whispersofblood

It doesn't really. You can move out of coherency and then remove the model that takes you out of coherency as a casualty if required. In practice you put all 6 into combat range. Put the return damage on the model that breaks coherency. If it doesn't die from attacks; remove it and now you are in coherency. Fiends are actually totally fine, they retain all their benefits at 4 models anyway.

Or... You could accept that 10 man units of 1" reach Cav aren't optimal combat configurations, and perhaps they are designed to be 5 man?

I won't lie my first thought was that it makes Broad Axe HGB addressable. My second though was that coherency rules make MV values a critically determinate value on combat units. It's not just about getting into charge range anymore it's about your positioning relative to the unit you are charging which to me is a good change imo. 'Lethality' at the moment is that combat units effectively remove units they charge making defending objectives pointless. Not shooting units off as this doesn't gain control of objectives. This change also makes units like 20 HGB significantly less effecient in combat, where as before the incentive was to concentrate buffs, this incentive is significantly reduced. Leading to an emergent medium sized combat meta. A feature of which is combats over multiple player turns, also decreasing the benefits of the double turn as the player on the double doesn't have the ability to force highly lethal combats back to back and secure objectives in both battlerounds without active response. There is still only one kind of competitive shooting army and that is the highly mobile one. So I'm interested in seeing how board sizes, objective placement and battleplans make it hard for blood stalkers and KO to take and hold objectives. It's a huge buff to units like Namarti thralls who have multiple attacks and can return models in the battle shock phase. As they had no place in the previous incentive structure. It also restricts the insane mobility of units like Morrsarr Gaurd if they want to maximize their attacks, and prevent losing models to coherency. This is a really good change which the positive effects to the whole game aren't all immediately obvious.

Looks like they reduced lethality.

Caligraves don't have a warscroll spell. They concentrate and cast the Lore of Hysh spell you want to go off turn 2.

Orruk Warclans is a great book that contains all the ordinary content of a seperate book with a specific way to play them together. No one can claim that Iron Jawz and Bonesplitters somehow don't exist as proper and distinct factions,. In all respects the combined book created a 3rd distinct faction with its own design influence on unit selection and army composition. While leaving the 2 other factions with a solid update. The lack of new models and combining of a book aren't synonymous, it just is what happened with Orruk Warclans.

I think Severath and the Spirits of the Wind are traps. I want them to be good, but ultimately they have all the rules to make a unit with good stats good, but are missing the good stats to do damage. The damage in LRL is just too low to by relying on these 200+ point single models to get the work done. Realistically you have 26 models to take objectives with assuming you can get there, and assuming you can fight your way through the bodies the opponent puts in the way. 20 Sentinels is still only like 6/7 dmg without rerolls, with Sevireth and Avenalor that's like 11-13 damage at range.

@Greybeard86 As far as I understand from the explanation given in the discussion video is that it is not about how that player performed with different compared armies, it was about how that player performed when compared to the field with several different armies (or as many as available). Also the counter factual is going to be extremely rare, as model wargames are a resource heavy endeavour so we are unlikely to see statistically significant numbers of otherwise identifiably great players fielding otherwise identifiably poor factions. Part of this whole study is to identify if there are any good players! This is how I understand their dataset fyi. Example; Player $ uses factions 1,2 and 3 at events. His performance in order is X, Y, Z, the field's normalized performance (excluding said player) does a=(X-5), b=(Y-7), c=(Z+3). This is the relationship that is being used to determine said players alpha on faction performance. If listbot's hypothesis holds and skill is casual in outcomes, stronger player should dominate outcomes, and Vince's slides seems to show that. Only 10% of all included matches with a delta of at least 15% in player skill being won by the "weaker" player + stronger faction. The impact of below average skill seems to be forgotten in these discussion, competitive players taking competitive factions seems to assumed as fact, but the same relationship is found at the top and bottom of the first deviations which we can assume will include a larger variance of "player types", yes? This seems to be true, on both sides of player behaviour low skill play and high skill play dominate the factions outcomes.

You realise ofcourse that your position assumes those players are only using very "strong" armies? Some of these players are using SCE, BoC, GSG and a variety of fat middle feather weights. This argument trends pretty close to @stratigo's perspective that the best players only use the best books and that isn't the case where players are playing multiple armies according to the developer. It also relatively ordinary to normalize stats for expected result in a dataset. It's pretty easy to see when an individual is outperforming the norm. That is usually refered to as alpha which can be skill, access or an exploit. Also I think your use of meta is going to trigger @Sleboda, personally I'm not really sure what you mean by "metas" in this context. Lastly it's usually not good faith to argue a algorithm is flawed without using the dataset to produce results the hasn't been able to identify, as these things can have any number of blind spots but supposition but what we are really looking for is the best answer to our question, not the most complete dataset. ML algorithms frequently find that data humans think is critical is irrelevant and the opposite. @Overread I think you understand what I'm saying to a point. At some point I said that "faction strength" should have something like a .3-.4 relationship in the middle. I said this because actually I don't think stratifying the casual gamer to inches of player skill generates a "fun game" for the casual. That why having resources like this is so important so that players can *choose* how they interact with the game portion. Let's say after we fix Slyvaneth they are ok but quite difficult to handle. That difficulty to show up as faction strength in this relationship(the graph that upset everyone). Ironically this is LRL right now. Because the raw damage is so mediocre they post a lot of mediocre results. But they have a lot of rules and whenever that happens the circumstances to combine variables into something greater is always possible. So we end up with a situation where some players are capable of doing absolutely disgusting things to people but most people post mediocre results. For me this is fine so long as a person picking it up knows what they are getting themselves in for. The book is decent and a good player or a player dedicated to getting good results will figure it out. But, if you pick it up because some guy locally won an event you are in for a rude awakening. Now I agree there are lots up books that are much worse than LRL and need work. And, I don't think you believe I'm saying that but this is just for clarity. TL;DR faction power as an effect allows a broader a range of skill levels to play against each other and have relatively close/fun games. However, if it runs unchecked then it's basically buy to win in the middle. I don't think we are there at a .6-.4 correlation but .6 is way to high.

Ok. Your understanding of the top and bottom is correct. What I'm saying is in a relationship between "skill" and "faction strength" one or the other will fill the vacuum. If you try to force faction strength to zero (which in itself is a monumental task) skill fills the gap. Meaning any difference in player skill explodes in relative effectiveness. That can still be something like @stratigo suggest like skill at building lists (which includes knowing why things are in lists). Therefore small differences in skill will produce consistent difference in outcomes. Which will stratify the "fat middle" meaning overall less fun games as players suffer defeat after defeat to players they believe are similarly skilled. My suggestion and opinion is two fold. 1. We repair the functionality of the worst factions, Slyvaneth, BoC, et al. And, keep our eyes on the best factions the Seraphons in particular at the moment. Ideally I think Faction strength should be around .4-.3. 2. The community accepts the blood bowl ideology that some factions are harder to pilot for a number of reasons and we communicate that aggressively so that people can make informed decision and control their own hobby and play experiences. And, our pundit class stop being so hyperbolic, the walk back of release day opinions of OP, sin/bin are never downloaded by the community and do significant harm long term to the discourse.

So demonstrate it. I'm perfectly willing to do so, don't just disagree.

Flattening is the wrong objective. There are obviously glaring issues with some factions, but those are outliers you don't burn down your house cause you don't like you doors. If you exclude the really bad stuff mostly things need warscroll tweaks to improve their ability to the things their armies do, and then a bit of observation to see what that changes. But again what does that graph look like at the end of your opinion?

Mate you're really toeing the line of ad hominin... The conversation I keep trying to have is objective, purposeful description of what that graph should look like to the segment of the community who insist the relationship is fundamentally incorrect. I'm interested because the game requires a community and just because I'm not competing against all of the community doesn't mean I don't benefit from all the discussion, painting and converting and general hype the community generates. My experience playing game 5s is useful to the people who want faction strength differences to be reduced. Day 2 is rewarding but not fun, and frankly exhausting. Every choice is critical because they can all be exploited. From what I can tell less than a 5% skill difference is highly determinate of results in that top 10% of players. Is the game better if the average player, that group of players within the first deviation, the group who by their own admission don't want to give the game that much attention, lose every match to a player 2% better than them? It's just moving the goal post of table top experience. My argument is that it is better to have a selection of difficultly levels so that players can self select their experience of AoS. Which requires us to be honest about factions, and still requires balance to be maintained. It doesn't however require flattening out faction power or being worried about the winrates of every faction individually only those outside their design space. I've taken the Kingdom of Heaven argument and the status quo is best arguments off the table. I've provided you with ample arguments and opinions you can attempt rebutte with reference to the source material, but if you want to insist I'm saying something I'm not perhaps it's best we don't respond to each other from this point. You can call me condescending all you'd like but it will be clear when I choose to be. Like this; "I'm fairly sure you haven't looked at the slides the whole day, and probably don't know how to do the calculus for yourself." What you are actually coming to grips with is a person who won't cowtow to your need to yell your way all through a discussion with no facts, no analysis, and poor at best supposition.

It doesn't though... Can you snip and paste what is making you say that? Like actual math don't quote Vince.

Look. There is an inverse relationship between the effects of skill and faction strength. But faction strength doesn't drive the curve skill does. Like why are we still debating this point the math is clear, you're arguing something you yourself have zero evidence to share?

Well. First of all take a deep breath. I've not brought out the mythical perfect balance argument. What I said is we have to choose what sort of unbalance we can accept, because imbalance is inevitable. I also never said it wasn't important in the middle it has a .4-.6 correlation I can't say it's not important. What I said is that it's not largely determinate of the outcome of games. Which is not the same thing. What I said previously is if you flatten the effect of faction choice you maximize differences in player skill, which means you can't have games of roughly equal player ability. This is because games then are decided by marginal differences in player skill. That's how relationships work. It also has the effect of chilling interesting faction development as there is no room for risk in design. The idea is each person gets to choose how they interact with that relationship, and have reasonable expectations as to the future based on that choice. That doesn't exclude the fact that sylvaneth, GSG, BoC need significant mechanical work. I'm sorry you invested based on a lie, limited or incorrect information. But rules changes can't fix a constant that for you are experiencing. I have experienced engaging with the curve without information myself and it's not a good feeling. These facts notwithstanding the answer to most of the negative expressions is still community. I'm interested in AoS, I'm interested in data analysis professionally and in several of my other hobbies. Apparently the outcomes of my games are hardly impacted by faction choice at all, but I still am concerned for the larger AoS community. Which is why I'm so interested in education and community, I don't actually talk about "competitive AoS" on forums very much at all...

The top bit has kinda already been addressed to some degree. Faction has almost no impact on the outcome of games of highly skilled gamers. Why you see more S and A tiered factions is because margins matter when you are going for a 5-0 in a way it doesn't matter if you aren't. Most players including the highly skilled are playing the best version of the army they want to play. TTS is going to over represent because of the ease of access to alternative factions, the low barrier of entry. On the margins yeah having more tools is better than having less tools that's obvious. But there are diminishing returns but actually event placings aren't a good measure because the top 10% of gamers are finishing in the top 10% regardless. And, what the data shows is Billy Big Bollocks wins events or finishes 4-1 regardless of what faction he plays. The data shows that off the so called OP factions only Seraphon positively impacts a players results. That is interesting. I've never disputed that some factions are easier to play than others, or that some factions provide more or better tools for low or no cost. The question is how much does that impact the outcome of games? And why are factions having an impact? Are averaged skilled players using factions beyound their skillset? Are the some books so inherently more powerful than others? There are a lot of assumptions built into the question you ask datasets and AI. My position again is in the middle I think we want player skill and faction choice to be roughly equivalent in determining outcomes of games so that players at that level can choose how much effort they want to put in. This of course means that your favourite faction could end up not on top of the pile, and hard to play.

Your argung against something I have not said mate... The answer is balance cannot be fixed, games will contain haves and have nots. We will live with some version of imbalance forever. So the question is what should that graph look like, what should we expect and how do we explain that to new players. You can argue for better balance until you are blue in the face, but at some point you have to say what that looks like in practice and what it would do to the relationship that graph represents. My argument is that graph is actually largely a good player friendly version of the world. Where even low effort results in relatively predictable results and players can choose to play easier or harder factions inside that relationship. Archaon is hard to use and powerful, KO Zilfin is easier to use and less consistently powerful we should want these spaces in the game exactly because there are different levels of player skill. The question is what constrains factions from being good on the tabletop. I agree with JP's point, we as a community have a real problem letting factions be good at the thing they are good at. This directly contributes to factions not having tools to play the game as it expands. Basically we, to some degree or another continue to ask for GW to make the game like the AoS1 starter set and GW has repeatedly said they are not interested in making that game.

I agree he said it, but we have primary source information to discuss rather than an interpretation during a conversation largely led by Vince. FYI that arc is pretty similar to MtG. Faction strength is important for the average player, I haven't disagreed. Most players exist within one standard deviation of the mean, and for those players better and worse than the mean the graph shows that faction strength is important, but not the determining factor. We know this because as skill drops faction strength doesn't become more determinate. If that was true we would see more of a wave an arc. Unless we are calling anything beyond 1 deviation too poorly skilled or too skilled for the rules to matter. But guess what happens when you flatten faction strength in the fat middle? You maximize the impact of skill which as the majority of those players are play against each other minimal differences in skill will produce massive differences in outcomes. Which will make "balance" appear worse. The question isn't if the game is balanced of course it's not. It about determining if and exactly how it could be better. The data shows even where faction strength is most impactful it's still less determinate than skill. And, the arc shows that faction strength as an effect not just as an effect of the factions we have right now. What it means is that we need clearer guidelines as to what expectations to have, what factions are high skill, and low skill. So people can modulate their experience as they deem appropriate. By expectations I mean things like how to measure outcomes of games, so we can say what was a close game, and if you were in it. The final score is a good guideline, but there is probably a better one we could use beyond feel.

No, I know how it works. That's why I know I can mitigate it. I understand it can move over models with less than 3 wounds, it has a dodgey RR, random shots, random dmg, and random melee attacks. If doomwheel Skaven were suddenly as popular as Archaon DoT I'd make modifications to mitigate them with more assuredly, but just about any list I play has things I can use. Also, since it obviously has to finish it's move flat and its base is massive, I can just put models where I don't want it to finish it's move, regardless of what it rolls. It's not dissimilar from why the Mawcrusher is less mobile than its profile would suggest. But yeah as you can tell humans struggle for certainty in regards to the Doomwheel's and similar warscroll's ability. There isn't a reason for a bot to be significantly more certain given it is relying on the decisions of several thousand humans. To some degree the bots declaration is a reflection of what we the players consider strong rather than some objective unique insight into warscrolls.

Not if I put something 3.1" infront of it 😉 But more seriously it's not specifically about the doomwheel it's more about what mobility is. It's probably not as bad as D but it's not a B. But, all ML has some blindspots, that doesn't critically undermine the overall integrity of AI. Just like Slaanesh Ungors don't.

And people say they don't know why Skaven are Chaos 😆. Who said that was the average? I said mobility like most things is about how close to certainty you can get. So if you need to get 12" away to contest an objective would you rather be Mv8 with a run or roll 4d6? That's medium mobility at best, MV 10-12 is pretty much available in every book. MV 14 is obviously very fast. Gets a good grade, high move with fly gets a better grade. I'm not saying Doomwheels aren't mobile, but we are talking about grading on its mobility alone compared to the field. Unpredictability has its benefits but if I'm playing blackjack would I rather choose a 10 and get one random card or hope for a spike from two random cards? The movement phase is the most important phase in the game, lack of certain gets a low grade.

lol I'd give you a D as well or at best a C. Random movement with no fly, or ability to ignore models or even ignore friendly models, terrain or endless spells. Mobility is about being able to put models where you want them, when you want them there. If you need to be 12" from your starting position would you rather roll 4 dice or have Mv 14? Don't get me wrong I get that Doomwheels are pretty mobile in the Skaven book, but globally it's pretty poor.

At 2 drop you have a lot of options for Nations. If you want the ability to give the first turn away Syar is a good choice. And, if your area has a lot of Archaon's then Goading Arragance is a strong ability almost worth going Syar on its own. Helon is decent as it also gives you the move out of combat at the end of the combat phase CMD ability. And as you said more battleline units. But, I think the rest is a waste a touch. Ziatric might be good to get a little bit extra out of your two hero casters as we have difficulties with getting bonuses to unbind. It might even be worth taking a look at Iliatha. Not only does your general get to choose from one of their Vanari/Scinari/Hurakan command traits but you can easily give your units rr1 to hit which Severith loves. Or give 2 units of Windchargers 6" runs. And, you can bring one of your limited heroes back on a 4+

How can you concede games you aren't playing? Paradoxical.