Rules thought - limiting bonuses to stats

[Thomas Lyons]

6 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

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

This is why I described banning stacking for same named abilities as "not as effective" and not ultimately addressing the problem of the effect that is generated by multiple stacked bonuses.  It is ultimately a patch job that doesn't actually solve the problem of triggering mortal wounds on a 3+; it just forces list builders to be more creative in order to stack those same buffs.  

[Bradifer]

18 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

This is why I described banning stacking for same named abilities as "not as effective" and not ultimately addressing the problem of the effect that is generated by multiple stacked bonuses.  It is ultimately a patch job that doesn't actually solve the problem of triggering mortal wounds on a 3+; it just forces list builders to be more creative in order to stack those same buffs.  

Can we spell out some examples of this?

The main ones I can think of are 30+ Khorne Bloodletters or units of Tzangor Skyfires, but I'm not really sure they ever achieve 3+ status.

Further I don't know the names of the current methods players are using to get those buffs.

[mmimzie]

Yeah so basicly. If you need 3 different units to get the buff. Odds are some are gonna be more pricy, but if you can just spam the cheap button for the buff that you only want because of the buff.... that gets to be less creative.  

I like the look of the field and the complex feel of thr game when we bring multiple elements to achieve victory.

 (I know this isn't an op list or anything, and is just an extreme example) a list of like 6 blood secrators buffing a bucket of blood reavers  being your list is very meh and one dimensional to me. It's very obvious for me how you take this list apart and what not... but its so.... samie?? Make it boring.

[WoollyMammoth]

Wow, I posted this a while back and got seriously the worst response from any post I've ever made

Now here is the same conversation with an entirely different tone. I guess a lot of you are sick of the double cursed books, the double stomps, the double Damned Terrains, the double Lord Celestants.

@KnightFire
I don't think it's totally necessary, but I agree that it would improve the game depending on what we are taking about. At one point I proposed never more than +1 or -1 to hit or wound, I think that is a fair balance, but I don't think we should limit stacking saves or stacking attacks because some armies are based around that and IMO that particular aspect has never felt overpowered. Armies often have that 2+ re-rolling one guy that you need to have serious rending or mortal wounds to deal with, but armies rarely have more of it than you can manage if your list is good.

It appears they want to deal with this by watching the meta and changing rules as new books come out. The Warrior Brotherhood was clogging up the meta a bit, and now its been removed and will likely not have points in GH2. The multi-secrators was clogging up the meta a bit, and now it no longer stacks with the BoK book. Right now the Kurnoth and Skyfires are clogging up the meta and this will surely be delt with eventually. 

Personally I don't have any issues with synergy when they can be removed by killing a hero. A Celestant is strong but its just a 5 wound model that has to be close to activate the effects. Same deal with an Aspiring Deathbringer, or a Tzaangor Shaman.  The real issue that is totally lame is when you can make your general un-targetable, such as making one ghoul or skeleton in a massive horde the general providing powerful synergy and wearing a massive meat shield. 

Last I knew SCGT limits stacking abilities with the same name and forces you to pick a Hero for your general...

[BURF1]

1 hour ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Wow, I posted this a while back and got seriously the worst response from any post I've ever made

Now here is the same conversation with an entirely different tone. I guess a lot of you are sick of the double cursed books, the double stomps, the double Damned Terrains, the double Lord Celestants.

@KnightFire
I don't think it's totally necessary, but I agree that it would improve the game depending on what we are taking about. At one point I proposed never more than +1 or -1 to hit or wound, I think that is a fair balance, but I don't think we should limit stacking saves or stacking attacks because some armies are based around that and IMO that particular aspect has never felt overpowered. Armies often have that 2+ re-rolling one guy that you need to have serious rending or mortal wounds to deal with, but armies rarely have more of it than you can manage if your list is good.

It appears they want to deal with this by watching the meta and changing rules as new books come out. The Warrior Brotherhood was clogging up the meta a bit, and now its been removed and will likely not have points in GH2. The multi-secrators was clogging up the meta a bit, and now it no longer stacks with the BoK book. Right now the Kurnoth and Skyfires are clogging up the meta and this will surely be delt with eventually. 

Personally I don't have any issues with synergy when they can be removed by killing a hero. A Celestant is strong but its just a 5 wound model that has to be close to activate the effects. Same deal with an Aspiring Deathbringer, or a Tzaangor Shaman.  The real issue that is totally lame is when you can make your general un-targetable, such as making one ghoul or skeleton in a massive horde the general providing powerful synergy and wearing a massive meat shield. 

Last I knew SCGT limits stacking abilities with the same name and forces you to pick a Hero for your general...

This is a well reasoned, measured response that neither exaggerates the problems nor demonizes players taking advantage of the powerful abilities. Kudos.

[Killax]

I think most of these issues are solved by using House-rules such as SCGT's. Which simply states that same name effects, abilities and spells do not stack.

Now the moment you can create a Deathstar with 3 different characters and 1 big unit I think that in general I wouldn't have too much problems with this because in most cases it means that by removing 1 of these characters the synergy chain slowely dwindles. For competative play the issue is larger if you just decide to bring 4 of the same models and have your opponent figure out how to 'kill them all'.

For regular play I think the silly combo's are fun, for Competative play I believe that House-rules for tournaments are ideal, which could also include caps at stats. 

[Fungrim]

The whole 'just shoot off the buffs' thing is great as long as you're playing one of the 70% of armies that have access to shooting

It's striking a balance, either all armies need varied unit options across the board to avoid being pigeon-holed, or alternatively, have unique armies that excel in one area but ignore others. If you opt for the latter, which is what we currently have, things like Bloodletter Bomb, Kunnin Rukk etc (stuff that you can't get to until it's too late), become massively OP depending on what the armies in the match-up are.

Don't personally like the idea of comp, would like to keep house/tourney rules as basic as possible (previous editions have shown us extensive comp can become a nightmare). Much prefer the idea of having access to varied units across all armies (good for GW too as they get to keep releasing new stuff).

 

I'm an Ironjawz player, and would love a ranged unit or 2. I know it seems to (weirdly) annoy some people, who claim it's for fluff reasons, but it would drastically improve an army that is firmly planted in the mid-tier (at best) right now, and would allow us to 'just shoot off the buffs'

[Arkiham]

You have to remember that some armies are only effective and competitive by stacking  buffs,  an rules like this only benefit those armies who don't have the ability to stack or Don t need to 

[KnightFire]

9 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

You have to remember that some armies are only effective and competitive by stacking  buffs,  an rules like this only benefit those armies who don't have the ability to stack or Don t need to 

Only effective in the current meta. This change would change the metagame, and so different things would be effective. Part of the point is to make some armies that are currently effective less effective, and to make some armies that arent effective (comparatively) more effective. Changing the metagame is what makes AoS interesting, and reduces the impact of netlists.

[PJetski]

If you want to change the metagame the first things that we should do is change Thundertusk to require a hit roll of 3+, and limit Warpfire Projectors to 1 in 3 Stormfiends

[Squirrelmaster]

Competitive players will always min-max to some extent, changing the meta won't change that. Likewise, netlists will always emerge for any new meta.

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, Fungrim said:

 

The whole 'just shoot off the buffs' thing is great as long as you're playing one of the 70% of armies that have access to shooting

 

1 - Shooting is always an option. We, all of us, opt to put limits on ourselves for various reasons,  which is great,  but the game provides access to the tools to get the job done.

I have a hard time endorsing a change to the rules because, essentially, I don't wanna adapt. 

2 - Those limited options that reduce access to shooting tend to give perks on other areas.  Explore those perks.

[Fungrim]

6 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

1 - Shooting is always an option. We, all of us, opt to put limits on ourselves for various reasons,  which is great,  but the game provides access to the tools to get the job done.

I have a hard time endorsing a change to the rules because, essentially, I don't wanna adapt. 

2 - Those limited options that reduce access to shooting tend to give perks on other areas.  Explore those perks.

 

Breaking Ironjawz allegiance isn't something I'm super up for to be honest, for a host of reasons. Nor would it be that successful (you may as well go proper mixed destruction)

I agree, my point above was to avoid rules changes or comp. One of the best things they could do to help combat Hunters, Skyfires etc etc, or key buffers like Sayl, is provide more armies with similar (or counter) units. Which is I imagine why we're about to see more flying stuff.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Fungrim said:

provide more armies with similar (or counter) units. Which is I imagine why we're about to see more flying stuff.

 This I'm in favor of.  Make everyone super.

[TerrorPenguin]

2 hours ago, Fungrim said:

 

Breaking Ironjawz allegiance isn't something I'm super up for to be honest, for a host of reasons. Nor would it be that successful (you may as well go proper mixed destruction)

I agree, my point above was to avoid rules changes or comp. One of the best things they could do to help combat Hunters, Skyfires etc etc, or key buffers like Sayl, is provide more armies with similar (or counter) units. Which is I imagine why we're about to see more flying stuff.

Agreed - the whole allegiance of death has very little shooting unless you're willing to scour ebay for skeleton archers or horsemen. If the answer to getting access to shooting is 'play another army' I'm not sure that answer is particularly inclusive.

[TerrorPenguin]

FWIW, I've played 'same name (de)buff stacks' and 'same name (de)buff doesn't stack' and prefer the latter. 

I just feel spamming good units is the way that 40K has gone, and I don't think many people would say that's a good thing. I am all for different named abilities stacking and feel that you should be able to get +2 or+3 because you've often paid for it in points. 

And mainly, because my major past time is moaning about Death, because death has absolutely zero ways to stack a buff to hit, because it only has one character that can do it, and because he's a named character, can't be taken more than once (Settra). He's also not purchasable 

[Sleboda]

36 minutes ago, TerrorPenguin said:

. If the answer to getting access to shooting is 'play another army' I'm not sure that answer is particularly inclusive.

It isn't "play another army." 

It's "use the available options or, if you don't,  recognize that not all limited builds do everything."

I get that some narrowly focused factions don't include all the same things as other fractions.  Isn't that a good thing?  Do we really want all armies to be all the same for the most part but with different visuals?

If I make the choice to play with orruks and decide that I want to narrow my choices down from orruks (which is already narrowed down from Destruction, which is already narrowed down from All Models), too Ironjaws, that's fine.   Cool, even! But I have to realize that this means I am forgoing some things.

It appears Overlords won't have heavy cav or cheap screeing hordes. I'll tell Overlords players the same things if/when they lament getting their ships blown up by single,  poweful attacks (for instance).

As a Daughters of Khaine player,  I wish I had other battleline options and better saves. I don't,  but I knew that going in. I won't look for ways to change the rules so that,  for example, weapons max out at damage 1.

[Fungrim]

36 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

It isn't "play another army." 

It's "use the available options or, if you don't,  recognize that not all limited builds do everything."

I get that some narrowly focused factions don't include all the same things as other fractions.  Isn't that a good thing?  Do we really want all armies to be all the same for the most part but with different visuals?

If I make the choice to play with orruks and decide that I want to narrow my choices down from orruks (which is already narrowed down from Destruction, which is already narrowed down from All Models), too Ironjaws, that's fine.   Cool, even! But I have to realize that this means I am forgoing some things.

It appears Overlords won't have heavy cav or cheap screeing hordes. I'll tell Overlords players the same things if/when they lament getting their ships blown up by single,  poweful attacks (for instance).

As a Daughters of Khaine player,  I wish I had other battleline options and better saves. I don't,  but I knew that going in. I won't look for ways to change the rules so that,  for example, weapons max out at damage 1.

But there isn't a Cavalry Phase or a Cheap Screening Phase.

Shooting is hugely significant at the moment, as is buffing said shooting. 

I'm not saying give all armies everything (assuming Overlords don't have magic as per standard Duardin - decent fluff work). But they counter it with engineers and khemists.

Balance is key, having more power in certain armies is fine, but something as central and democratic as shooting (so much so it has its own phase) means that new armies with new, highly powered shooting units will get an auto-leg-up in the current meta

[rokapoke]

2 minutes ago, Fungrim said:

Balance is key, having more power in certain armies is fine, but something as central and democratic as shooting (so much so it has its own phase) means that new armies with new, highly powered shooting units will get an auto-leg-up in the current meta

Yes, shooting has its own phase. And it also has no representation within a flagship faction (Khorne Bloodbound). At the end of the day, I'm increasingly certain that "balance" is not a primary objective of the model/faction/game design team. Yes, it's something they try to create with points for Matched Play, but it's clearly secondary at best. And that's fine.

[Captain Marius]

Agreed, i do like a cheeky Skull cannon if im trying to beat a tough army but otherwise im fine with the Khorgoraths rubbish shooting causing a cheeky casualty now and again!

[Fungrim]

2 hours ago, rokapoke said:

Yes, shooting has its own phase. And it also has no representation within a flagship faction (Khorne Bloodbound). At the end of the day, I'm increasingly certain that "balance" is not a primary objective of the model/faction/game design team. Yes, it's something they try to create with points for Matched Play, but it's clearly secondary at best. And that's fine.

Perfect example of an army that compensates for its lack of shooting by sheer numbers. Similar to how Stormcast are compensated for not having magic by an array of buffing heroes.

Hence these armies not struggling to compete

 

Anyway, way off topic here! Apologies