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

Lemon Knuckles

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

204 Celestant-Prime

About Lemon Knuckles

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

416 profile views
  1. @Honk did you just come back from vacation or something? You are all over the place suddenly.
  2. Balance means different things to different people. For some it means something close to how fun or interactive the game feels. For others, it means something like how comparable apples are to oranges. For others, it means something like how diverse things are. For still others, it means something closer to how much variance there is between faction win-rates or top finishes at major tourneys. Just reading through this thread it's clear people are using it to point at different things. Out of curiosity, does GW actually use the term "balance" anywhere? I mean, their FAQs and point chances are done with no commentary that I've seen. Things just occasionally change... sometimes the changes seem really warranted and sometimes they seem a bit random. In LoL, for example, where they are constantly dealing with fine-tuning balance, and deal with the same issues of having to balance game elements that perform very differently at casual levels then they do at more "pro" levels, the game designers always provide the community with a pretty decent explanation about the reasons why the tweak the things they do.
  3. I agree with a lot of this, but most especially the 2nd part. People need to ask themselves if they truly think the game would be more "balanced" if instead of a few powerful and interesting artefacts seeing regular play there was a dozen similar and mediocre artefacts. All that would do is exacerbate the inherent imbalance between factions and other game elements. At the end of the day, for a system as fruity as AoS, there are really only two choices if you desire something like balance: 1) strip out as many of the different gameplay elements as possible to pare the system down to something that can be rightfully be balanced by the game designers (goodbye meaningful differences between factions, battletomes, warscrolls, etc.), or 2) increase the interest and possibilities of elements outside of the individual battletomes in order to increase meaningful options and meaningful choices and allow players to discover ways to create better balance for themselves. In this sense, I agree with @Vextolthat we should be asking for more interesting artefacts to be created, rather than for nerfing the few that are truly interesting.
  4. Those big Khorne dragons aren't exactly tearing up the tourney scene though, are they? I don't mean this as a snark at all, I mean it to draw attention to the larger issue. All of these discussions get quite problematic because 1) people mean different things when they talk about "balance", and 2) who exactly is the target audience that GW is trying to balance for?
  5. There's a lot of wisdom packed between these lines. Balance is a word that is used a lot but understood a little.
  6. The nature of variability is such that you always need to be a bit careful when drawing conclusions from limited samples. I think I'll develop this point in detail at some point in my blog, but for now I'll throw out a couple of relevant things. First, here's a quick view of just how much variability can skew results, and how much sample you actually need to start normalizing results. Here's distribution of D6 rolls across 36, 72, 100, 1200, and 6000 rolls. Second, there's a decent simulator HERE. It doesn't have total functionality, but it does reflect a good output that captures the variability fo dice and the fickleness of the dice gods. For example, here's the expected damage output of 15 Black Knights and Steeds on the charge buffed with an extra attack against a 4+ Save:
  7. New and improved Screaming Skull.... Just make sure to roar really loud when you toss him into the pile...
  8. I'm not quite as cynical as you, but there is value in the caveat nonetheless. 👌
  9. Since the WK is not an offensive threat in any way, why does the enemy even bother to engage with you? Unless you make the WK the general or something? Just seems weird? "Look, there's a heavily fortified WK hiding in that terrain waiting to bounce all of our attacks back at us. Let's rush him with a horde of no rend units!" Or do you just lob him like a grenade into hordes? Genuinely curious.
  10. I know you were making a different kind of point, and I know the limitations of math etc., but I'll throw this out here anyway because it ties into other things I'm working on. A 40 block of Skeletons actually has 33 "effective wounds" against no-rend attacks once you factor in saves and battelshock (meaning if you can hit a 40 skeleblob with 33 wounds before saves you will likely wipe the entire unit). If you can hit them with 25 wounds of rend 1 damage you will likely wipe them. VLOZD has 42 "effective wounds" against no-rend attacks, and 28 against rend 1. And that's not including any artefacts. Of course if your dice hate you, results may vary. And if you opponent doesn't try to bring overwhelming force to bear, and instead makes the mistake of trying to slowly chip away at your skeles, then the suckers will last forever.
  11. I think the design space opened up by these additions is interesting, but there's obviously room for tweaking and improving. One aspect that I think should be considered is exploring how to make the choice of what realm your army is from a bit more meaningful. Right now, the choice basically comes down to a choice between the top few artefacts. One answer is as many here are suggesting and try to create a more balanced list of artefacts. But another interesting possibility is to increase the opportunity cost of choosing a realm so that it is not simply determined by artefact choice. For example, make the realm Command Ability and perhaps a choice of a single realm spell from a smaller list of more balanced realm spells part of list creation rather than rolling the realmscape. That way, my choice of realm is not solely determined by my desire of a particular artefact; I now have to balance my desired combination of artefact, Command Ability and extra Spell that are all determined by my realm of origin. Would still have to work on the balancing of the actual options, but it would add more interest to realm selection during list building, and potential open up more space for innovative list builds.
  12. This is a fascinating case, and a puzzle to try and figure out. On their own, gunk currently values them as follows (as a unit of 10): 71 Pink Horrors of Tzeentch 140 200 -60 -30% 7. Very Overcosted 72 Blue Horrors of Tzeentch 71 100 -29 -29% 7. Very Overcosted 73 Brimstone Horrors of Tzeentch 61 70 -9 -13% 6. Overcosted Obviously they are not worth their points on their own, but trying to figure out the value of their splitting ability is a tough nut. Doing so well, I think, involves calculating the resultant units in the context of tempo. The splitting is a very anti-tempo play and an amazing control ability, and I'd argue that the relative value of the Presence of the resultant Blue and Brimstone horrors is higher than it would be if those same effective wounds were present up-front in the Pinks. Likewise, I'd argue that the value of the Pressure of the resultant units is lower than it would be if that effective output was present in the Pinks. It's a very interesting thing to think about. It's also kind of interesting that the proportional value of the Blue and Brimstone's Presence decreases as their number increases due to the potential increasing effects of Battleshock. This is the case for any horde unit, and one of the reasons that the max size discount is not actually a discount per se, but more an accurate reflection of relative decrease in the value of a horde unit's effective wounds. At some point I need to better tackle the math around this.
  13. @gronnelg, welcome! Glad you signed up. This is a great place full of friendly folks. I accept the criticism fully, and am aware. The abstract-ness was necessary for me to think through the idea. Can appreciate that it made reading it a chore. Kind of like listening to some guy muttering to himself in the corner. Hopefully as it continues to unfold it will get less and less abstract and more and more accessible. Kind of like building a house... a foundation is pretty boring and it's hard to visualize the house, but the more it's constructed, the more "interesting" and accessible it becomes. I hope!
  14. So, finally had a chance to rework the sheet to account for the tempo difference between melee and missle weapon profiles, and a few tweaks to the way range modifies pressure. The results are, well, interesting and shows the water-balloon effect in all its majesty. Seemed to fix the issues with range valuations noted quite nicely, but it did introduce some downstream effects. Problematic units that gunk seemed to identify correctly remain problematic, but a bit less variance than before: Girmghast Reapers, Morrsarr Guard, Witch Elves, Dire Wolves, Evocators, Sequitors, etc. Overcosted range units are now in-line with the exception of Kurnoth Hunters, and artillery was not broken in the process Arkanughts, Endrinriggers, Judicators, Arrowboys, etc. Some previously balanced units are now unexpectedly over/under costed VLoZD, Arkhan, Nagash, Skyfires, Lord of Change, etc. Some other big outliers are suddenly back inline Dragonlord, etc. Some other unexplained outliers from before remain outliers As always, if you can make sense of anything that seems off, and patterns therein, feedback appreciated. Updated Output:
  • Create New...