NinthMusketeer

2016 definitively showed that yes, community-friendly moves do have a positive impact on the business for GW. Though broadly speaking we already knew that because if fostering communities wasn't good for business companies wouldn't do it. But they do, a lot. They sink untold amounts of money into it. Because it works.

Oh this isn't the end of free warscrolls--the warscrolls are and will remain free online. GW just chose to stop being the source that provides them.

I think StD's in the future will keep their basic 4+ for chaos armor, units with shields will have a 3+ save since that is the direction shields are going in for 3rd edition (about time), and heroes will have their 3+ by default for being heroes. As for offensive stats tbh just increasing the rend of everything by 1 would go the majority of the way to fixing things. TBF to the SCE chariot, it is 3 attacks per gryph-charger, and the stat line is the same they always had on palladors except they lost MWs on 6s to hit (good riddance). But as compared to Varanguard... well the Varanguard weapon options are a mess. Three choices of which one is obviously superior coupled with impotent attacks on mounts that look like they should fight at least as well as a low-grade hero on their own.

Eh, a SCE chariot should be more badass than an StD one. Blessed by the gods they may be (well, one of the riders) but an StD chariot is still something constructed and crewed by mortals. The SCE chariot is not only constructed in divine forges, but the individuals riding it are the elites of an already elite order of warrior-immortals. A thunderstrike SCE is as much to a basic Chaos Warrior as said warrior is to a Marauder. But that leads back to my first sentence. It is OK for the SCE version to be more badass, but the StD version isn't even any amount of badass to start with and that's the problem across the army. Hell without the extra wound warriors would be worth less than marauders, and even that is only because marauders have a ludicrously overpowered charge ability rather than decent stats.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/09/10/metawatch-which-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-armies-contested-the-top-tables-at-the-warhammer-open/ A quite honest and reasonably useful article from metawatch, specifically going into several top lists and what makes them work.

This demonstrates the lack of comprehension I am speaking of. The idea that customers are buying the product because they see it as having a legitimate value worth the expense does not even occur. Think about that. The above reasoning baseline assumes that no one would actually purchase GW product unless manipulated into doing so. The perception of reality is so distorted that the very idea that people have different subjective values of products isn't even considered.

Not a strong mentality of self-balancing I take it 😥

I am seeing a number of posts with high levels of positivity, violating the end-user license agreement of digital Warhammer(tm) discussion. Please edit such posts to have a ratio of at least 1:5 in regards to positive and negative sentiment or the community will be forced to bomb the thread with irrational toxicity to compensate for an excessive display of non-pessimism.

Planning for it to last through the rest of the year and still be available for Christmas does seem like a good strategy.

Which gets into the other problem with this line of discussion--the context has changed dramatically because the spell has been nerfed. It's explaining out the dynamics of reasoning for rules that no longer exist.

Can't read a word of it, but it sure looks nice! The passion you have shines through and it is very inspiring for me to see fans doing work like this. Makes me feel like the community has more substance than wallowing in the existential decay of modern internet discussions.

Hm, I did not communicate my concept adequately. But rather than write out a flow chart for an endless spell none of us are using, I would prefer to concede the point. Certainly you have explained yours more effectively.

That's the odds of getting both off. Your math is entirely accurate, but there's more to it. If I fail the casting roll with cogs, I would have failed the intended spell. It doesn't matter which option I picked, I am not getting the intended spell off. That is key here. The second roll is an automatic failure because it is not made, there is no option where I fail cogs first then my intended spell goes off. Either way I get one 2d6 roll to beat the casting value of my intended spell. Think of it this way; by casting cogs first, what do I lose?

As vocal as I was before about it being OP, I play neither of those armies and I'd say it's UP now. Not worthless, but in need of a points drop.

Gambler's fallacy. The % chance of getting the intended spell off won't have changed. Unless the opponent used their last unbind to try to stop cogs, in which case the odds just went up. It's not totally unusable now, just too many points. Which isn't that big a deal, knock it down to 25-30 pts and it'll be fine.

On a quick count I saw 16 Dominion sold on ebay in the past week prices generally in the $130-160 range, 27 Octarius in the $160-170 range. Obviously there are a lot of dissimilar traits between the two but if Dominion was really doing bad I'd expect a much, much bigger margin between them. Dominion also has self competition from the starters offering the same minis, and more importantly both of the armies in Dominion are getting new battletomes imminently. When those his sales of the box set are going to get a pretty big surge. Ultimately I still feel we just don't have the evidence to call out Dominion as a poor seller. It feels like GW actually prepared with enough stock ahead of time (like customers have been asking) and black knights (unwilling to consider that maybe GW adequately addressed a problem) have concluded that because GW can't have actually solved the problem the only logical answer is that they still understocked on Dominion as well but must have fantastically undersold. Internet logic. *shrug*

It is self evident to us. The point of the guide is to advise people to whom it may very well not be. Sure if they are coming over from 40k they will definitely understand that. But while a lot of us have been dealing with GW so long that understanding how imbalance fits into the picture is second nature, it is unfair to assume everyone reading the guide will get that. A new player could very much read the above post, follow all the advice, show up with a list resembling the example and get absolutely destroyed because there is a gap in the information. If I can stop that from happening to even one person then posting here will have been worth it.

It isn't about naming what is OP at the time of writing the article--that changes from year to year if not faster! It is about giving people general advice on determining what is strong, what isn't, and especially how to see if an option is more hype than actual effectiveness. As a sidenote I do feel your Gotrek example shows a gap in the guide; taking choice away from the opponent. It sounds like you were treating Gotrek as a means to kill the Gargants, which was a mistake. In that game Gotrek was a bubble of 'if you enter this zone you die' and your opponent didn't have a choice but to avoid him. That kind of a tool for control over the opponent's tactics is powerful. As a side-sidenote there's a reason I mentioned how bad players with good lists don't win, getting Gotrek killed by 20 marauders or Morathi tanked by a GUO is something that really needs mistakes to be made by the controlling player. But to reiterate (more for other readers than you specifically) you have good advice above and my criticisms are not intended to undermine that.

EDIT: Please not this was a response to an earlier version of the original post. I think your list highlights the missing element and the single most important one to doing well in competitive Warhammer; running overpowered stuff. As you hint at in your last paragraph, even fantastic players cannot achieve consistent results with bad armies. Worth noting that crappy players with great armies can't either; one needs both. The entire process you detailed has a lot of thought and good advice, but it completely falls apart in the face of imbalance. Going with just the 'three threats' you have in the list; plenty of top tier-tournament armies will delete all of them with ease, not be threatened by them in the first place, or both. And I want to emphasize: your concepts are not bad. But the very core of succeeding at competitive Warhammer is exploiting imbalances to utilize the very strongest options. Everything else, everything, needs to grow out from that pillar. If it doesn't than the best that can be done is sporadic wins thanks to the whims of fate*. *Yes, this is a Tzeentch reference. You all know why.

Balance and good rules affect far more than the competitive scene. I cannot count the number of people I've met who explicitly left Warhammer because of bad experiences with balance and/or rules, and the most common reason I hear for people coming back is 'they fixed X' or 'they improved the rules for playing with Y'. If anything the competitive scene is the most likely to thrive on imbalance because exploiting it is the heart and soul of competitive Warhammer!

In response to people saying that a low-cast army doesn't want to use it's spells on cogs: as explained previously, there is no loss. If the wizards tries to cast cogs and either fails or is unbound then whatever other spell they tried to cast would have been too so there is no penalty. If it does go off, they immediately get another spell and can cast whatever they originally intended. Plus the cogs are still there; a low-casting army is perfectly happy letting them be and forcing the enemy to burn unbinds to get rid of them. The idea that there is a downside to casting cogs is only relevant if the alternative was a casting value of 5 or lower (in which case that can be done instead; one is not forced to cast cogs if it is not tactically ideal). In response to limiting mobility; it can be put 6" in front then has 2" on its base, and the wizard needs to only be within rather than wholly within. So that is 14"+wizard's base of forward movement possible. Getting multiple wizards in range will reduce that obviously but it is not heavily restrictive. It can also be unbound in the enemy's turn and recast should significant repositioning be required. And as explained above, there is no downside to casting it. In response to rule of 1 limiting multiple casts; arcane bolt, mystic shield, warscroll spell, allegiance spell, realm spell. Two wizards are already rocking 7 different spell options, three wizards 9. It is a downside, but not a significant one. LRL in particular don't care because all the vanari want to cast their warscroll spell anyways and it can be cast multiple times a phase. Instead of choosing between casting their allegiance spell OR buffing sunmetal they do both. And if the rule of 1 on spells is of particular concern an enhancement can be spent to give EVERY wizard in the army another one. But really GW put the debate to bed themselves. They would not have acted on cogs unless they were getting a lot of feedback that they were too strong. Now it's underpowered XD

This, so much this. And well said. I am certainly very happy to see this response from GW. Yes there are ways they could improve but that is also the point: this shows improvement. Credit where credit is due, thanks GW.

Here is a practical experiment anyone can try: At the start of a game, before sides or deployment are chosen, give the opponent a free cogs. Explain to them that it is for an experiment and they are encouraged to make the most of it. At 45 points cogs is less than 2.5% of a 2k game. Making an opponent 2.5% stronger isn't even noticable in a single game behind the natural swings of randomized dice rolls. Do that a few times then reflect back; did the cogs make a difference? Did they make a 2.5% difference? If they are indeed balanced the difference should be rather subtle.

A lot of people talking about how something could be done to improve the situation, a lot of people making suggestions of how it could be done. But a notable lack of people making efforts to actually do it. And I'm not judging anyone for that, I just think it says a lot about what the task entails for implementing even the most simple of corrections.

Ah, that's not what I said so I suppose the misinterpretation makes sense in that regard.