PDA

View Full Version : Reducing top tier advantages



Parsival
22-01-2010, 07:26
Would a 1999 point limit reduce the advantage of top tier armies like DoC, VC and possibly DE? Would the loss of Lord choices and high level magic, as well as the reduction of slots for characters, specials and rares, have a more than proportional effect on these armies, as compared to their lower tier foes?
It seems to me that it would, and could be used as a balancing tactic.

Razakel
22-01-2010, 07:32
Maybe? But I'd rather have the Lord choices be balanced instead of requiring an army to play a high point game without them.

decker_cky
22-01-2010, 07:34
I don't think so. Two of the big 3 are fear causing armies. Lowering the leadership of armies facing them isn't too huge, even if it cuts out the bloodthirsters and vampire lords. VC can still load up a lot of the same tricks with a good magic phase too.

ChaosVC
22-01-2010, 07:47
It just means no lords games and less special and rare...but not for high elves!

Lordsaradain
22-01-2010, 07:54
Would a 1999 point limit reduce the advantage of top tier armies like DoC, VC and possibly DE? Would the loss of Lord choices and high level magic, as well as the reduction of slots for characters, specials and rares, have a more than proportional effect on these armies, as compared to their lower tier foes?
It seems to me that it would, and could be used as a balancing tactic.

Yes such an approach could work, but this change alone will not on it's own balance the game, so it would have to be coupled with some other changes.

marv335
22-01-2010, 07:57
Looking at it, it'd probably cause more harm than good.

ChaosVC
22-01-2010, 08:00
If you balance the fight, you balance the game. But I think everyone wants to win sooooooooooooooooooooo~poopy!

Isabel
22-01-2010, 08:16
DoC can perform just as well with only heros. Theirs are a bargain. I think Lizardmen would shine in this points range, being able to take several stegs while opponents have less options for handling them. In my opinion, it doesnt balance it at all.

Dag
22-01-2010, 08:35
it makes VC a good army to fight, its a balanced army with 1999.

shredshredxx
22-01-2010, 09:04
Looking at it, it'd probably cause more harm than good.

yep.

taking away someone else's toys seems like a pretty immature way to try and deal with something, as opposed to just adapting in a rational and sportsmanly manner.

unless we're talking about ***************** flamers.

edit: sorry if that sounded seriously bitter. for some reason i was under the impression you meant limiting your opponent to 1999 while you still got the full 2000 points to play with.

Parsival
22-01-2010, 09:14
I'm not claiming that the game suddenly becomes balanced below 2000 points. But I wonder: Does it become more so?
Would players, in general, prefer to play 1999 or 2000 point games against DoC, VC or DE? I realise that losing the leadership of a Lord will be painful, but they will be facing less terror causers - particuarly, quite a few less options for the monstrous flying mounts of enemy Lords.
It sounds like some people think VCs lose a fair few of their advantages.

Radium
22-01-2010, 11:59
The problem with this kind of 'fixes' is that you create a new standard for amazing lists. I can see Lizardmen becoming a problem with lots of stegadons for example. It doesn't fix the overall problem with balance, it only helps with certain armies.

Condottiere
22-01-2010, 12:06
I would prefer that the lists were written targeted at 1500, 2500 and 3500.

alfika
22-01-2010, 12:17
It would work for a bit if only te VC, Doc and DE armies and those restictions and let the others have either 2000 or the standard 2250 points.

If all have 1999 DoC and DE will just continue to rock, VC a bit less but still strong

Lord Malorne
22-01-2010, 12:20
Playing games to a certain points bracket is not the way to balance them.

Condottiere
22-01-2010, 12:23
It seems easier to give designers targets then let them attempt to scale the rules from 1000 to 10000, since that requires comprehensive testing and critique, something GW seems to have taken an aversion to.

theunwantedbeing
22-01-2010, 12:31
1999 does work quite well for stopping the current lot of "top tier" lists.
The issue is that while you stop the ones that currently exist, you just open the way for a new set of top tier lists.

There will always be some top tier lists amongst a handful of armies.

However, what it does acheive is to swing armies away from min core, max character/rare armies as the ones that do that will generally free up something daft like 800points or more for other things, with probably only a special choice and core to fill it with.
So troop based lists become far more prevailant.

It's certainly something I would recommend most "top tier" players do as it really shows you how useful your core troops can be.

Sifal
22-01-2010, 13:28
I've seen lots of GT lists where DoC and dark elf players have chosen not to take lords becasue they don't need them. VC become drastically less good without a lord because the general is much easier to kill, the power dice pool halves or more and most potent bloodline/magic item combos become untenable. If a DoC power list doesn't have a greater daemon then it is heralds of nurgle and slaanesh + flamers or blue scribes + kairos (who i think is a hero?)

The SkaerKrow
22-01-2010, 15:40
Short of those using a Black Dragon, Dark Elf power builds aren't really inhibited by losing their Lord choice. While you are denying them a second Hydra, you're doing nothing to prevent Deathstar units from hitting the table.

The best way for tournament organizers to address "top tier" army advantages is to create composition systems which encourage players to bring more balanced lists. The best way for casual players to address them is to simply be selective with who you play, or actually communicate with your opponents so that you can both understand what kind of game that you're looking to play.

honorandglory
22-01-2010, 19:05
A 1999 point DOC army can bring 17 powerdice 11 Dispell dice and 3 spellbreakers to the table. Add that to the 6 flamers and the Sundering banner and every other list will suffer. Admitted that it will only get worse at higher points value.

Skyros
22-01-2010, 19:56
I'm not sure that really helps. Saying 'no lords' is an effective drop in leadership for most races. If you're fighting fear causing armies, you want as high a leadership as possible. But if you're playing an ItP army, you don't really care what your leadership is.

Sygerrik
23-01-2010, 00:43
Daemons and VC do better at <2000 points, not worse, because they still have access to nasty characters and the opponent lacks some of the means to deal with them.

I didn't think so either, but my VC (which tend to lose a lot in 2250, me not being the best VC general alive) eat other armies alive in 1850. When I can take three level 2s without compromising my ability to fight, the enemy has to go super magic heavy just to stop me from raising my army to enormous levels, and that leaves them vulnerable to big blocks of Grave Guard.

Brother Edwin
23-01-2010, 02:57
Daemons and VC do better at <2000 points, not worse, because they still have access to nasty characters and the opponent lacks some of the means to deal with them.





The VC main source of unstopable magic is its lord. Try making a good 1,500pt vc army.

Demons lose the thirster/lord of change and a unit of flamers. Meaning a much better fighting chance.

Dark elves lose a hydra.

Lizardmen however can still fit in three EOTG unfortnatly. However tbh Id rather face that than the above at 2,000pts.

Vermin-thing
23-01-2010, 03:56
VC are stil hard at 1500+.

If you take a supper combat character, and two more necromancers on CCs it gets really nasty. They can still pump out a very good number of new models each turn, and on top of that the general is hard to kill, as it is as good or better than most armies lords.

Remember all you have to do is put down MSU skeletons and ghouls, and never pay for zombies, unless you want a table quarter, but at the same time you can just summon them...

At 1000< VC are meh, but still powerful.

honorandglory
23-01-2010, 04:16
Deamons don't NEED a Greater Deamon to be nasty. They excel at smaller games. I will put my post again.


A 1999 point DOC army can bring 17 powerdice 11 Dispell dice and 3 spellbreakers to the table. Add that to the 6 flamers and the Sundering banner and every other list will suffer. Admitted that it will only get worse at higher points value.

All of this is without a Greater Deamon. Three Heralds and three units of 30 Horrors and one unit of Flamers.

Vermin-thing
23-01-2010, 05:49
Luckily the Beastmen will roll that army in less than a month!

lordmoon
23-01-2010, 06:11
why limit folks on what they can bring? If you don't want them to win, don't let them play.

Condottiere
23-01-2010, 08:19
It's not that you don't want them to win, just not make it that victory easy for them.

UberBeast
23-01-2010, 15:45
I think a more fruitful line of discussion would be in increasing the bottom tier disadvantages.

Stronginthearm
23-01-2010, 17:12
I think a more fruitful line of discussion would be in increasing the bottom tier disadvantages.

you mean "reducing" right?

I dont think just pulling lords is the answer, besides being not much fun(who doesnt like those floating lizards on their stone toilets?) if would probably be innefective, as already pointed out the Daemons and DE are still really nasty and VC isnt hurt very much except for the survival rate of the lord

maze ironheart
23-01-2010, 17:39
I would rather fight them at their best that way they can't say oh you beat me cause you had the advantage of me not haveing my lord choice.

sulla
23-01-2010, 23:37
If you want to reduce the power of the 'top tier' you need to;
1) reduce the power of death stars to neuter the power of VC regen banner blocks and the DE black guard/shades ASF + assassin block and the big plaguebearer block.
2) reduce the power of big flying rank breakers.

Easiest way to do that is to make objectives a bigger part of the game. Say 4-6 objectives per game worth 250VPs each that can only be held/captured by core infantry and daemon and DE armies have to be completely redesigned. VC have to use their regen banner and characters in the more vulnerable core instead of cav or grave guard. GDs, dragons elites are still killers but can't capture stuff, meaning their is less imperative to invest in them and more value investing in core infantry.After all, those killer units cost as much as 2-4 core infantry units and can't be in enough places to stop them all.

Of course magic has to be sorted out to reduce the power of single dice casting (a major power of DoC, VC and WoC) to bring those powerful casting armies back to the pack but it would be good to try and fix other issues with the magic phase at the same time.

Removing lord level chartacters wouldn't depower daemons or DE in the least because both have access to hero level characters that are as powerful as other armies lords anyway, e.g. Heralds of khorne and assassins. In the case of DE, removing the lord from the list just lets you make a straight swap for 2+ assassins depending on how expensive the lord was and what he was mounted on.

Condottiere
23-01-2010, 23:43
I've no objection to the introduction of objectives, but they should suit the Medieval nature of the setting.

enygma7
23-01-2010, 23:51
I'll be attending a 1999pt tourni in a few months using my skaven. I'm mostly relieved as VC will be downpowered without a lord and I'm glad I won't be facing a greater daemon or star dragon. Plus, with the restriction on rare choices some of the nastier unit spamming will be stopped (max one unit of flamers, DE have to choose between hydra or bolt throwers). However, I'm not fooled into thinking that daemons and DE won't still be amongst the most powerful armies out there and the loss of a lord choice is painful to my own army too - I rely on the LD as do many other lower tier armies.

Still, all in all I think the points limit should produce a much nicer environment as it reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the most extreme cheese. I'm also hoping it will make armies a little more balanced - the loss of a lord, rare and special choice frees up a lot of points from most people's armies which can only really be spent on more core.

theunwantedbeing
24-01-2010, 00:00
Cut the board into 1ft squares that offer 100vp each, cappturable in the same way as table quarters are. Requiring 5+ models to capture them.

Now a 6ft x 4ft board has 2400vp extra available, rather than only 400vp (of which only really 300 is actually accessable as the enemy deathstar is going to be sitting in one of them denying it from you).

Problem solved, sortof anyway.

Condottiere
24-01-2010, 00:05
That would be a counter insurgency scenario.

outbreak
24-01-2010, 23:55
1999 also hurts some armies heap. Night gobbo hordes get horrible leadership, tomb kings can't take core chariots

Maoriboy007
25-01-2010, 00:06
There is a huge diffence between a VC with a lord to one without it. Going from a T 5 3 W to a T4 2 W character with an "I win" button tattoed on his forehead is huge.
Losing a combined 100 points to make him effective and/or protected makes all the difference as well.
Generally, <2000 points is when I'll actually grit my teeth and play a bunker general.
But, yes this is an ok way to limit the power of the army. Tournaments with PD restrictions seem to be pretty good at de-powering VC.

lordmoon
25-01-2010, 04:31
and what gives anyone the right to de-power someones else's army.

Condottiere
25-01-2010, 06:57
No one can do so unilaterally, such a process requires mutual agreement; but that also requires the acceptance that there is an imbalance that needs to be rectified.

AFnord
25-01-2010, 08:00
Only VC really suffers from this, and it's likely that the balance suddenly swings over to the side of underpowered. VC as an army does not fare very well in games <2000, and it's probably one of the weaker armies. It's with the inclusion of their lords that they become such a power house.
DoC has some very powerful units, and they really don't need their lords to be powerful.
DE also have some amazing units, and while you won't see any dual hydra builds in 1999 point games, it's still an army that has the potential to be very powerful.

Scallat
25-01-2010, 21:13
It's certainly something I would recommend most "top tier" players do as it really shows you how useful your core troops can be.

Camparatively less useful than your lords?