Vakarian

Yes! The gold armor, the skin, and the leather are all washed with Agrax Earthshade. The blue areas and the silver on the weapons are washed with Drakenhof Nightshade.

Another addition to the warband... and he promptly rewarded his paint job by triple-critting an FEC leader to win me tonight’s game! Meet Zadion Brightheart, the oldest and saltiest of the Stormtorn, but also a dead shot with a Hurricane Crossbow.

Maybe forumites are generally predisposed to prefer the older GW approach, and tend to be more dedicated to the game as it’s grown up over the past years (decades, for some us)? @Overread I truly hope that GW got and understood that message. But @Dead Scribe has a point that a lot of the vocal online community, at least, don’t seem to be so hot on the idea. I thought it would be better received on this forum, at least (and at least the disagreement here has been incredibly polite). I would never dare posing the suggestion on Dakka.

I disagree with this, fundamentally. I've offered CB/Infinity's success, as a fun game, as a counter to this. I really doubt that balancing underperforming units to be more effective would make the game less fun for anyone. Please note what I'm not saying: I'm not actually asking for new things to be toned down, necessarily (I'll consistently hold to the idea that the sky isn't usually falling with each new release). What I believe would make the game more fun for every type of player is if the generally less-desirable units were regularly tweaked with interesting updates. Further, Infinity has seen an explosion in its playerbase over the last several years as CB has committed to using this sort of data to improve their game. I suspect the latter, but there are enough comments here supporting the former that I'm genuinely unsure what the GW playerbase as a whole desires. If the community doesn't want balance, GW will definitely never have an incentive to provide it.

Yea, that's fair, I was as well. You bring up a good point. I'm not sure there's any guaranteed way to observe those sorts of effects without taking statistical samples and having a control group to compare the results to. That's not really going to be possible to do with tabletop games, unless you've got a very robust playtesting system, and I doubt any company (even GW) can really manage that level of playtesting. The best answer is that they really shouldn't change too many things about the core game at once (preferably only one). Then the results are at least in some way attributable to the general rule change. If changes are made to factions at the same time, then it probably isn't ever going to be able to be separated out. That said, the process doesn't need to be that scientific. Tracking data to see which factions aren't quite measuring up should be sufficient to indicate to GW what isn't worth taking. How they approach fixing that is up to them. Then, track the next 6 months' results. If the problem has gone away, something worked, and nothing else got broken. If the problem's still there, or things got worse... well, better wind the clock back or consider other changes. This doesn't need to be handled like rocket science; the most useful thing the data can provide is an indicator that something needs an update. I don't think, and would never advocate, that these sorts of data sets could point to the best, or even a specific, solution.

I think we’re actually in almost total agreement and to some extent talking past each other (or at least I was talking past you, so let me apologize for that). My statements in my previous post need to be read in the context of my whole argument in this thread; they may not quite make sense in a vacuum. My larger point is that “good” is available in tournament data, as shown by CB’s use of similar data to provide a game that is better balanced for both tournament and casual players. Better balance for one generally translates to better balance for the other. In large part, this isn’t focused on what’s considered the new, OP hotness—yes, good tournament players can usually identify that without needing a large pool of results. What data is actually useful for us finding underperforming units and determining that they need some sort of tweak. This has to be an iterative process—it isn’t necessarily going to be right the first time. There certainly isn’t enough information to allow for that. I don’t think sales data can provide any useful information for a game when sales are heavily influenced by pure hobbyists. That leaves tournament data as the only realistic, outside data available to GW.

Honestly, those questions aren’t answerable without making some very serious assumptions, and no amount of data is ever going to provide those answers. GW has to choose a direction and stick with it. They’ve indicated multiple times that they have—it’s not the tournament players, it’s the narrative and casual players. No data set available is actually going to provide the “best” answer for that group. In my previous career, we had a saying that really holds a lot of truth in any application: “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” GW can use what’s available to make the game better. If they wait for a perfect data set to answer the questions you posed, well, that’s never going to happen. They should use what they have available, with the understanding that while it’s less than perfect, it’s at least applicable in some manner.

Yea, I’ve read the thread, and I have training in statistics. I understand the problems limited data sets present. That’s why I’m advocating for GW to acquire more data—in fact, as much as possible. Even that may not be enough by statistical preferences—you’re probably right about that—but any set of data has its uses, even if the user has to be aware of its limitations and its margin of error. If GW games present a too-small set of data, then I’m amazed that CB has managed to glean good information from a set of data that’s probably 10% of what GW has available. The reality is the difference is like having a study on 300 vs. 3,000 people. Only 3,000 or more is truly reliable, and yet we’re often able to draw valuable conclusions even from the 300-person set, even if we have to be more careful doing so because there’s much more room for error.

Thank you! Liberator Gold undercoat spray does the lion’s share of the work.

Here’s a few quick shots of simple reposes. The first (the dude with mace and shield) has his arm angled differently. You can see how the shoulder pad has less contact because of the new angle. The second and third are the same model with great mace, the torso is just angled differently.

Some of the reactions do make it seem like my proposal might have been a bit much. 😆

I’m aware of the impact new players have on win rates—it’s a big part of why data analysis down to the unit level is important, and why tracking player success with a faction matters too. Different types of data are useful for different things. I’d be willing to bet that Stormcast have underperforming units and underperform as a faction regardless of player (i.e. once skill is accounted for in the stats). But my point here isn’t to say that SCE need a fix; it’s to say that GW could use more information in making their decisions about what to balance, and how.

I'm not sure they needed the insane level of granularity between different Warrior Chamber options, but they are flavorful and awesome! Makes me excited to see how the Sacrosanct Chamber will work (probably more expensive, but also awesome 😬). Vanguard will probably remain the most viable Stormcast band because of the Aetherwings and Gryphounds. But these guys at least "feel" right for Stormcast warriors! They'll be outmaneuvered early but with everyone being so tough they'll hang around to later turns really well.

This is why the 6-month update period GW has instituted is about the right point to make balance-based changes. More data will help that. One hopes GW are using the data currently available, but it would be nice to see a bit further than Honest Wargamer's stats and lots of internet comments. Even with a larger number of beginners playing Stormcast, for example, more data collection would show whether there's actually serious intra-faction balance issues with SCE. I would posit there are, but if GW collects more data on units chosen and performance of lists over the course of six months or so, per faction, they'll have a better idea of what's actually needed, and that really benefits everyone. I realize I may not have made this explicitly clear earlier, so I'll say it now: the data is at least as useful, if not more useful, to show what is underperforming and needs to be tweaked with a points drop or better rules. The "broken" stuff tends to show itself easily enough, although the stats will certainly show that too. The best little gem good stats should show are what units are regularly underwhelming.

CB’s stats don’t show this either, at least not at the surface. Yes, their tournament system is deep enough that they can track individual player standings and games against specific opponents and thereby assume skill levels, but the profile changes and balancing efforts are done more off of a combination of how often units are used by players, from my understanding.

This isn’t actually true - CB has updated their points formula at least once based off the data, and applied that change to both new and old profiles to make some older and rarely taken profiles more desirable. It also worked! Lots more people started using the old models after the update. But you’re right in the sense that they don’t balance with points very often, in part because they don’t need to with their system. They more often balance by altering what units can be taken in link teams. The useful point for GW there is that altering some rules or abilities may have more benefits than small points tweaks (not that points tweaks should never happen, though). Also, they don’t use the stats to decide who to rotate off production (not discontinue, the models will return to production later), they use sales numbers for that. GW has enough production capacity (or will whenever their new factory is finished) compared to CB that such an issue seems unlikely to ever be a GW problem. There’s definitely more non-tournament games of Infinity played as well, but there isn’t really any other place to mine this information. So using what is available is better than not using anything. If it’s true that TOs would just reject using a GW system that helped provide feedback for later balancing efforts, then, well, to some extent the community is getting what it deserves in a lack of balance.

I wasn't, no. The two games are different and scratch different itches, which is why I play both. My point was to provide an example of how a games company can use modern technology to get some really good information about the overall state of the game and health of different factions. I don't think GW will ever be CB, or that AoS will be Infinity (nor do I want them to be). But if GW is interested in increasing game balance (anecdotally, and by inference from actions like the 6-month FAQ and points updates, they seem to be), then this sort of analytical tool would be very helpful in pointing out the actual problems.

I think Sagittarii means the points increases on the Sequitors, Evocators, and Ballistas. Haven't seen that admitted to myself, though it would be nice if true.

I've been able to achieve some variety in pose just by gluing the weapon arms and/or the torsos at different angles, but I strongly recommend you dry-fit pieces before committing because sometimes shoulder pauldrons won't fit once if you've altered the angle too radically. If you're confident in your modeling abilities, it isn't too hard to clip and switch weapons between different arms (swap a mace for a sword, or vice versa, so you have the pose of the other arms you aren't using).

I can't agree with this enough. More information (specifically, more detailed information about what units are and aren't taken in lists frequently) would be helpful to them in balanced intra-faction, which might be a bigger balance issue than balance inter-faction in AoS. The Honest Wargamer guys do an incredible job and I hope GW is incorporating their work (other posters have suggested GW does). It would benefit GW to expand on that to include their worldwide player base.

Indeed they aren't, and I'll keep happily playing both. But the amount of consternation flying around this forum about wildly imbalanced factions (I'm really not sure it's as bad as the initial reports are saying, I'm solidly in the "time well tell, the sky is in fact not falling" camp). But if GW really wants to try to improve their balance (up to them, what they're doing seems to be working just fine for them as a company), and it seems lots of us hope they will continue to, then CB's method provides some useful lessons.

Like Spears said, CB’s tracking goes right down to the units people select in the army builder they provide online for free. So they even have an idea of how popular specific units and builds are. That means they have some idea of what units need to be tweaked in addition to how specific factions are performing. As for this weekend’s results—that’s why this should be done on a 6-month timescale and not faster. OBR Petrifex may still be OP. DoT may not be as OP as some are claiming, especially since the complaints seem to have (in some large part) come from OBR players. GW is right to tackle the FAQs and points changes over a period of time in which they can see how things even out. It would be even more helpful if they had *all* the information available and not just that which gets repeated the loudest in the after-event discussion on the internet.

I agree that GW has an incentive to commit to powercreep to sell new models. I just don’t believe they actually succeed at that achieving that powercreep consistently in practice, and I don’t think the incentive is as great as we make it out to be here. There are two logical options, then: First option—if GW wants to sell models with ever-better rules, then why the lackluster StD release? Why were so many Idoneth units just not great? Why is new Sylvaneth just “meh”? Why were KO’s and Mawtribes’ release just “good” rather than crazy? It’s not like DoT, Orruks, or Cities have any new models they need to sell. 40K backs me up on this point, too: how great are the new Sisters? GW is either comically inept at writing powercreep, or: Second option—they really do just care more about the models and the hobby/narrative crowd (your A and B groups) than they do about the competitive side. I genuinely believe this is the case, and that GW “wants” balance in the sense that they don’t want people to dislike their game, but they aren’t really good at it, and don’t have a great sense of how to get there (or maybe they think they do, and it just isn’t working). My main point in posting CB’s method is to say this: balance is better for everyone. Narrative games are more fun when the forces at play at least have a snowball’s chance of winning. Since GW is more committed to this sort of player, I don’t expect CB-level balance. But, they could benefit the narrative game by looking at a broader pool of tournament data to at least have some idea of how unbalanced some factions in AoS are.

I generally have a hard time believing that tournament players “chasing the meta” actually make GW all that much money. The 40K guys I know buy the hotness off of eBay as often as they buy it from GW (a lot of them really don’t like to paint). And GW has a spotty record, at best, of making rules so good for purely new factions that they could be logically inferred as done to drive sales. @Mutton, I do agree that they (GW) listen to the tournament results they know about, and your point that Infinity is different is well-taken. That said: 1. Infinity does balance some “unique” rules that one or only a few factions have, and those rules rarely (if at all) skew individual faction performance. 2. Infinity has a complex set of interactions in-faction, even with the restricted design space that you noted, and balancing the effects of the many and varied rules within a faction takes a good amount of work. Yes, CB and GW have different philosophies, and so to some extent this isn’t going to change, but *if* they want to try to increase player satisfaction, there’s probably some lessons they could learn from CB’s approach. Agreed, AoS is certainly harder to balance. It has a lot more going on. The player base also has generally lower expectations of the game and of GW. But, a lot of us on here seem to care, and I’m sure GW cares at least to the point that they don’t want new players (and by that, I mean new and potential return customers) to drop the game and hobby out of frustration with serious imbalance. AoS will never be Infinity, and I don’t want it to be, but GW might be able to learn a thing or two from CB, if they’re willing to look at the processes CB uses.

I don’t honestly expect GW to implement a system like this, but I did want to at least show that it can be done. AoS balance doesn’t need to be what Infinity’s is, and GW isn’t CB. But it seems to be a chronic complaint that GW isn’t actually aware of imbalances, and the only way to fix that issue objectively is to track faction metrics in competitions. There are other, subjective methods (reviewers’ comments, etc.), but those don’t have the same weight as real-world data.