Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Liberator

About Click5

  • Rank
  1. In my perfect world, GW would blow up their whole system -which I think it actually far closer to the spreadsheet formula system where x=y then people want to believe- and take a top down approach. Something like: Consider most decent size competitive AoS events are five rounds and 2k points, that's your baseline. Create five different scenarios that are relatively balanced but slightly reward a specific type of strategy. For example, maybe a Siege type scenario or zone control will favor a tankier army a bit more. A Supply Raid scenario favors a fast elite army, so and so forth... Now take your factions and have some number of "shells" or archetypes for each of them. You could probably break this up into Tanky, Balanced, and Glass Cannon or something along those lines. How this manifests in the game is where they get to be creative. Stormcasts tanky shell is from good armor saves and defensive buffs, whereas Death keeps their horde alive by summoning. Now you say this shell is going to good at objectives 1 and 2, it'll be okay at objective 3, and weak at objective 4 and 5. Now Shell B can be good at objectives 2 and 3, okay at 4, and weak at 5 and 1... This is where the vast majority of balancing should take place Then you take your pile of models and say, "How can I get the most variety of cool stuff on the table" and you start shoving it in different shells through different battleline or Hero requirements or restrictions, incentives and synergy. Whatever point cost a unit or model arrives at to fit in an archetype at this point is mostly arbitrary on a macro level, but still allows for some micro adjustments to be made, but your actual game balances comes from an adherence to defined objectives and scenarios and rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock type approach of macro balance.
  2. Yep, I agree. The idea of Marine or Guard equivalent is worth x amount of points is an antiquated way to balance a game system, and doesn't really work with so many different factions, abilities, and variables. It's more important to have an internally interesting army, with a variety of options and tools for specific situations. Then, imbalance across factions can be fought and adjusted on a meta level.
  3. I think trying to create internal army diversity by adjusting model points is almost always doomed to failure, especially in the Warhammer systems where there isn't enough nuance in the point cost scale. Everyone agrees Sequitors are better than Liberators right now, but if Sequitors become more expensive or Liberators too cheap, then the scale tips the other way. And it doesn't actually take much to tip the scales in favor of the cheaper model because number of bodies and total dice thrown start to matter much more than a "stronger" profile or having a marginal ability. GW would be better served by adding abilities to subpar units that give them niche roles on the battlefield. They should also play around with opportunity costs more, more heroes that give troops battleline in specific situations, or even go the other direction... design more heroes that are better when specific troop options are taken. Creating more interesting and cheaper Battalions would probably be an easy solution as well
  4. We need MOAR!! I've loved ever episode so far, and they help my work night fly by, so much so that I've started to listen to them over again. Can't wait for the next one John, you mentioned you were playing a casino in Washington State this month... what's the time and place?
  5. What does a FEC "monster mash" list look like?
  6. As I finish carpenter I have to say, that's a very nice looking, and apparently well built table. Odd question... any chance for a pic of the underside of the table?
  • Create New...