units.  For instance tge frost phoenix would be severely nerfed by such a change. 

 

Edit: or how some folks viewed zombies were nerf by reinforcement point etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So… I could still wind up facing a 2++ Treeman with "ignore rend -1", but corpse carts would no longer provide any benefit for zombies?

Pass.

The most powerful combos/synergies are often based around stacking a whole bunch of different bonuses together, not the same one multiple times.

Even then, I really feel like combining buffs is a big part of how AoS is meant to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thor said:

We use a house rule that the same ability does not stack. But the effect  does. So 2 castellant  won't give a + 2 save to the target, but a Castellent and staunch  defender  trait  will. Prevents  a lot  of weird spammy  lists. 

To my understandin some tournaments and events  does the same.

This seems elegant and effective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

This seems elegant and effective. 

But in the long run it really isn't as it only deals with half of the problem (when X + X = Z).  People will just go ferret out other units that grant the same bonuses and those will become the netlist. Once they are known, taking 1 of X and 1 of Y to produce Z is no different than taking 2 of X to produce Z.  The net effect is the same; that's indeed the problem.  The effect they are generating is the problem, not the components.  

Instead, if you try to prevent Z but upping the cost of Y (which is what they did with TK), then Y is not priced correctly, and in every circumstance other than X + Y, Y will be overcosted and never see the field of battle.  This is what happened to the Royal Warsphinx.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

But in the long run it really isn't as it only deals with half of the problem (when X + X = Z).  People will just go ferret out other units that grant the same bonuses and those will become the netlist. Once they are known, taking 1 of X and 1 of Y to produce Z is no different than taking 2 of X to produce Z.  The net effect is the same; that's indeed the problem.  The effect they are generating is the problem, not the components.  

Instead, if you try to prevent Z but upping the cost of Y (which is what they did with TK), then Y is not priced correctly, and in every circumstance other than X + Y, Y will be overcosted and never see the field of battle.  This is what happened to the Royal Warsphinx.   

I do see your point but I think that the proposed solution would be enough to stop the worst abuses but would still lead to fun combos 

I think that the real abuses are when people spam the same buffing model. That would be prevented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See i dont mins people getting to bonkers level pluses and minuses,  i dont want it done by peoplr having an army with 2 different kinds of models. From a purely aesthetic approach, it just looks nicer to have more diverse stuff on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mmimzie said:

See i dont mins people getting to bonkers level pluses and minuses,  i dont want it done by peoplr having an army with 2 different kinds of models. From a purely aesthetic approach, it just looks nicer to have more diverse stuff on the table.

But the issue in question is the broken combos being achieved by stacked bonuses.  If it is broken for two of the same model to stack a bonus, then it is broken for two different looking models to stack the same bonus, no matter how aesthetically pleasing or not the diversity might be (I would in fact argue that adding non-subfaction models to fish for a bonus is less aesthetically pleasing than having a pure skaven force, or TK, or whatever; but that is only tangential to this discussion). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

But the issue in question is the broken combos being achieved by stacked bonuses.  If it is broken for two of the same model to stack a bonus, then it is broken for two different looking models to stack the same bonus, no matter how aesthetically pleasing or not the diversity might be (I would in fact argue that adding non-subfaction models to fish for a bonus is less aesthetically pleasing than having a pure skaven force, or TK, or whatever; but that is only tangential to this discussion). 

That's not quite correct. The two different models that stack the same bonus might otherwise perform very differently and have different strengths and weaknesses and so make it harder to spam the same type of unit. E.G.  one might be a spell and one a bonus based on number of models in the unit and one is a blood blessing. It means you have three options to try to prevent the buffing.

If the buff comes from three of the same sources E. G. A wizard with 18 spell range and a 12 inch move who is allowed to cast the same spell twice and then the same wizard again, there are fewer different ways of preventing the buff which makes the less fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...