Greybeard86

Didn't mean to snip to aggravate, just took your last sentence. Either way, no hard feelings from me...it won't go in the book 🙄

A man/woman of taste I do not love most sylvaneth sculpts, tbh. I was thrilled when they released Skaeth's wild hunt, since they took the direction I had always preferred: satyr / centaur. I loved Orion, to the point that I recently bought the "classic" metal one (the 2nd, which IMO is the superior one). An army of "hybrids" like Orion would be an insta buy from me. And them, changing gears completely, I do love my dawi. I have some of the old classic metal sculpts to paint after my current project, can't wait.

Well, I think our positions are clear. Just wanted to support what the other poster said, which I do not think is invalidated by anything you are saying.

* grumbling * I do like fire dwarves, but I am not sure they are enough to make a faction (super low unit variety); slayers were fine as a colorful addition to dawi armies. The steampunk isn't for me. That said, give it a couple hundred years and it might grow on me. In any case, please do give us some more "classic" dawi action.

I think this is getting to "meta" for me, as a discussion. Some factions have rules that make them stand out from the crowd, those factions are more prevalent in LVO. That's the extent of the comment you cited and I think it is quite clearly true (we even linked the LVO lists).

That's true, TTS is a different world. The point stands, meta armies become more prevalent. Just because we don't see some of the TTS horrors in true table top, it does not mean that the following isn't true.

Where the heck is the white dwarf anyway? Few armies as iconic as the proud dawi, but they've been replaced with clowns and "greedy" slayers... grrrrr This coming spring, Orion will be returining (tm); except that it will be called Ouryionn or Avatar of Kurnoth.

I think so, I do think that GW keeps this in mind when making balancing decisions. Very likely, because interest translate to sales. I'd prefer sales to be driven by new models providing variety (not a new meta!), and people deciding to expand their collections. In that way, no one's collection feels "dated" or "not playable". But I do understand that it is hard to do so, and to keep producing new miniatures, and cheaper to "recycle" old ones via a changing meta. Anyway, I think I got off my chest my bit over the course of the thread.

Noooo! Gimme Kurnoth back (Orion!), rebinding sylvaneth and wanderers while adding some more centaur and satyr-like creatures like the wonderful underworlds warband (Skaeth's Wild Hunt). Or finally bring back together the old dawi alliance; fyreslayers is a tourney army but barely collected. They do not have enough for an army, they are just slayers... A man can dream!

In my case, what was frustrating reading the article is that the current imbalances were acknowledged by Warcom lad and guest: For example: But there wasn't a single word on whether they find the current imbalance acceptable, or whether they are onboard with the whole concept of "metas". In fact, the whole "meta watch" series reads like a company embracing that side of the hobby. But not just the "competitive element", rather, the "meta" side of it. And for a lot of us, the whole concept of "metas" in a miniature game is bad, for reasons already explained to death in this thread. So, to sum it up, burn the meta, support properly competitive play (good interesting rules, lateral upgrades, use the data from competitive to balance better the game, etc.).

Ah cool, thanks! I'll check that up. Might give me inspiration for my Orion, haven't started painting it yet

Yep! I guess the argument was about the "dominant" reason for what we see. Some thing it is (bad) luck, others that it is actually a concerted effort to have the "spotlight" on certain armies and units at a time. Then there was an initial discussion on whether the "meta" is that strong anyway, in the sense of whether it matters that much for gameplay. My stance: Meta shifts are by design and balance affects everyone, not only tournament players. There are ways to weather the storm (agreeing on lists with people beforehand, house rules) but I wish we didn't have to resort to that. Of course, this is one side of the hobby, as we know, and currently I derive most of my pleasure from painting and reading.

Fingers crossed, then. I'll keep painting models while I day dream about it I landed the 2nd metal rendition of Orion and I bought Skaeth's band; hopefully some day they expand on this bit, it was such an iconic figure.

Nice compilation! I want to ask, are there any novels dealing with Kurnous / Kurnoth and the fate of Orion? Also, related, is there any "legal" way to bring Orion to the table in pitched battles? Many thanks in advance!

I have participated very actively in this thread and I haven’t seen anyone saying that balance is getting worse. That rules drive what is being played is the easiest thing to prove, as I already listed for you the participation by army in LVOs of the last for years; meta armies, as expected, tend to make a relatively larger fraction of what is being brought to the tournament. Then there is the statement that the strategy is simply to release OP units, but is not what we have been discussing here. The hypothesis I put forward is that GW creates a state of changing metas instead of converging towards ever greater balance, and that this is true both within armies (internal balance) and across armies. This also involves revisiting old factions, or internal imbalance within new releases. In support of this hypothesis I have given you examples from 40k (I get you might not like that), an actual stamens by GW on why they nerfed petrifex elite, and others have discussed specific examples of obviously op war scrolls and rules that were released to them be replaced by some other hotness. I felt a little lit review of points was needed to keep readers up to date, given the last comment.

LVO 2017 https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/7221-las-vegas-open-2017-results-lists/ LVO 2018 https://aosshorts.com/las-vegas-open-top-10-age-sigmar-lists/ LVO 2019 https://aosshorts.com/lvo-2019-results-top-lists/ LVO2020 https://aosshorts.com/lvo-2020-lists/

That is it. They do make a big show of changes in rules that will allow you to play either a new set of models, or revisit and old set that is now more viable than ever. It is all over warcom, I don't think I need to quote any more examples (I already out up the petrifex elite example). It is pretty rare to have ex GW with such information be willing to talk about it, but there is the famous example of the eldar titans (you can google it); essentially the model needed to be pushed sales wise and that's the request that came to the rule makers. I don't think anyone is arguing that every single rule change is a concerted effort to sell a specific model. All I am saying is that, generally speaking, they take an approach consisting in changing the "spotlight" aka "meta shifts". Armies and units take turns in being "better than the rest", and somehow we always have a strong meta. AoS has a shorter history and, let's be frank, balancing was not a part of the earlier years. So that limits the range of examples we can use. Maybe we can open the conversation. If this was deliverate, one thing I would look for are examples of books in which units have been nerfed / buffed to relevance in an obvious manner. Taking something extremely good and making it mediocre, then taking something mediocre and making it very good. If this is through point costs or warscrolls, and not some unforseen rule change, then we may conclude that it was a deliverate effort to change internal balance. If the nerf / buff was "too big", then we know that the ultimate goal was not to equalize options but to keep things "imbalanced". Can anyone provide obvious examples of the above for existing books, over the years?

Large corporations perform "business intelligence" analysis, either with internal teams / departments or hiring external help (or a combination). There is the proven belief that through data analysis and good planning one can make more money that "just not putting in the time and effort". I am sure many of us here can give you examples in our own professional life of such exercises for companies in many sectors (banks, phone companies, netflix, you name it). Honestly, thinking that GW doesn't do such things is what is "unfounded"; i'd be really weird. This is because you are looking for proof where you won't find any. Any rule change can be explained by "but they realized it was imbalanced and changed it", and any bad rule can be justified saying "they just didn't understand how good/bad it was". What I think we should be looking for is: what explanation is more appropriate given what we have seen regarding meta shifts and what we know regarding how large corporations work?

Thanks for the lengthy explanation and the specific examples. I still believe that there is more "variation" to be had from a model of a horse and a model of a spear than from the same spear lad with two different rulesets. Let me just add this: it is not like large armies do not have or cannot have the same variation of rules that small armies have for their same units. So, to sum it up, you can make a small army play in a variety of styles with "rules", but you can accomplish the same with a "large army" across two dimensions: i) rules, ii) models. So, all else the same, the large army has more variation in playstyle. I gather that we agree on the fact that you can more easily re-use models within armies than across armies, thus collecting two armies being more expensive than collecting a single army with more models.

Because surely they stand to win more from planning how they do it than being "lazy" about it. For example, oftentimes some of the more offensive outliers last for a while. But why did they decide to have an X months nerf and buff cycle? Why not X/2, or X/4? They have a wealth of data on sales and the full schedule of their releases in front of them. They have the capacity to analyze them, and to make informed decisions. Why on earth wouldn't they do that? Large companies routinely analyze these sort of things, I refuse to believe that GW isn't doing it. Well, we both agree that the "meta switches" benefit them, and that they do indeed happen. I have given you examples from another system (40k) in which they simply exchange abilities between units within armies (wulfen and thunderwolves). I have given you a direct quote from Warcom stating that they nerfed an ability "to open play from other options". Why don't we change this, why don't you tell me what sort of evidence you need to be convinced?

This is the part that I cannot understand. You acknowledge that they stand to win from "crappy balance" and "switching metas". However, somehow, for you: A) they "leave it up to chance and bad rule writing randomness". is more believable than: B) they make a concerted effort to switch metas. We are talking about a large corporation here, do you think they will not make a concerted effort to make more money and instead leave it up to chance?Don't you think there are game designers in the market competent enough to understand the IG consequences of their decisions? And that somehow the industry's dominant company wouldn't be able to find and hire such people? In my opinion, it takes a far greater leap of faith to accept A) than B). As others are saying here, balance in games is important not only for tournament play, but also more generally for all types of players. Switching metas affect us all and, given that this is not simply a video game with an army selection screen, it is not a positive thing for those with time, effort, and money invested in their collections.

I do not think it does. Post PE nerf, there was a big outflow of players abandoning the army (second hand OBR models more available, and it is not me saying it). The only doubt left is whether internal balance was affected. I am not savvy enough about the intricacies of it, so I’m going to borrow from the thread on OBR here in TGA and one of its most active tournament players posting in it. Don’t know, I find it hard to believe that internal balance was not affected across models. osted September 6 In my opinion, during the Petrifex era we had more options. I was one of the players of the Katakros-Crawlers list, but you can also use Nagash and riders, Katakros+Arkhan+Golithzars, or most of the models without Katakros. Now... or you´re playing some list like stalliarch or crematorians, or you´re going to focus on Katakros (like me) forgetting other options. Yes, we´re going to see (probably) more sub-factions, but less variety... In my opinion, ofc. EDIT: Claiming that somehow my opinions are absurd to the level of "GW caused Brexit" is bad faith. Let's sort it out among ourselves without getting mods in, I am convinced we can have a rational discussion without resorting to biting sarcasm.

This here is one of the reasons why balance matters, even if you are not playing in tournaments. Lots of people who are more familiar than me with the intricacies of competitive play have highlighted odd rules decisions, obviously imbalanced, that don’t get addressed for months. Let me give you an example, the rise and fall of petrifex: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/07/aos-no-bones-about-it-thoughts-on-the-petrifex-elite-nerf.html Controversial from the beginning, it proved to be very dominant. Then, one day, GW turned around and nerfed it. Now, as the article says, other sub factions look more appealing. Was that an accident? Is it some weird interaction they couldn’t account for? Seems obvious to me. But look, not all is lost! Some of the models in OBR saw point reductions, maybe those are the competitive option now! Right, but I need to prove that GW was consciously switching the meta around to get people to switch and buy their armies. If only I had a statement to that effect: The change to the Petrifex Elite is intended to encourage players to explore the other options that the Ossiarch Bonereapers battletome presents https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/20/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-july-2020-update-now-live/ So, they release something that is internally and externally imbalanced, people flock to it, then they nerf it to have people try other options. This seems exactly the story I have been telling.

What can I say, I’m glad to be of service. Maybe one day I ll be able to go back to discuss what I joined TGA for, decent lists to bring to the table my old metal + new sculpts thematic armies. But when I see comments like yours, I feel like answering. There are so many bad faith arguments in your post that is hard to pick one.

Perhaps the title is a bit too aggro inducing? I don't shy away from criticism, but still.