PDA

View Full Version : Power Creep Intentional?



Nicha11
17-02-2009, 10:10
Did GW set out to make VC's and Demons as strong as they are now so they could sell more models?

Ward.
17-02-2009, 10:12
Did GW set out to make VC's and Demons as strong as they are now so they could sell more models?

Their strength appears to be accidental, so I'm going to say no as GW are pretty good at avoiding things that might lead to market saturation.

Why do you ask?

long bow
17-02-2009, 10:13
or the people that make the rules dont look at the power levels of the other armys

Wapniak
17-02-2009, 10:20
I don't think it was GW intent. I would assume that those armies (and Dark Elves) were given a serious thought, they were long developed and written by people who did it right(?) / gave them the power level they thought the GAME should have. The other possibility is that the developers don't make armies composed of multiplies of the same unit, and the game balanced is blurred when we, players do that.
I think that some other armybooks are written by people who have different view on the game, and thus the difference.
In my opinion all armybooks shall be written and playtested by the same person. This would (hopefuly) make the armies balanced. This is solely my opinion.

Xelloss
17-02-2009, 10:28
In my opinion all armybooks shall be written and playtested by the same person. This would (hopefuly) make the armies balanced. This is solely my opinion.

I totally agree. I think you mean by the same persons. Globally, lots of thing seems witted, but lacks on coherency. Divergent opinions in the creation staff is good for creativity, but should not be to the detriment of the playability.

Condottiere
17-02-2009, 11:34
It's either a conspiracy or incompetency.

Eternus
17-02-2009, 11:41
Power creep is a myth - it's merely players having to get used to fighting a new or re-Vamped army that they haven't worked out how to handle yet. When they are writing a new book, the army will be playtested to destruction against every other army going - they don't just write the rules in isolation - so they will already know how it plays against all the other armies. The difference is that they have had much more time with the army.

Once an army has been out for a few months, even if no other armies have had the treatment since, the power creep comments disappear as people work out how to take the new or re-vamped army apart.

Chain
17-02-2009, 11:42
Well in a way I like the power shifting and in another i don't like the instability.

The changes could be seen as a changing world with shifting power the same way reallity has always been.
I doubt that's the intention though.

So if people want another kind of challenge then pick a stronger/weaker army.

I'm starting up on Dark Angels in 40k even thougth people say I should go Space marine Codex since it's stronger.

I don't want to play an army just because it's stronger, though that's a personal opinion

I started on DE a few months before the new army book dour to liking the look that much of the Reavers, I welcomed the upgrade, but it's gotten to far compared to others as can be seen by the many people flocking to it :/
I find it kinda a letdown when the army I play is one of the seemingly most popular in my area.

Then again more models sold= more new models so something nice always lurk around

Gorbad Ironclaw
17-02-2009, 11:49
Power creep is a myth
If you mean power creep as in every book is better than the books before it, then yes. If you mean that all books are equally good, then no. They clearly are not all equal. In some cases the difference can be quite wide, although in most cases it's not "that" bad.

As for GW intentionally creating powercreep. I don't see it. It just doesn't make much sense to me. While you might see it as an incentive to get people to get a new army, it would also mean that fewer people would be interested in anything but the newest army and ultimately it's going to scare of more people than it will bring in.

Voodoo Boyz
17-02-2009, 11:53
Power creep is a myth - it's merely players having to get used to fighting a new or re-Vamped army that they haven't worked out how to handle yet. When they are writing a new book, the army will be playtested to destruction against every other army going - they don't just write the rules in isolation - so they will already know how it plays against all the other armies. The difference is that they have had much more time with the army.

Once an army has been out for a few months, even if no other armies have had the treatment since, the power creep comments disappear as people work out how to take the new or re-vamped army apart.

This is demonstrably false.

Daemons and VC have been out for quite some time, almost a year or more in the VC's case and Daemons are almost a year old.

Since then Dark Elves, Warriors of Chaos, & Lizardmen have been released and none of them approach those two in terms of power level. Granted the Dark Elves are powerful, but they aren't on the same level as VC or Daemons, just close.

You don't really get lots of threads about how cheesy Warriors of Chaos or Lizardmen are, in fact there are far more threads whining about how underpowered the armies are.

"Not being able to deal with" VC & Daemons has very little to do with their "newness" and everything to do with the fact that they're bloody overpowered!

Eternus
17-02-2009, 11:54
I believe that the thing that determines the strength of an army is:

1. The army selection

2. The person using the army, and their ability as a general

3. The quality of the sacrifices that have been dedicated to the Dice Gods.

So I think we are the ones that make an army stronger or weaker, more than the book. The army considered to be the strongest can always be beaten by a canny general with a bit of luck.

TheLionReturns
17-02-2009, 11:57
I very much doubt it is an intentional ploy to sell more models. For one I'm not convinced powerful armies sell drastically more anyway. Granted I think armies that are especially weak will struggle because nobody likes being beaten repeatedly, but I don't think overpowered ones are going to sell more than a well balanced army. I have no stats to back this up of course, its simply that neither I nor anyone I know have bought an army because it is powerful, it is almost always based on the models and the background of the army, with playstyle also having an influence. Also by overpowering armies you underpower others in relation to them. Overpowering daemons may boost sales there (although I remain unconvinced) but impact negatively on other ranges that now struggle competitively.

I think that power creep is unintentional and a simple case of over-enthusiasm in making something cool. I don't agree that one person should write all of the books, I think that will slow releases and stifle creativity. I do think, however, that there should be one person setting strict terms of reference and overseeing development with a specific remit to ensure that the overall ruleset remains consistent and balanced (within reason, a bit of imbalance is no bad thing), preferably the person responsible for writing the relevant edition of the core rules.

Xelloss
17-02-2009, 12:09
Maybe the "power creep" impression comes from the fact WD battle report are "forged" so new armies could awesomly win.

Armies aren't all equal, but sometimes a "weak" army is before all poorly used : like stationnary tau or Grey Knight handled like simple SM...

Draconian77
17-02-2009, 12:15
I believe that the thing that determines the strength of an army is:

1. The army selection

->This right here. GW never get the points cost of units right, or at least they never get the internal balance within a book right. For example, take Flamers of Tzeentch. They are worth a lot more than 35pts. Now assume that all the other units on both sides are costed appropriately and you end up with a situation where one player is using more *points* than the other because the Flamers cost is off.



So I think we are the ones that make an army stronger or weaker, more than the book. The army considered to be the strongest can always be beaten by a canny general with a bit of luck.

Its when that very strong army is played by a competent general and the dice behave themselves that problems arise...

ewar
17-02-2009, 12:16
I believe that the thing that determines the strength of an army is:

1. The army selection

2. The person using the army, and their ability as a general

3. The quality of the sacrifices that have been dedicated to the Dice Gods.

So I think we are the ones that make an army stronger or weaker, more than the book. The army considered to be the strongest can always be beaten by a canny general with a bit of luck.

No one has ever argued VC and Daemons can't be beaten, they (rightly) point out that it is much tougher than it should, all things being equal. That is army book imbalance.

Now personally I believe the detrimental effects of this are more widely felt in the community than on the tabletop - for instance if you read the 40k boards, people seem to have the general opinion that WFB has gone downhill due to balance issues, which will discourage new players - even though the actual in game effect is much less serious than all the bleating on the forums suggests.

Voodoo Boyz
17-02-2009, 12:17
I believe that the thing that determines the strength of an army is:

1. The army selection

Absolutely, problem is some armies are flawed in that you can "spam" more good things. This is dependent on the army slot that a unit occupies, stats, & cost.


2. The person using the army, and their ability as a general

Yes cheesy armies are made by determined power players (like me :evilgrin: ), but some army books are far more open to abuse than others.


3. The quality of the sacrifices that have been dedicated to the Dice Gods.

Good players mitigate dice impact on the game. In fact many "complained about" units do this already by way of re-rolls or by being able to use far more dice than should be allowed by # of attacks, etc.


So I think we are the ones that make an army stronger or weaker, more than the book. The army considered to be the strongest can always be beaten by a canny general with a bit of luck.

Demonstrably false.

Players make good armies given the possibilities presented by the army book. However army books are blatantly unbalanced compared to one another.

A Daemon Player using a Bloodthirster + Obsidian Armor + Immortal Fury would have to be a Muppet to lose to a "canny general with a bit of luck" that was using an optimized army from say Ogre Kingdoms or the Beasts of Chaos book.

Eternus
17-02-2009, 12:32
Absolutely, problem is some armies are flawed in that you can "spam" more good things. This is dependent on the army slot that a unit occupies, stats, & cost.



Yes cheesy armies are made by determined power players (like me :evilgrin: ), but some army books are far more open to abuse than others.



Good players mitigate dice impact on the game. In fact many "complained about" units do this already by way of re-rolls or by being able to use far more dice than should be allowed by # of attacks, etc.



Demonstrably false.

Players make good armies given the possibilities presented by the army book. However army books are blatantly unbalanced compared to one another.

A Daemon Player using a Bloodthirster + Obsidian Armor + Immortal Fury would have to be a Muppet to lose to a "canny general with a bit of luck" that was using an optimized army from say Ogre Kingdoms or the Beasts of Chaos book.

So you're saying that the inclusion of the Bloodthirster + Obsidian Armor + Immortal Fury all on his own is what would win the battle against an optimized army from Ogre Kingdoms or the Beasts of Chaos book? Isn't that exactly the kind of Herohammer stuff that GW were supposed to have been pulling away from over the last 2-3 editions?

Given the number of options available to armies, how do you as an individual determine what is balanced and what is not?

I play Bretonnians (as well as Warriors of Chaos, Dwarves and Vamps), with a now rather elderly army book, and don't struggle to win with them, so are Bretonnians protected by the Lady of the lake from the effects of Power Creep as well as arrows and cannon balls?

O&G'sRule
17-02-2009, 12:44
This is demonstrably false.

You don't really get lots of threads about how cheesy Warriors of Chaos or Lizardmen are, in fact there are far more threads whining about how underpowered the armies are.

"[/b]

Thats simply because the noisy moaners that can't take losing probably don't come up against competant DE, WoC etc players so assume they aren't as good, whereas the daemon and VC players they play are better. The whole "power creep" thing is just personal experience clouding the truth.

Fredmans
17-02-2009, 12:49
No one has ever argued VC and Daemons can't be beaten, they (rightly) point out that it is much tougher than it should, all things being equal. That is army book imbalance.

Now personally I believe the detrimental effects of this are more widely felt in the community than on the tabletop - for instance if you read the 40k boards, people seem to have the general opinion that WFB has gone downhill due to balance issues, which will discourage new players - even though the actual in game effect is much less serious than all the bleating on the forums suggests.

I will have to agree with this. There is another thread about a possible 8th edition. I find army book imbalances much worse than the rules themselves because rules affect each army in exactly the same way. Army book imbalance is frustrating and I also believe it to frighten away new players. I find it OK if different builds contain elements of rock-scissors-paper, but not in the case of entire army books. If you invest in an army, it should be able to compete with every other army, because:

you spend a lot of money on collecting it
it makes the meta-game much more interesting

When the army building component becomes not a matter of units, but of army books, the game has crashed. It no longer works in the most elementary way.

Hypothetical case:

For instance, say that four new players pick up WHFB. They pick O&G, Dwarves (starter set), WoC and Daemons. They have no knowledge beforehand of their respective strengths and weaknesses. They all spend a considerable amount of and time to assemble and paint their armies only to find that two of their armies are significantly worse than the other two, and one is constantly treading all over them, irregardless of what they do because he thought a Bloodthirster looked cool.

Consider their options:
They can say, oh well and play on leading to some players growing tired of losing and others of winning.
They might switch armies for a game and come to the same conclusion.

So what is their next option?
The dwarf might consider Thorek and go for the gunline.
The O&G might consider throwing away the goblins and starting all over with orcs or invest in a whole new army.
The Daemon player voluntarily ban greater daemons and try to construct weaker lists.

But why should they? Have they had any fun so far? A little, perhaps, but I wager that their frustration will only grow due to incompetent army book design, and I would not be surprised to see them quit the game altogether. After all, it is kind of stupid to keep spending a considerate amount of on a game that they did not find even close to balanced.

The case above has no bearing on my own experiences, and should not be read as such. We have a good gaming group which shun excess although we like to compete.

/Fredmans

Venkh
17-02-2009, 13:00
Although i dont agree with the theory of constant creep, i do agree that some books are simply more powerful than others.

a bit like trying to win a tennis match with a wooden racquet in the graphite era, You might be comfortable with your wooden racquet and beat less experienced/skillful players with better equipment. However against someone equally skilled you are going to get rumbled.

I dont think that the inbalance is completly intentional, some things might get a boost to increase their popularity like the shades and the assassin in the DE list.

The bigger issues are just designers cock ups. Heres a list of thing which in my opinion were designed without thinking through the consequences:


The 6th ed salamanders
Thorek - Still Ludicrous.
The war Altar - Retired the upper ranks of the imperial army with immediate effect
Annoyance of netlings with treeman ancient
Allowing the spamming of invocation of nehek
Flamers.

GW have been producing broken stuff of years. I am sure that a skyre list played under 6th ed rules would still be an insanely tough match up for anything.


I play Bretonnians (as well as Warriors of Chaos, Dwarves and Vamps), with a now rather elderly army book, and don't struggle to win with them,

I dont think anyone will be suprised by this. I used to play Brets when i felt like a holiday from using my dark elves (6th ed) They were ridiculously easy to win with even with a non optimised list.


whereas the daemon and VC players they play are better.

Thats right, playing those armies instantly makes you a better, luckier player, as evidenced by consistent high placings in the tourney scene

Genrazn
17-02-2009, 13:05
I would say more so consistancy of power. Hell look at the faq they did for Daemons if anything it made them stronger. DE as well S7 chariot slayers :D

Salamanders werent the worst thing imo. But still relatively painful stuff chewing through infantry like butter. But in the end if its charged relatively dead

Anywho, what needs to be done is a revision of daemons or a RECALL or some BS. OR whoever wrote that book needs to be fired.

Eternus
17-02-2009, 13:06
I will have to agree with this. There is another thread about a possible 8th edition. I find army book imbalances much worse than the rules themselves because rules affect each army in exactly the same way. Army book imbalance is frustrating and I also believe it to frighten away new players. I find it OK if different builds contain elements of rock-scissors-paper, but not in the case of entire army books. If you invest in an army, it should be able to compete with every other army, because:

you spend a lot of money on collecting it
it makes the meta-game much more interesting

When the army building component becomes not a matter of units, but of army books, the game has crashed. It no longer works in the most elementary way.

Hypothetical case:

For instance, say that four new players pick up WHFB. They pick O&G, Dwarves (starter set), WoC and Daemons. They have no knowledge beforehand of their respective strengths and weaknesses. They all spend a considerable amount of and time to assemble and paint their armies only to find that two of their armies are significantly worse than the other two, and one is constantly treading all over them, irregardless of what they do because he thought a Bloodthirster looked cool.

Consider their options:
They can say, oh well and play on leading to some players growing tired of losing and others of winning.
They might switch armies for a game and come to the same conclusion.

So what is their next option?
The dwarf might consider Thorek and go for the gunline.
The O&G might consider throwing away the goblins and starting all over with orcs or invest in a whole new army.
The Daemon player voluntarily ban greater daemons and try to construct weaker lists.

But why should they? Have they had any fun so far? A little, perhaps, but I wager that their frustration will only grow due to incompetent army book design, and I would not be surprised to see them quit the game altogether. After all, it is kind of stupid to keep spending a considerate amount of on a game that they did not find even close to balanced.

The case above has no bearing on my own experiences, and should not be read as such. We have a good gaming group which shun excess although we like to compete.

/Fredmans

I agree with the whole of the above post, though for myself I need to be sure that the fault is with book balance, not disgruntled gamers who have had a run of very poor luck or who are still getting to grips with a new army.

I have had a very hard time making my WoC army work for me, but have not given up. I will just keep making changes and tweaks and alter my tactics until it does work - which I have no doubt it will.

You can't win every game, but you won't lose every game either. It's very easy to say a book is broken if you have some very bad luck or haven't clicked to how to get the best out if it. I have won precious few battles with my WoC as yet, I put that down to my own inexperience with them, not the strength of the book.

Others may see things differently, and that is their right - all I ask is that people make a firm case for the book being broken, rather than saying it's all broken because they are slow to rack up the victories.

For the record - I have played about 6 or 7 games with my WoC, and haven't won with them as yet - but their time will come.

The SkaerKrow
17-02-2009, 13:23
Daemons of Chaos is a first generation army book, which are notorious for being either ahead of or behind the curve. In the case of Daemons, they're rather ahead of the curve. But there always have been, and always will be, armies that lead the pack. This edition its Daemons. Last edition it was Bretonnians. Before that it was High Elves.

Power Creep is an exaggeration. While internal balance this edition is very suspect, all of the 7th Edition armies match up fairly well with one another, without invalidating the older books. Unless you're playing Beasts of Chaos, Ogre Kingdoms or Orcs and Goblins (and even then, Orcs and Goblins will surprise you from time to time), there's really no reason to complain. Not that that stops anyone...

Maarten K
17-02-2009, 13:40
The problem lies with the players. With every armybook it is possible to build an overpowered list. It's just easier with some armies (DE, VC) than with others. If you manage to educate your fellow players to stay away from those armies, the problem goes away.

Eternus
17-02-2009, 13:44
The problem lies with the players. With every armybook it is possible to build an overpowered list. It's just easier with some armies (DE, VC) than with others. If you manage to educate your fellow players to stay away from those armies, the problem goes away.

So to a degree it's just a question of whether gamers want everyone to have fun, or just themselves?

EvC
17-02-2009, 14:02
Power creep is a theory and a fact, but whether it is intentional or not, is hard to say.

The real problem with the latest army books, is the lack of restrictions. They have made the conscious decision to just say, "Okay, gamers, you want to use whatever models you like in your army? Well go ahead! Have fun!", which sounds perfectly fantastic. But in reality, it means that most new armies have access to some extremely powerful toys, usually with great new models (or very expensive old ones), that take the focus of the army away from the actual troops:
-Orcs: mistakes were made, sadly, so no real "must haves"; the best choice is either the Wyvern or special characters, however.
-Empire: War Altar, Steam Tank. War Altar should've been a hero, Steam Tank should have needed a Master Engineer. As Venkh put it, this "retired the upper ranks of the imperial army with immediate effect". Also of note is the Imperial Dragon- the rarest Dragon in the world, yet takes no additional slot.
-High Elves: they did have Dragons take a hero slot, but the Dragon is still by far the most powerful choice. Combine with less mandatory core choices (So many armies have 2 x 10 Archers) and the warhammer "army" dies a little more...
-Vampire Counts: it's all about the characters, and the rares. A well-designed army, but too much focus on the magic. The best "army" will typically have well over 1K in characters.
-Daemons: worst written army book ever. No need to dwell.
-Dark Elves: well-written again, but glaring poor internal balance means that the Black Guard are present in 90% of army lists, and Executioners almost never. Combine with a revamped monster that was deliberately undercosted to sell more models, and you have a great army, but one that needs players to exercise restraint. Which is difficult.
-Warriors: A bit like Orcs, this one. Great new models all around, but not enough done to make the actual Warriors themselves worth taking. A great shame...
-Lizardmen: Just go and buy 3 Stegadons and 30 Skinks. Who needs an army?

I think the Warmachine type games have had an effect here. Much of the new blood doesn't care for blocks of troops (Also known as "Eww, get them away! They're too slow and too hard to use!"), and it's all about special characters who are basically action figures ("Check out the new awesome Skulltaker! Combined with the Masque these two are unstoppable! Each sold separately!"), and big monsters. Which are fine, but it's a step away from what the game is meant to be. And no, it's not meant to Warhammer Historical...

Voodoo Boyz
17-02-2009, 14:04
So you're saying that the inclusion of the Bloodthirster + Obsidian Armor + Immortal Fury all on his own is what would win the battle against an optimized army from Ogre Kingdoms or the Beasts of Chaos book? Isn't that exactly the kind of Herohammer stuff that GW were supposed to have been pulling away from over the last 2-3 editions?

Not a Blood Thirster by himself, but if he had even a non optimized DoC army sitting behind him, he by himself is such a trump-card to BoC & OK that it's not even funny and makes the game stupidly easy to win for the DoC player.

This is the fault of the DoC, OK, and BoC army books.

And yes, supposedly this is the Herohammer stuff GW was supposed to have been pulling away from, except they failed, in particular with the DoC & VC armies. That's why they're complained about even a year after their release.

Look the entire point of my replying to you was to refute the silly notion that gets trotted out about how "people complain about the new armys, but really it's just because they can't figure out how to beat them yet, in time they'll stop complaining".

That is a demonstrably false position. People are still complaining about DoC & VC armies, despite them being almost a year old now. Other armies that have come out subsequently have not "supplanted" them in terms of complaints or overall power level (based on tournament rankings & comp systems used around the world).


Given the number of options available to armies, how do you as an individual determine what is balanced and what is not?

It's called being an experienced player that knows how the game is played in a competitive environment. Something the games designers are supposed to be.

It does not take a genius to realize that a 25 point gift that allows a Bloodthirster (an already powerful melee monster that flies and is no longer frenzied) to re-roll all attacks every round of combat is not a good idea.

The inherent weakness of all large combat monsters that fly is that they can whiff attacks and then lose to Static Combat Resolution.

Additionally having an armor that nullifies magical weapons against a T6, 3+ Armor, 5+ Ward, 5 Wound Monster that has WS10, 7 Attacks (that re-rolls), and S6 or S7 is a bad idea since it removes the ability of other characters to even attempt to fight him and have a chance at being victorious, regardless of maneuvering or weapon loadout.


I play Bretonnians (as well as Warriors of Chaos, Dwarves and Vamps), with a now rather elderly army book, and don't struggle to win with them, so are Bretonnians protected by the Lady of the lake from the effects of Power Creep as well as arrows and cannon balls?

Bretts are a very powerful book that sat for a non-inconsiderable amount of time at the "top" of the WHFB heap in terms of power. They are still a very tough army, though very point & click, and now suffer as a competitive force in tournaments largely due to *surprise* VC & Daemons.

Due to Fear/Terror and the ability to essentially be unbreakable or at least hold Knights up for a turn against most units due to the nature of the armies, they are able to accept Brett Charges, and then flank or counter attack where the Bretts have no hitting power and are susceptible to Fear/Outnumber.

Dark Elves particularly can give them a lot of problems since they deal poorly with lateral movement as well as Fear & Terror causers in general, as well as avoidance armies, which DE excel at. High Elves are similar, mainly because of the Dragon, since Bretts oddly can struggle with that as well.

However that's only against DoC, VC, and then specific builds of DE & HE. In general they are still very competitive, but the problem in a tournament is that if you do well, in later rounds your chances of fighting one of those four "foils" is exceptionally high, which means a loss of the event.

Spyral
17-02-2009, 14:16
Did GW set out to make VC's and Demons as strong as they are now so they could sell more models?

yes - daemons only have 2 plastic kits available to them go figure..

same way that new stegadon kit + the ability (technichally) to have about 6 in a list at 2000 points plus the overall nerf of units people already have (skinks, kroxigor and salamanders) speaks volumes

in scientific parlance we would referr to the occurance of daemons and dark elves as scoring highest in the tournaments as a 'correlation' in regards to power



1. The army selection

2. The person using the army, and their ability as a general

3. The quality of the sacrifices that have been dedicated to the Dice Gods.


incorrect - the army available to you to select from in addition to the actual choice made and the actual player and the dice on the day all have a factor. Again see comment Re: Daemons


So you're saying that the inclusion of the Bloodthirster + Obsidian Armor + Immortal Fury all on his own is what would win the battle against an optimized army from Ogre Kingdoms or the Beasts of Chaos book? Isn't that exactly the kind of Herohammer stuff that GW were supposed to have been pulling away from over the last 2-3 editions?

Yes but they've returned to it - notice about SIX special characters per army book now a days?


It's called being an experienced player that knows how the game is played in a competitive environment. Something the games designers are supposed to be.

well if they could tell me what a 'Slann Magwe-Priest' is (or alternatively PROOF READ) then I might be more inclined to believe that they are competent. If in battle reports they didn't fix them and actually chose intelligent lists for the opposing army the we might belvie that they are experienced players.

GW are alienating people. So far this year I've spent 2x as much on warmachine than GW

Voodoo Boyz
17-02-2009, 14:24
Power creep is a theory and a fact, but whether it is intentional or not, is hard to say.

The real problem with the latest army books, is the lack of restrictions. They have made the conscious decision to just say, "Okay, gamers, you want to use whatever models you like in your army? Well go ahead! Have fun!", which sounds perfectly fantastic. But in reality, it means that most new armies have access to some extremely powerful toys, usually with great new models (or very expensive old ones), that take the focus of the army away from the actual troops:
-Orcs: mistakes were made, sadly, so no real "must haves"; the best choice is either the Wyvern or special characters, however.
-Empire: War Altar, Steam Tank. War Altar should've been a hero, Steam Tank should have needed a Master Engineer. As Venkh put it, this "retired the upper ranks of the imperial army with immediate effect". Also of note is the Imperial Dragon- the rarest Dragon in the world, yet takes no additional slot.
-High Elves: they did have Dragons take a hero slot, but the Dragon is still by far the most powerful choice. Combine with less mandatory core choices (So many armies have 2 x 10 Archers) and the warhammer "army" dies a little more...
-Vampire Counts: it's all about the characters, and the rares. A well-designed army, but too much focus on the magic. The best "army" will typically have well over 1K in characters.
-Daemons: worst written army book ever. No need to dwell.
-Dark Elves: well-written again, but glaring poor internal balance means that the Black Guard are present in 90% of army lists, and Executioners almost never. Combine with a revamped monster that was deliberately undercosted to sell more models, and you have a great army, but one that needs players to exercise restraint. Which is difficult.
-Warriors: A bit like Orcs, this one. Great new models all around, but not enough done to make the actual Warriors themselves worth taking. A great shame...
-Lizardmen: Just go and buy 3 Stegadons and 30 Skinks. Who needs an army?

I think the Warmachine type games have had an effect here. Much of the new blood doesn't care for blocks of troops (Also known as "Eww, get them away! They're too slow and too hard to use!"), and it's all about special characters who are basically action figures ("Check out the new awesome Skulltaker! Combined with the Masque these two are unstoppable! Each sold separately!"), and big monsters. Which are fine, but it's a step away from what the game is meant to be. And no, it's not meant to Warhammer Historical...

Excellent post and I agree overall but I have a few points of contention.

I don't think "Power Creep" exists in a substantial form, at least from a design perspective.

If we had real Power Creep then each successive army book would be the new "Top Dog" in terms of power. This is very much not the case.

Lizards if anything were nerfed compared to their old book. In terms of overall power and winning a tournament, I'd rather have the 6th Ed book rather than the new one.

WoC I think are very similar, I'd rather the old HoC book with options from BoC and having the Daemons that were in the book (read: Furies & Screamers).

Dark Elves were substantially better than their previous version, but I see GW as far more "reactive" in terms of design rather than actively making things broken. They knew the old book was not considered "good" and knew which units needed to be re-evaluated and given new rules. Hydra, Black Guard, Spear Elves, Harpies, Knights, Chariots.

In fact I think from an outsiders perspective, you see units being given new rules, and "problem units" being re-evaluated for a buff or nerf. I think all "problem books" are a case where units were buffed too much or without consideration to other new rules:

Ex. Daemons from the SoC book were a very powerful tournament army before, except all the power was in the "beast" units that were in special. Notice all those units got completely toned down; as did the chariots. The new problem units were re-evaluations of GD's (that were hardly present before), Heralds, and the Core units.

Eternus
17-02-2009, 14:27
Thanks. This is what I wanted to clarify: whether it is definitely the books or whether it is the people using them - you have stated that with a small number of armies, it is definitely the books, which is fine and will happily accept.

The only point about Bloodthirsters, is that they are meant to be the most powerful close combat fighter in the game, and have been made so. In order to make them that hard, they would have to be compared to Dragons and other Greater Daemons etc, to make sure they were top dog.

Rather than toning down, maybe such a powerful creature has no place in the game at all?

Gazak Blacktoof
17-02-2009, 14:34
I don't think any body has a real problem with the blood thirster being double-hard but that you can effectively render it immune to retaliation is a bit much. Might heroes are supposed to slay giant beasts.

Voodoo Boyz
17-02-2009, 15:07
Thanks. This is what I wanted to clarify: whether it is definitely the books or whether it is the people using them - you have stated that with a small number of armies, it is definitely the books, which is fine and will happily accept.

The only point about Bloodthirsters, is that they are meant to be the most powerful close combat fighter in the game, and have been made so. In order to make them that hard, they would have to be compared to Dragons and other Greater Daemons etc, to make sure they were top dog.

Rather than toning down, maybe such a powerful creature has no place in the game at all?

Well its nice to come to a consensus (what are we going to talk about now though? :P). Still, my main point was to refute the point about "new armies are complained about because they're new and people don't know how to beat them yet". That idea is simply not true for DoC & VC.

In terms of the Blood Thirster, yes its supposed to be the hardest combatant in the game, and YES it does have a place in the game. Gazak puts it perfectly though in terms of the problem:

It is near immune to retaliation in combat (due to the absurd power of Obsidian Armor), and it gets Re-Rolls all the time with no drawback, while also losing Frenzy. The problem is not that it outright kills whatever it touches. The problem is that it has no weaknesses, other than shooting, which can be mitigated by a decent Daemon Player.

The Fix to the BT is to remove Obsidian Armor (or make it cost upwards of 60-80 points), and then change Immortal Fury to also bestow Frenzy or just regular "hatred all the time" like the VC power, AND THEN cost it above 25 Points.

Fredmans
17-02-2009, 15:21
I don't think any body has a real problem with the blood thirster being double-hard but that you can effectively render it immune to retaliation is a bit much. Might heroes are supposed to slay giant beasts.

Overpowered-ness often stems from the ability to make up for your supposed weakness. The cheaper the cost for doing so, the more overpowered the option becomes. The bloodthirster's ability to negate magic weapons is just one example. VC suffer because they cannot march? Vanhel's and the addition of vampiric units take care of that. VC's lousy core troops are expensive? Spam invocation and they come for free. Dark elf heroes are frail and only have T3? 1+ armour and pendant of invulnerability and you have THE most survivable character in the game. These abilities are not only cheap, they are very tempting for any competent army builder because they reduce your weaknesses.

/Fredmans

Fredmans
17-02-2009, 15:47
I think the Warmachine type games have had an effect here. Much of the new blood doesn't care for blocks of troops (Also known as "Eww, get them away! They're too slow and too hard to use!"), and it's all about special characters who are basically action figures ("Check out the new awesome Skulltaker! Combined with the Masque these two are unstoppable! Each sold separately!"), and big monsters. Which are fine, but it's a step away from what the game is meant to be. And no, it's not meant to Warhammer Historical...

The truth of this depresses me. Can we get WHFB back, please.

/Fredmans

Coragus
17-02-2009, 16:00
I don't think power creep is a ploy to get people to buy miniatures as much as it is to keep up with a generation of kids being brought up on Warcraft. I'm guessing that we'll see more and more powerful characters in upcoming releases as the pendulum continues to swing in that direction.

Now, the 7th edition rule taking rank bonuses from 4 to 5 models. That was a conspiracy to get us to buy more minis. Tin foil hats on now.

Eternus
17-02-2009, 16:16
So if the issues most people seem to be raising seem to be with powerful characters and magic items, do we find that their effect on the game becomes less pronounced in higher point games?

Maybe the standard points for a battle will creep up along with the power of certain character types, and so return a little of the balance by reducing the overall effect of such characters or monsters on the battle as a whole?

What I mean is, a Bloodthirster is hard as nails and tough to hurt, but has less impact on a 3000 point battle than it does on a 2000 battle. If I'm playing VC's against DoC, and I can get a large unit of Zombies into combat with the Bloodthirster and keep them up to strength with magic, he can slash away for all he's worth and it won't make any difference if I kill him or not?

Gazak Blacktoof
17-02-2009, 16:25
Yes a single blood thirster would have less impact at 3000 points though he'd still be very hard to kill. When you get to 3000 points though you're free to take a second 'thirster.

You can fit more big brutish models in playing a big game because the restrictions get more relaxed.

At 2000 points you can have 1 lord per 2000 points, at 3000 points you can have 2 lords per 1500 points and at 4000 points you can have 1 lord per 1300 points, etc

Voodoo Boyz
17-02-2009, 16:33
I think the Warmachine type games have had an effect here. Much of the new blood doesn't care for blocks of troops (Also known as "Eww, get them away! They're too slow and too hard to use!"), and it's all about special characters who are basically action figures ("Check out the new awesome Skulltaker! Combined with the Masque these two are unstoppable! Each sold separately!"), and big monsters. Which are fine, but it's a step away from what the game is meant to be. And no, it's not meant to Warhammer Historical...
The truth of this depresses me. Can we get WHFB back, please.

/Fredmans

Bigger monsters/characters = Less to paint = more armies sold to vets.

One of the main draws to WM/Hordes was that it had a good bit of striking big models and a small number of models compared to WHFB or 40k; while still being a satisfying game experience.

It's what people want; I know I much prefer the idea of small elite armies rather than tons of troops to buy, assemble, then paint.

Disciple of Caliban
17-02-2009, 16:35
^^ In principle this works, the problem however comes with the fact that at 3k the daemon player could field 2 bloodthirsters. It works on magic heavy armies to, 12+ powerdice at 2k is very difficult to deal with, at 3k, its less of a problem, unfortunately at 3k its quite feasible to get 18+ powerdice, which is even harder to deal with than 12 is at 2k

EDIT: Gazak and i were typing at the same time it seems :)

Voodoo Boyz
17-02-2009, 16:38
So if the issues most people seem to be raising seem to be with powerful characters and magic items, do we find that their effect on the game becomes less pronounced in higher point games?

Maybe the standard points for a battle will creep up along with the power of certain character types, and so return a little of the balance by reducing the overall effect of such characters or monsters on the battle as a whole?

No, higher point games will only exacerbate the problem. One Thirster at 3k may not be much, but a Thirster + Karios (or LoC/Kipper) at 3k is still a problem. Greater Daemons are broken for a number of reasons. At 3k+ you see more big monsters anyway, but unlike most big monsters, Greater Daemons don't take up extra slots.

But that's missing the point entirely. There is nothing wrong with 2k point battles, or really, the core game play mechanics (safe for some things on infantry); the problem is that some army books are just not bloody balanced!

You don't fix this with a new edition or making a higher points range more the standard game, you do this by FIXING THE ARMY BOOKS THAT ARE BROKEN! ;)


What I mean is, a Bloodthirster is hard as nails and tough to hurt, but has less impact on a 3000 point battle than it does on a 2000 battle. If I'm playing VC's against DoC, and I can get a large unit of Zombies into combat with the Bloodthirster and keep them up to strength with magic, he can slash away for all he's worth and it won't make any difference if I kill him or not?

Yes, VC are one of the few armies in the entire game that can effectively deal with a Bloodthirster (or any Deathstar/Super-Unit) because of the infinite Zombie Tarpit. No other army has that kind of luxury. Yet another reason why VC are one of the most overpowered books in the game right now.

Eternus
17-02-2009, 16:48
No, higher point games will only exacerbate the problem. One Thirster at 3k may not be much, but a Thirster + Karios (or LoC/Kipper) at 3k is still a problem. Greater Daemons are broken for a number of reasons. At 3k+ you see more big monsters anyway, but unlike most big monsters, Greater Daemons don't take up extra slots.

But that's missing the point entirely. There is nothing wrong with 2k point battles, or really, the core game play mechanics (safe for some things on infantry); the problem is that some army books are just not bloody balanced!

You don't fix this with a new edition or making a higher points range more the standard game, you do this by FIXING THE ARMY BOOKS THAT ARE BROKEN! ;)



Yes, VC are one of the few armies in the entire game that can effectively deal with a Bloodthirster (or any Deathstar/Super-Unit) because of the infinite Zombie Tarpit. No other army has that kind of luxury. Yet another reason why VC are one of the most overpowered books in the game right now.

So the biggest kick in the knackers then is that the DoC and VC books are so new that it'll be ages before anything gets fixed, so what do you do? Ban people that play them? Or just ban the ones that play hard ass lists?

There's not really a solution that'll keep people happy until the books get re-done. To up the power of the other books to get done to compensate might just make things worse, especially as there become fewer and fewer armies still waiting for a new book and get left further and further behind.

Underground
17-02-2009, 17:07
It might be an interesting idea to reserve things like bloodthirsters and dragons for "apocalypse"-like games for WHFB, and *even then* to restrict their inclusion. But then again, as some have noted, that would require people to buy, build, and paint lots of rank-and-file models--you know, an actual army--and that is not so appealing to many.

Voodoo Boyz
17-02-2009, 17:11
It's obvious they're trying to "fix" the VC problem. Both WoC & Lizzies have half hearted ways to try and stop Invoke/Dance Spam, but they're not all that effective in really neutering them, or are dicey at best. DE can put a real hurting on heavy magic phases but don't stop Tzeench Spam or VC Spam all that effectively.

You're right that there is no real solution. The books aren't going to get redone any time soon, and while VC can be effectively "killed" by one army being able to really gimp their magic (or a change in the core rules), where as Daemons have the most "future proof" abusive builds.

Artificially skewing tournaments via Comp Systems is the solution a lot of tournaments are trying to do (see ETC rules or Masters Comp Rules), but it has inherent problems depending on the system. Plus general games in shops or GW events don't use those comp guidelines or such crazy schemes like the ETC.

Also it doesn't address the fact that say O&G's are just always going to struggle in an environment against DoC due to basic structures of each army.

Wolfden
17-02-2009, 17:15
I personally enjoy games vs. VC and Daemons. Nothing feels better than crushing a supposedly unbeatable army that everyone whines about!:evilgrin:

Stuffburger
17-02-2009, 17:29
Gw could solve the power creep problem by releasing a beta of the list to the community at large, and opening a forum for critique. They would lose no money, even if the final list was unchanged from the beta, because everyone who wants it can get a .pdf free and close to instantly.

They also get the collective waac, powergamers, munchkins and other evil types doing their best to break the list, and have a chance to fix it. just my 2 coppers.

Underground
17-02-2009, 17:37
Gw could solve the power creep problem by releasing a beta of the list to the community at large, and opening a forum for critique. They would lose no money, even if the final list was unchanged from the beta, because everyone who wants it can get a .pdf free and close to instantly.

They also get the collective waac, powergamers, munchkins and other evil types doing their best to break the list, and have a chance to fix it. just my 2 coppers.
I agree. I've always thought GW should open themselves up to be more community-oriented in the way they develop their games... I think it would be revolutionary :)

Voodoo Boyz
17-02-2009, 17:39
It will never happen unless they drastically change their business model.

CaliforniaGamer
17-02-2009, 17:45
Since then Dark Elves, Warriors of Chaos, & Lizardmen have been released and none of them approach those two in terms of power level. Granted the Dark Elves are powerful, but they aren't on the same level as VC or Daemons, just close.
[/b]


DE has definitely supplanted VC in the proportion of the newer tournament victories. DE will continue to rise as more and more realize how broken they really can be but I do agree DoC are utterly in a class by themselves. The myth that VC is superior to DEs has been fully deflated IMO.

Most recently: http://outrider.homeip.net/wfb_files/GhengisXXXWFB.html

Gazak Blacktoof
17-02-2009, 17:53
It will never happen unless they drastically change their business model.

I do wonder if they should try it once though. If they release models alongside a trial codex/ army book and market it as a "community event" I'm sure they could sell a lot of models and they'd probably get a huge amount of positive credit for being brave enough to try it.

The main problem would always be sorting through the huge amount of responses though which is probably why they've never been brave or stupid enough to attempt such a task. What works for a fan codex would probably be entirely unfeasible on a global corporate scale.

Voodoo Boyz
17-02-2009, 18:08
DE has definitely supplanted VC in the proportion of the newer tournament victories. DE will continue to rise as more and more realize how broken they really can be but I do agree DoC are utterly in a class by themselves. The myth that VC is superior to DEs has been fully deflated IMO.

Most recently: http://outrider.homeip.net/wfb_files/GhengisXXXWFB.html

I can't fathom anyone trying to say DE are better than VC.

Don't get me wrong, DE are strong and can be an EXCELLENT counter to DoC, or at least certain builds can be if they're shooty enough and play avoidance.

When I'm talking about VC, I'm talking about retarded WAAC builds, much like most DoC builds that people talk about. Wraiths wreck most anything in the DE army, and most WAAC VC builds will have them.

Lords should be bunkered up and the army raised up. DE can build fun magic phases, but VC have the DD to keep them down and VC aren't affected by the Ring so much when built right (Skull Staff).

VC in general are one of the best answers to DoC armies, since most DoC armies run a Greater Daemon and VC players have all the tools necessary to contain them, especially with the Meta-game as it is most VC players I know will run "Thirster Pits" with Dire Wolves + Doom Wolf to hold a GD up for at least their combat phase + the DoC players turn, during which time a zombie tar pit is lined up to be shot at the GD for the rest of the game.

Also keep in mind that many "tournament winners" aren't also the most powerful/abusive lists. Many times those are "Best General" awards. I've seen multiple tournaments where highly abusive VC armies ran rampant till game 5 where they matched up against another top tier list (sometimes DoC that they weren't prepared for) and then they drop from the top since their Sports/Comp scores generally are low and they're banking on 5-0 records to get them to the podium.

Still VC won the Baltimore GT, the Crossroads GT (and took Best General).

Stuffburger
17-02-2009, 18:49
I do wonder if they should try it once though. If they release models alongside a trial codex/ army book and market it as a "community event" I'm sure they could sell a lot of models and they'd probably get a huge amount of positive credit for being brave enough to try it.

The main problem would always be sorting through the huge amount of responses though which is probably why they've never been brave or stupid enough to attempt such a task. What works for a fan codex would probably be entirely unfeasible on a global corporate scale.

I think it could be feasible with some planning- for example, each unit, army special rule and magic item gets a simple poll, for example overpriced/underpriced/about right/not a good concept, just to get a general feel for how gamers feel about it. It would weed out the more useless items, units and easily breakable stuff quickly.

A more dedicated group of say 50-100 gamers chosen by GW would do more in depth critique of army composition, broken combos etc. and provide a fairly concise amount of feedback.

Voodoo Boyz
17-02-2009, 20:16
Not to make you guys too upset there Stuffburger & Gazak; but it's known that the DoC book was playtested by a group of regular GT goers (and has a fair share of winners in their group) and that group submitted plenty of feedback about units being overpowered or undercosted.

What they saw in the final release was in some cases worse than what they playtested and in some cases "fixed". And by "fixed" I mean that Obsidian Armor only negated Magical Weapons in base contact, rather than all magic items. :eek: :wtf:

Misfratz
17-02-2009, 20:23
Gw could solve the power creep problem by releasing a beta of the list to the community at large, and opening a forum for critique. They would lose no money, even if the final list was unchanged from the beta, because everyone who wants it can get a .pdf free and close to instantly.This appeared to work very well for the Epic Armageddon army lists. However, although open to everyone, in practice a relatively small number of people participated.

A larger number of people, particularly when many comments would be of the level of the rarely lamented GW Games Development forum, would be extremely hard to wade through and extract useful information.

However, I do think that GW need to find a way of opening up a dialogue with their player base.

With respect to some armies being more powerful than others, I wonder why it is that people don't exercise more restraint when building an army. Golf players do play with handicaps, for example, you also have handicap races in horse-racing. I would want to encourage gamers to take matters into their own hands and create a more fun, challenging and diverse level playing field.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-02-2009, 22:02
Not to make you guys too upset there Stuffburger & Gazak; but it's known that the DoC book was playtested by a group of regular GT goers (and has a fair share of winners in their group) and that group submitted plenty of feedback about units being overpowered or undercosted.

I know that its been claimed this has happened with previous army books and I wasn't aware that it had happened with DoC. Thanks for the info.

Its a shame if they don't even listen to the feedback they currently get, though based on interviews and other commentary as well as the quality of the various books its apparent that some developers put more stock in the feedback they get.

Mireadur
17-02-2009, 22:16
For the record - I have played about 6 or 7 games with my WoC, and haven't won with them as yet - but their time will come.

Really strange, the moment i began using the new WoC i got an amazing streak(sp?) of easy, crushing victories compared to the other armies i had been using lately and agaisnt the same friend's armies.

Gabacho Mk.II
17-02-2009, 23:09
Maybe you lined up your units (Dragon Ogres, Chaos cavalry, chariots, etc) and merely marched then charged straight into the enemy battleline, all the while your opponent(s) believed that they could "outclass" your units in H2H? (!!)


Perhaps??




[the reason I say this is becuase I have seen this happen, more than once, with the local WoC player, who gamed against Wood Elves/Dark Elves/Empire/Bretonnians and got crushing wins,... while afterwards his opponents admitted that they felt they could 'take him on' in H2H and squeeze through a win]








With respect to some armies being more powerful than others, I wonder why it is that people don't exercise more restraint when building an army. Golf players do play with handicaps, for example, you also have handicap races in horse-racing. I would want to encourage gamers to take matters into their own hands and create a more fun, challenging and diverse level playing field.


Absolutely.

We use the following army composition rules:

> 2,500pts
> No Lord characters
> Up to 1 [hero level] special character allowed per army (double victory points if killed/wounded)
> Minimum 500pts spent on Core
> Can not have two of the same Rare troop type
> Each army can not generate more than 10 Power Dice

Additionaly, each player randomly rolls (and places) 2 pieces of terrain, and each battle is a scenario (from 9 different scenarios in total), which is also rolled randomly. Emphasis is on tactics, not WAAC army composition.

Just a thought to add here.

EvC
17-02-2009, 23:22
I can't fathom anyone trying to say DE are better than VC.

Don't get me wrong, DE are strong and can be an EXCELLENT counter to DoC, or at least certain builds can be if they're shooty enough and play avoidance.

When I'm talking about VC, I'm talking about retarded WAAC builds, much like most DoC builds that people talk about. Wraiths wreck most anything in the DE army, and most WAAC VC builds will have them.

Lords should be bunkered up and the army raised up. DE can build fun magic phases, but VC have the DD to keep them down and VC aren't affected by the Ring so much when built right (Skull Staff).

You're right (As you were when you commented on my previous post to note that the power creep has seemed to stop since the last couple of army book releases), but it really is just one or two very, very specific Vampire Count builds that put the Dark Elves (And Daemons) to shame. That would be the ultra-dull caster lord style with something like 14 power dice; Blood Knight buses with 4 Vamps and regen banner is also up there in terms of nastiness.

But that's just a couple of rare builds. The rest of VC lists, that don't bring all the tricks and toys, they really do suffer. Dark Elves have only really recently gotten the stigma, before that, it was unthinkable that DEs could possibly be too powerful. Too many rose-tinted glasses looking at them and thinking back to how weak they were in 6th edition.

It's hard to really rate all the lists, but Daemons would definitely be at the top; an average Dark Elf build I would probably put at the same level or maybe even higher than an average Vampire build. But if the Vampire player cheeses out, then it becomes even more powerful than the Daemons. It's just, not many people bother with that style of VC any more- it's just so boring, for everyone involved.

Phazael
17-02-2009, 23:51
Ok, time to deconstruct all the ********:

1) "DoC are still winning everything in sight! It has nothing to do with the army being new!"
False. In fact, since Vegas (which was won by HE and best general went to DE), DoC have not won a single award for overall in the GT circut and only one generalship award has gone to a DoC army in that time frame. In fact, not one DoC army even cracked the top ten in battle points at Baltimore last year. Furthermore, in three Indi GTs run since the release, Warriors of Chaos have won two (Dark Elves won the third). Strictly looking at battle points, DoC are solidly behind Dark Elves and VC in every GT held since the Dark Elf book came out, Dark General's win at Quake City Rumble being the sole exception.

2) "DoC are the most powerful army."
This is opinion and its demonstrably wrong. DoC are deffinately among the top three armies, but as to which is the best, it is a matter of what people are metagaming against at that particular moment. In Vegas, people overcompensated for VC, mostly by loading up on the flaming stuff. As a result, the non-nurgle DoC armies thrived (but were still bested by DE and HE in the trophy department). In Baltimore, the shift moved towards anti-DoC and Vampire armies and Dark Elves ruled the roost. People are slowly adjusting their armies to counter what they feel is the biggest threat. I will inject my personal opinion here that I ultimately feel that the VC have the advantage in the metagame, because the risk free magic phase is so uber that people have all but given up on trying to stop it. Dark Elves win the Comp war because all someone has to say is "I played under the previous Gav Thorpe book." and they get a pitty point. Daemons win in the versitility department because they have many different builds that are competitive, where the other two top armies are kind of locked into one or two setups.

3) "The new books suck compared to DoC/VC/DE"
Yes and no. Both WoC and Lizardmen got some serious dick punching toys specifically aimed at the holy trinity. The real main issue with both is that they A- Suffer greatly against other armies when taking these things in abundance, and B- Are really pidgeonholed into a couple of builds in competitive play, as a direct result. The WoC are basically degenerating into a Infernal Gateway delivery system, because a heavy magic phase is their only option for dealing with skirmishy point denial armies. Lizards are rockin the twin engine of the gods smackdown, but those giant overpriced piniatas are completely useless against any kind of horde army. The basic thing that really sets the VC, DoC, and DE apart from other rescent books is that all three armies can take counters to other power builds (namely, each other) without compromising their ability to take out other lists. It also does not help much that the weaknesses of each are completely different. Showing up with a light shooting cheap CR army will win you games against DoC, but will bone you against VC, for example.

4) "The Balance issues in Fantasy are worse than 40k"
I am not even sure where to begin with this one. For starters, take a wander over to the 40k end of this site and count up the whine threads about Orks. They would easily equal the collective DE/VC/DoC whining. The balance in 40k is completely being overturned by one army, where as Fantasy has three armies that are higher in power. What Fantasy does have is a rock paper scissors issue that 40k rescently divested itself of with silly scenarios and a supermely good codex that outshines all others. If you seriously think balanced is borked in fantasy, imagine if the game used kill points or if one summoned zombie could claim and contest a table corner. That is the state of 40k right now.

5) "There is no way to beat Daemons!"
Pattently false. There may be no way for your current army that you are too busy/lazy to adjust to beat the current top armies, but that does not mean it cannot be done with current armies. Honestly, if you dialed the way back machine to a few years ago, you find the same exact bitch threads as these but with Skaven and Bretts being complained about. The hobby survived the all Bus of Doom armies, RAF lists, SAD armies, and censerbearer spam. It will survive a couple years of Shadestar, Doggie Deathstar, Black Guard Uberstar, Flamer Spam, Greater Daemons, and Over Nine Thousand PD Tzeench armies. It will even survive the same idiots complaining about not being able to win with Orc and Goblin armies.

Phazael
18-02-2009, 00:11
Absolutely.

We use the following army composition rules:

> 2,500pts
> No Lord characters
> Up to 1 [hero level] special character allowed per army (double victory points if killed/wounded)
> Minimum 500pts spent on Core
> Can not have two of the same Rare troop type
> Each army can not generate more than 10 Power Dice

Additionaly, each player randomly rolls (and places) 2 pieces of terrain, and each battle is a scenario (from 9 different scenarios in total), which is also rolled randomly. Emphasis is on tactics, not WAAC army composition.

Just a thought to add here.

Why don't you just come out and say "We want Dwarven Gunline and point denial elves to win this tournament" and be done with it? I know people find this hard to believe, but the 4 herald DoC army is actually more powerful than one with a GD (Dark General's army would easily pass this checklist) and the only thing that list would change about a Dark Elf power list is that the pendant would be on a hero instead of a lord. You would basically shut down the one major WoC build out there and gimp VC into pure summon spam mode. Meanwhile, you would cripple every other army that depends on a lord level general for Leadership (Orcs, Empire, Bretts, Ogres, Beastmen) and completely shelve the viability of fighting versions for many lists (WE, Ogres, TK, Bretts). DoC would lose GDs and the option to take the second unit of flamers and DE would be completely untouched.

This is why any kind of structured comp requirements (ie the Special Olympics ruleset known as ETC) are flawed. They all ultimately just end up trading one top cheese build for another, do not sufficiently curtail the armies they are targetted at, and gimp the armies they should be supposedly helping. Personal bias of the person making these archaic systems tends to creep in a lot as well.

Hrogoff the Destructor
18-02-2009, 00:37
Gw could solve the power creep problem by releasing a beta of the list to the community at large, and opening a forum for critique. They would lose no money, even if the final list was unchanged from the beta, because everyone who wants it can get a .pdf free and close to instantly.

They also get the collective waac, powergamers, munchkins and other evil types doing their best to break the list, and have a chance to fix it. just my 2 coppers.

Instead of giving people pdf's of the army lists, they could give the army lists to a select few trustworthy stores for people to try out. They could then go an get feedback from those places. This would have to be in the UK near the GW headquarters methinks.

Stronginthearm
18-02-2009, 00:47
Definitely agree with the two above statement (was writing and didnt notice) about neutering some armies while making others great, seems to effectively punch VC in the balls and give dwarves an easy win they have so many great core and dont need lords whereas a mass spell army is going to just die, I try to leave the rule chaning to GW for all the complaining people still play the game so at this point GW has a lot of experiance with overpowering and can handle it

selone
18-02-2009, 01:01
I will have to agree with this. There is another thread about a possible 8th edition. I find army book imbalances much worse than the rules themselves because rules affect each army in exactly the same way. Army book imbalance is frustrating and I also believe it to frighten away new players. I find it OK if different builds contain elements of rock-scissors-paper, but not in the case of entire army books. If you invest in an army, it should be able to compete with every other army, because:

you spend a lot of money on collecting it
it makes the meta-game much more interesting

When the army building component becomes not a matter of units, but of army books, the game has crashed. It no longer works in the most elementary way.

Hypothetical case:

For instance, say that four new players pick up WHFB. They pick O&G, Dwarves (starter set), WoC and Daemons. They have no knowledge beforehand of their respective strengths and weaknesses. They all spend a considerable amount of and time to assemble and paint their armies only to find that two of their armies are significantly worse than the other two, and one is constantly treading all over them, irregardless of what they do because he thought a Bloodthirster looked cool.

Consider their options:
They can say, oh well and play on leading to some players growing tired of losing and others of winning.
They might switch armies for a game and come to the same conclusion.

So what is their next option?
The dwarf might consider Thorek and go for the gunline.
The O&G might consider throwing away the goblins and starting all over with orcs or invest in a whole new army.
The Daemon player voluntarily ban greater daemons and try to construct weaker lists.

But why should they? Have they had any fun so far? A little, perhaps, but I wager that their frustration will only grow due to incompetent army book design, and I would not be surprised to see them quit the game altogether. After all, it is kind of stupid to keep spending a considerate amount of on a game that they did not find even close to balanced.

The case above has no bearing on my own experiences, and should not be read as such. We have a good gaming group which shun excess although we like to compete.

/Fredmans

Nice post and hillarously the four armies that you use as an example are very similar to my group of 4 friends which are - orcs and G's (me) demons of chaos (redben) dwarves and brettonians. Which is some pretty whacky match up's. We don't play 2K games yet but your possible scenarios are all not beyond the realms of possibility.

High Loremaster
18-02-2009, 03:45
As mentioned previously, I don't see why it's so hard for people to deliberately avoid army lists that are extremely cheesy. If you're going to go play in a GT tournament when the stakes are high, of course you're going to fight against ridiculous lists! Even in 6th edition, some of those lists were absolutely nuts to play against - even High Elves could field an OP list in 2k games (i.e. the Double Dragon list - lord on a dragon and the Dogs of War elf hero on a dragon). If you play against people who play the game for FUN (which is what games are all about anyway) then you shouldn't have a problem.

In my local tournaments that include people who play for fun, we use some restrictions to avoid stupid lists. You can pretty much build whatever list you want, but certain things, such as repeating specials and rares more than once, having loads of characters, and having loads of ranged troops, hurt your composition score. The only set "restriction" is that you can only use a maximum of 10 power dice per phase.

Kerill
18-02-2009, 04:05
I don't think power creep is deliberate overall but some things are deliberately underpriced or given easier access to to increase sales IMO (Varghulf is very good, hydra is insane, stegadons are balanced but now you can take 7).

My biggest issue (apart from decent play testing) is that they fail to balance these things later with the FAQs, I'm not suggesting re-writing the book (which GW refuses to do since they claim to want one source for the rules) but many rules issues against powerful armies that are 50/50 they should take the opportunity to take the side against the overpoweredness of the army.
E.g. VC FAW, helm of commandment was made more powerful (should have been made less powerful)
DE FAQ- allows dodgy placement of assassins, didn't make pendant fail on a 1, allowed throwing stars to autokill chariots.

This is GW's biggest failure, they have the opportunity to tune things a little with the FAQ but don't seem to consider that option.

ChaosVC
18-02-2009, 04:08
Does power creep exist, I think so. But are they intentional? I am not sure.

But as far as I can see it, it is actually ruining games for a lot of players. Best option is to find like minded people to enjoy your hobby. One or two power gamers can't ruin it for you as long as you have a core of like minded players.

Rioghan Murchadha
18-02-2009, 05:17
My personal balance or 'power' bugbear is the ****** 'deathstar'. Any army book is badly written when it allows you to nest 3/4 of the points value of your army in one stupidly hard to handle unit. All army books capable of doing this should be burned at the stake and re-written on pain of me being annoyed.

squeekenator
18-02-2009, 06:55
No, GW are not trying to make everyone buy the newest army. They just stuffed up. Aren't all the broken books written by the same person? If it was company policy to power creep, then all the newest books would be overpowered, regardless of author.


...take a wander over to the 40k end of this site and count up the whine threads about Orks.

Um, well, not really. On the first 5 pages of the 40K GD boards (at the time of posting) there were 2 balance-related threads with a consensus that yes, that is unbalanced. One of them was about Orks. On the first page of the Fantasy GD, there are 3 such threads. If your numbers are different, I'd be glad to see them, but I somewhat doubt you actually have any and weren't just making stuff up.

Eternus
18-02-2009, 08:28
So does 'power creep' only really becomes an issue when either playing against win at all costs players or in a competitive tournament setting, where everyone is either willingly uber competitive or forced into being so to keep up with everyone else?

I think the majority of gamers like to win and come up with some tough lists, but relatively few play the clinical lab tested lists that cause all the complaints. As long as those lists stay in the teeny weeny minority, there's not an awful lot more you can do, apart from limit army selection either through scenario victory conditions or unit availability.

Take for example that it was mentioned you can include up to 7 Stegadons in a LM list - does anyone do this? Not that I have seen. Not saying you won't see it, just that if it did happen it would be rare, and therefore hopefully limit the impact of such a selection on the community as a whole.

In short, as kinda mentioned by others, it's in our hands to either enjoy the hobby and try to ensure others enjoy it, or take the evil list option and try to force others to either change army or force them out of the hobby altogether.

It's our choice.

TheLionReturns
18-02-2009, 12:03
Part of the problem with talking about power levels is that they are relative to the ability of the player. Wood Elves for example can be very powerful in the hands of an experienced and capable general, but IMO are one of the weaker armies for a beginner due to their unforgiving nature. Each of our local gaming groups have their own gaming environment determined by the armies used, the skill of the players and the type of lists they build.

The point I am getting to (in a round about way) here is that if GW balances the game at the top tournament level this won't necessarily mean that the game will be balanced for every gaming environment. The top tournaments have completely different types of lists to those I game against, a wider range of armies and are played at a higher skill level, so bear little resemblance to my gaming experience, or I would imagine to the gaming experiences of the vast majority of GW customers. For that reason I am rather suspicious of the use of tournament results to determine whether there are balance issues in the game.

I don't think GW produces new armies with the intention of them dominating the next tournament. That seems completely pointless. What I do think is that GW pays very little attention to tournament results and instead tries to produce interesting army lists that allow for a variety of cool combinations, with the only balance provision being that there are no impossible matchups. I think this shows, particularly in the newer army books, where there is a great variety of types of army you can field with each army book but also, where at the no holds barred tournament level, there are certain combos that are disproportionately powerful.

Having a perfectly balanced ruleset isn't really a priority for me. Myself and my gaming group can self regulate. We prefer games to be close affairs so try to take lists according to this. If after a series of games one player wins consistently by a decent margin they will tone down their list so there is still a challenge. Of course unbalanced games are fun every now and again anyway. It only takes small successes, even in a defeat, to be enjoyable if you are the underdog.

I don't really see why tournaments can't self regulate too. Sure restricting certain combos can lead to new imbalances, but changing the restrictions for each tournament brings a new dimension to the tactical challenge and should keep things fresh for tournament goers.

Mireadur
18-02-2009, 12:37
Maybe you lined up your units (Dragon Ogres, Chaos cavalry, chariots, etc) and merely marched then charged straight into the enemy battleline, all the while your opponent(s) believed that they could "outclass" your units in H2H? (!!)


Perhaps??



Obviously when you get victories with WoC it is because you are able to take the game to CC and take it where and how you want it.

Now you could go back to November/december threads about WoC and see my army compositions there which are quite far from what you've presented.


Gw could solve the power creep problem by releasing a beta of the list to the community at large, and opening a forum for critique. They would lose no money, even if the final list was unchanged from the beta, because everyone who wants it can get a .pdf free and close to instantly.

They also get the collective waac, powergamers, munchkins and other evil types doing their best to break the list, and have a chance to fix it. just my 2 coppers.

Indeed they should and they wouldnt lose a single sale on army books by doing this. It's a senseless fear since you already can download any book without spending a penny on it. I still keep buying all the books for the armies i own, eventhough also have them in pdf format. Im sure its like this for 99% of the player base.


No, GW are not trying to make everyone buy the newest army. They just stuffed up. Aren't all the broken books written by the same person? If it was company policy to power creep, then all the newest books would be overpowered, regardless of author.

This is also truth... Sadly The 3 OTT books have been written by 2 person.

DoC anyway just shows how bad of a developer Matt Ward is, theres bad examples of his work all around (O&G and the latest Space marines).

Gav is different though... One of my favourite writers if he didnt have such an issue punctuating units and items :P

Voodoo Boyz
18-02-2009, 13:06
You're right (As you were when you commented on my previous post to note that the power creep has seemed to stop since the last couple of army book releases), but it really is just one or two very, very specific Vampire Count builds that put the Dark Elves (And Daemons) to shame. That would be the ultra-dull caster lord style with something like 14 power dice; Blood Knight buses with 4 Vamps and regen banner is also up there in terms of nastiness.

I like all the agreeing here, though really when people talk about nasty VC lists, really "those builds" are it. Or at least variations on them. I mean seriously it doesn't take much other than a basic caster lord, a couple of units starting 10 strong (with Champs!) in Ghouls, some basic Zombie blocks, Wolves, Wraiths, Corpse Carts, and then 3 other Hero Vamps. There are a lot of variations on the specifics, but the main problem is any Lord that's got PD to spare & guaranteed Dance spells + Book.

I don't think this is all that uncommon at all, most tricked out VC lists will bring the tools to make sure they know Dance on the Lord, have PD, and the ability to minimize actual points spent on Core, but can still end up with big blocks before any reasonable army can hit them.


But that's just a couple of rare builds. The rest of VC lists, that don't bring all the tricks and toys, they really do suffer. Dark Elves have only really recently gotten the stigma, before that, it was unthinkable that DEs could possibly be too powerful. Too many rose-tinted glasses looking at them and thinking back to how weak they were in 6th edition.

Here's where I have to disagree with you slightly (only slightly! ;)).

VC (and DoC) have inherent powers over many lists. Fear, ItP, Unbreakable with caveats.

Units do what you want, when you want, how you want, and way too many things are "guaranteed"; VC are worse in that all but one character are casters, and most of those casters will be good melee fighters too. Ditto for the most part on DoC, except where Khorne has no casters it has retarded powerful melee characters that are hard to kill to boot.

All of that adds up to inherent advantages to those two armies over just about any other list. Dark Elves don't have that.

IMO, Dark Elves are very much more about "those specific Items & Toys" rather than DoC & VC.

DE aren't anything without the Pendant, Ring, Focus Familiar, or ASF Banner. Sure Black Guard & Hydras are stupid undercosted, but that's not going to win games by itself. It's the unit combo's that do it. Now they have other strengths in the list:

Core Fast Cav
Core Cheap Flying Skirmishers
Strong Shooting in Core, Special, & Rare
High Movement across the board

This adds to a strong list, but without the 'big toys' from their magic items, the army isn't all that compared to most. Now add those big toys and they do well, but IMO they can be handled well by strong DoC & VC builds.

DE are still taking Psych Checks all over the place, and that all by itself can lose games if you fail critical rolls to charge, or keep a unit in a specific spot. I'm talking Fear, Terror, and Stupidity checks.


It's hard to really rate all the lists, but Daemons would definitely be at the top; an average Dark Elf build I would probably put at the same level or maybe even higher than an average Vampire build. But if the Vampire player cheeses out, then it becomes even more powerful than the Daemons. It's just, not many people bother with that style of VC any more- it's just so boring, for everyone involved.

I'm very wary of saying DoC are at the "top". IMO there is not one build that DoC have that doesn't have trump card from the WAAC VC lists. Even the dreaded optimized Khorne/Tzeench list is going to struggle against a VC list described earlier (I know this, I'm building the Khorne/Tzeench list and a guy in my club plays the optimized Vamps :cheese: )

IMO, I think DoC & VC are both at the top of the WHFB heap, and that DE can challenge them with the right match ups. Put a gun to my head and I'd say VC are the best overall if you want to talk about the most extreme lists.

ewar
18-02-2009, 13:13
So does 'power creep' only really becomes an issue when either playing against win at all costs players or in a competitive tournament setting, where everyone is either willingly uber competitive or forced into being so to keep up with everyone else?

I think the majority of gamers like to win and come up with some tough lists, but relatively few play the clinical lab tested lists that cause all the complaints. As long as those lists stay in the teeny weeny minority, there's not an awful lot more you can do, apart from limit army selection either through scenario victory conditions or unit availability.

Take for example that it was mentioned you can include up to 7 Stegadons in a LM list - does anyone do this? Not that I have seen. Not saying you won't see it, just that if it did happen it would be rare, and therefore hopefully limit the impact of such a selection on the community as a whole.

In short, as kinda mentioned by others, it's in our hands to either enjoy the hobby and try to ensure others enjoy it, or take the evil list option and try to force others to either change army or force them out of the hobby altogether.

It's our choice.

This is coming back to what I said in an earlier post. The situation is basically this:
- some books are more powerful/have very tough combinations
- the vast majority of players won't actually come across this (who is really going to spend 175 on stegadons?)
- but there is enough of a problem for the vocal minority (i.e. us lot on forums) to complain
- therefore the actual issue is exaggerated

As for tournaments, I believe they do show the truest form of game balance. The trouble with comparing all of these books is that everything is based on personal experience, skill level, local gamers and luck.

Enough tournament games do eliminate as many of the variables as can be eliminated i.e. everyone is highly skilled, playing with the most powerful builds they can design, to the same rules. There are also enough GTs going on to give some meaningful data.

However, does this 'abusive' environment translate into a regular gamers experience with their mates? Probably not.

I went through a phase complaining about the book balance, but as GW refuse to correct their mistakes, we'll just have to take it on the chin for 5 years and see if they can sort it out.

Voodoo Boyz
18-02-2009, 13:30
Ok, time to deconstruct all the ********:

1) "DoC are still winning everything in sight! It has nothing to do with the army being new!"
False. In fact, since Vegas (which was won by HE and best general went to DE), DoC have not won a single award for overall in the GT circut and only one generalship award has gone to a DoC army in that time frame. In fact, not one DoC army even cracked the top ten in battle points at Baltimore last year. Furthermore, in three Indi GTs run since the release, Warriors of Chaos have won two (Dark Elves won the third). Strictly looking at battle points, DoC are solidly behind Dark Elves and VC in every GT held since the Dark Elf book came out, Dark General's win at Quake City Rumble being the sole exception.

Look at the overall GT Scene not just the ones on the circuit but the Indy GT's many attend. DoC have won a ton of events, especially if you count stuff from the UK. And not even counting trophy places they've at least taken many places in the top 10 at the events mentioned.

Furthermore, check battle score rankings; many cases are things where DoC or VC armies rampage up till game 5 and then lose, and since their Comp (or sports score that gets dinged in place of comp) is low they drop in placings.


2) "DoC are the most powerful army."
This is opinion and its demonstrably wrong. DoC are deffinately among the top three armies, but as to which is the best, it is a matter of what people are metagaming against at that particular moment. In Vegas, people overcompensated for VC, mostly by loading up on the flaming stuff. As a result, the non-nurgle DoC armies thrived (but were still bested by DE and HE in the trophy department). In Baltimore, the shift moved towards anti-DoC and Vampire armies and Dark Elves ruled the roost. People are slowly adjusting their armies to counter what they feel is the biggest threat. I will inject my personal opinion here that I ultimately feel that the VC have the advantage in the metagame, because the risk free magic phase is so uber that people have all but given up on trying to stop it. Dark Elves win the Comp war because all someone has to say is "I played under the previous Gav Thorpe book." and they get a pitty point. Daemons win in the versitility department because they have many different builds that are competitive, where the other two top armies are kind of locked into one or two setups.

Agree completely to be honest.


3) "The new books suck compared to DoC/VC/DE"
Yes and no. Both WoC and Lizardmen got some serious dick punching toys specifically aimed at the holy trinity. The real main issue with both is that they A- Suffer greatly against other armies when taking these things in abundance, and B- Are really pidgeonholed into a couple of builds in competitive play, as a direct result. The WoC are basically degenerating into a Infernal Gateway delivery system, because a heavy magic phase is their only option for dealing with skirmishy point denial armies. Lizards are rockin the twin engine of the gods smackdown, but those giant overpriced piniatas are completely useless against any kind of horde army. The basic thing that really sets the VC, DoC, and DE apart from other rescent books is that all three armies can take counters to other power builds (namely, each other) without compromising their ability to take out other lists. It also does not help much that the weaknesses of each are completely different. Showing up with a light shooting cheap CR army will win you games against DoC, but will bone you against VC, for example.

I spent about 5 minutes laughing at "dick punching". I think those armies can pull off a nice ****** punch ;) (no 6's from the Slaan, Hotek, Black Tongue/Puppet), but they're dodgy and aren't guarantee's. Now this is nice and can catapult someone with one of those lists to the top of an event if they happen in the right game, but a lot like Infernal Gateway Delivery Systems, it's more like playing Yahtzee than WHFB.


4) "The Balance issues in Fantasy are worse than 40k"
I am not even sure where to begin with this one. For starters, take a wander over to the 40k end of this site and count up the whine threads about Orks. They would easily equal the collective DE/VC/DoC whining. The balance in 40k is completely being overturned by one army, where as Fantasy has three armies that are higher in power. What Fantasy does have is a rock paper scissors issue that 40k rescently divested itself of with silly scenarios and a supermely good codex that outshines all others. If you seriously think balanced is borked in fantasy, imagine if the game used kill points or if one summoned zombie could claim and contest a table corner. That is the state of 40k right now.

I dunno, Orks cause problems in 40k because they have two "super lists": Shooty Horde & Nob Bikers, and either list requires vastly different tools to take out. It's no different than 4th Edition where the two big lists were Godzilla Nids & Mech Eldar - two lists that dominate the Metagame; only difference being that the same kinds of weapons worked against both armies.

Only difference is that both "top lists" come from the same codex, but they're really two very different army types that are dominating.


5) "There is no way to beat Daemons!"
Pattently false. There may be no way for your current army that you are too busy/lazy to adjust to beat the current top armies, but that does not mean it cannot be done with current armies. Honestly, if you dialed the way back machine to a few years ago, you find the same exact bitch threads as these but with Skaven and Bretts being complained about. The hobby survived the all Bus of Doom armies, RAF lists, SAD armies, and censerbearer spam. It will survive a couple years of Shadestar, Doggie Deathstar, Black Guard Uberstar, Flamer Spam, Greater Daemons, and Over Nine Thousand PD Tzeench armies. It will even survive the same idiots complaining about not being able to win with Orc and Goblin armies.

Absolutely agree that they're not unbeatable. I personally am building up a DoC list for tournaments, and I can assure you I will lose tons of games before I figure out how to handle other power lists with it.

I think the main problem here is that VC & DoC armies in general have so many inherent advantages over most other lists, that even matchups between two unoptimized armies in friendly games will favor the VC & DoC players.

As far as tournaments go, the main issue is that most lists now absolutely have to build to counter these inherent advantages of VC & DoC and at the same time prepare for a super-magic phase from either army. This more than anything is what's screwing with Tournament WHFB, IMO.

Ixquic
18-02-2009, 13:36
So does 'power creep' only really becomes an issue when either playing against win at all costs players or in a competitive tournament setting, where everyone is either willingly uber competitive or forced into being so to keep up with everyone else?

I think the majority of gamers like to win and come up with some tough lists, but relatively few play the clinical lab tested lists that cause all the complaints. As long as those lists stay in the teeny weeny minority, there's not an awful lot more you can do, apart from limit army selection either through scenario victory conditions or unit availability.

Take for example that it was mentioned you can include up to 7 Stegadons in a LM list - does anyone do this? Not that I have seen. Not saying you won't see it, just that if it did happen it would be rare, and therefore hopefully limit the impact of such a selection on the community as a whole.

In short, as kinda mentioned by others, it's in our hands to either enjoy the hobby and try to ensure others enjoy it, or take the evil list option and try to force others to either change army or force them out of the hobby altogether.

It's our choice.

On the other hand how many Dark Elf armies do you see with the super Black Guard ASF unit along with a character with at least a 2+ armor save and the inverse ward? (hint: 99% of them) Likewise do we even see Vampire armies without the Helm of Commandment anymore?

When they make stuff that is so no brainer good it doesn't take a power gamer to figure out that it's the best option. The only people that aren't going to take stuff that is hands down the best are people making themed lists or just don't want to be seen as "cheesy" and those guys are in the minority of players. While everyone isn't taking the super broken lists, anyone can figure out how to make a Deathstar and that alone is enough to make the game stupid.

Making the player base self regulate is horrible since it's very subjective what is broken and it just leads to annoying comp house rules that may or may not be fair. If GW just did a better job playtesting in the first place it wouldn't be an issue.

EvC
18-02-2009, 16:14
I like all the agreeing here, though really when people talk about nasty VC lists, really "those builds" are it. Or at least variations on them. I mean seriously it doesn't take much other than a basic caster lord, a couple of units starting 10 strong (with Champs!) in Ghouls, some basic Zombie blocks, Wolves, Wraiths, Corpse Carts, and then 3 other Hero Vamps. There are a lot of variations on the specifics, but the main problem is any Lord that's got PD to spare & guaranteed Dance spells + Book.

Oh yes, absolutely agree. That type of build is without doubt the most powerful army in the entire game (Dunno if new Lizardmen can stop it yet). However, it does have a few central tenets:
The Caster Lord
2-3 Vampires/ Drakenhof BSB
Minimum core
Any spare points spent on Bats or rare
As you say, lots of variation on the specifics, but without the caster Lord, the army isn't on a par.


I don't think this is all that uncommon at all, most tricked out VC lists will bring the tools to make sure they know Dance on the Lord, have PD, and the ability to minimize actual points spent on Core, but can still end up with big blocks before any reasonable army can hit them.

Well yes indeedy, but "common" is subjective. This army is not possible in all of Poland for example, due to their rules patch. At tournaments in the UK, this army is quite common, but still is so dull that not many players can stomach fielding it. I actually played against a very good example of the list last week- but my opponent didn't take Forbidden Lore, didn't roll Vanhels, and his Lord miscast and died turn 2 (Good old Infernal Puppet). But I don't personally know anyone else who's used such an army, other than one person who retired it after a number of extremely boring games.


Here's where I have to disagree with you slightly (only slightly! ;)).

VC (and DoC) have inherent powers over many lists. Fear, ItP, Unbreakable with caveats.

I disagree that you are disagreeing with me ;)


Units do what you want, when you want, how you want, and way too many things are "guaranteed"; VC are worse in that all but one character are casters, and most of those casters will be good melee fighters too. Ditto for the most part on DoC, except where Khorne has no casters it has retarded powerful melee characters that are hard to kill to boot.

All of that adds up to inherent advantages to those two armies over just about any other list. Dark Elves don't have that.

Dark Elves don't have it, but it is quite easy to make lists that approximate the powers of VCs and Daemons. Okay they won't ever re-raise their own troops, but typically the army is not particularly vulnerable to psychology, and has enough firepower to take down anything any army can throw at them.


IMO, Dark Elves are very much more about "those specific Items & Toys" rather than DoC & VC.

DE aren't anything without the Pendant, Ring, Focus Familiar, or ASF Banner. Sure Black Guard & Hydras are stupid undercosted, but that's not going to win games by itself.

Pretty much every Dark Elf army I see has all of the above as a staple. And, those parts are certainly the gamewinners! An unkillable Pendant Lord? Well, yeah, he's going to be effective. Underpriced Hydra or two? Can easily kill 2-3 times its points worth- without even entering combat! ASF anti-magic ItP Stubborn Black Guard? Made of win.

And they're always there. I see Dark Elf players whine about their poor choices of magic items, but what they really mean is, they have a few items that are so good, that it's never worth taking anything else, as they'd just be penalising themselves needlessly.


This adds to a strong list, but without the 'big toys' from their magic items, the army isn't all that compared to most.

See, this is where our disagreement actually comes in. Extreme magic VC builds are very rare where I am. Typically people avoid taking the bent stuff, because they want a chance of a good game. With Dark Elves though, every powerful item and unit is included in pretty much every army list. Thus, if you put the typical (non tricked-out) VC army up against the typical (tricked-out as standard) Dark Elf list, then they're pretty close in terms of power.

It's allabout perception. People don't perceive Dark Elves to be nasty, so they can get away with so much more. Some people instantly think Daemons or Vampires = cheese, so many players bring the softer stuff so that they can have a proper game. The Dark Elf players seem to think it's a god-given right to have the most powerful items in the game, and make no excuses for using them. Pretty fluffy really ;)


Now add those big toys and they do well, but IMO they can be handled well by strong DoC & VC builds.

Yes, the stronger Daemon and VC builds certainly do.


DE are still taking Psych Checks all over the place, and that all by itself can lose games if you fail critical rolls to charge, or keep a unit in a specific spot. I'm talking Fear, Terror, and Stupidity checks.

Well, the main BG unit won't be taking psych. Instead there's usually a dozen or so smaller weaker units, that, yes, do take psych tests; if one or two fail, it doesn't usually matter. I did have one recent game where Hellcannon and Doom Totem combined to make a Supreme Sorceress and her unit of sacrificial spears run off the table turn 2, but the enemy could have easily avoided that by placing his Lord in the Black Guard. Of course, he wanted the cheap 'n' easy power dice, so he kept her within the Spears. He could have just given them an ItP amulet though...

[qupte]I'm very wary of saying DoC are at the "top". IMO there is not one build that DoC have that doesn't have trump card from the WAAC VC lists.[/quote]

Again, we're back to agreement. The nastiest VC lists are the strongest in the game, and nigh unbeatable. But not every VC player goes out of his way to make his army like that. There is restraint.


Even the dreaded optimized Khorne/Tzeench list is going to struggle against a VC list described earlier (I know this, I'm building the Khorne/Tzeench list and a guy in my club plays the optimized Vamps :cheese: )

Well, there you go. You know one guy who takes the cheesy style. It is the most powerful- I'm not disputing that in the slightest. But what if he took a combat Lord, or limited himself to less than 10 power dice? I think you'd find the army is a whole lot more balanced. It'd still kick a balanced Dark Elf army into touch, mind ;)


IMO, I think DoC & VC are both at the top of the WHFB heap, and that DE can challenge them with the right match ups. Put a gun to my head and I'd say VC are the best overall if you want to talk about the most extreme lists.

No, you're definitely right. But how common are the cheesy VC lists really? You know one guy, I know one guy... on the other hand, nearly every Dark Elf player I know brings every powerful item and unit to every game. Well, except one guy who brings Executioners, but he hasn't figured out you can't put a BSB Master with ASF Banner in that unit yet, and I don't want to shatter the grand illusion... when he does, the Black Guard will claim another follower!

Phazael
18-02-2009, 17:27
@VooDoo:
The UK wins from DoC all occured shortly after the book's initial release and before the Dark Elf book was out. The real change over in the metagame (and I have been to a bunch of GTs in the last year) occured after Vegas. A couple smart people figured out that a light shooting elf list wrecks Daemons and holds its own against VC and people started adjusting their lists to counter DoC instead of VC. From that point forward, DoC won exactly three trophies, to my knowledge: Quake City Overall (Dark General), Seattle General (Dark General), and Baltimore Best Painted (General of Chaos). Outside of that, the generalship and overalls have been dominated by Elves and VC. At least until Warriors of Chaos suddenly won two Overalls this winter....

You also talk about DoC losing a round five game, well I can tell you from personal experience that those losses are coming from Elf lists and, at least in the case of Seattle, Mortal Chaos. What you are seeing here is what 40k used to be. Ironically you talk about Mech Eldar and Nidzilla being dominant in 4th edition, but the real reason for that is because 90% of the field has always been Marines (or their equivalent). Those two lists were the best at trashing Space Marines and were virtually assured of facing mostly other marine armies, so they dominated. The third part of the rock paper scissors (namely horde/orks) was so weak to SMs that no one played it, at least until the new Ork Book hit the shelves. Fantasy has an identical problem right now in that light shooting was dominated by Cav armies for so long that people gave up on it. Some of the smarter players have realized that this is how to beat Daemons and are adjusting, but the bulk of the player base are not making the needed adjustments.

I simply cannot believe that people do not see Dark Elves as the powerhouse that they are. People talk about the toys they can take, but there are really a lot of variations on the list that crush just about any competitive army out there, save war machine crazy empire and dwarves. Some examples:

Charlie Addison's Baltimore List (which I consider the perfect one)-
Black Guard Deathstar
Cauldron
Hydra
Couple Bolt Throwers
Some shooters in core
Lots of Harpies

This list features a Pendant Lord and the usual decked out blackguard stuff and can contend with just about anything. Its one weakness is that it lacks enough attacks to deal with ethereal units, which resulted in Charlie's sole minor loss in Baltimore.

Shadestar-
Some shooters/Dark Riders for Core
tons of Harpies
A billion shades, each with a throwing star assassin
One giant shade unit with all the characters inside it with defensive gear
4 RBTs

This is a Wood Elf players envy. One unkillable point denail unit that pumps out a bunch of shots and tons of passive agressive units that do nothing but shoot and flee charges. The list may also contain a fairly massive magic phase, as well. Its sole weakness is an army with lots of template weapons, which basically means Empire (or possibly Salamander Spam).

Monster Mash-
Dragon Lord
Manticore Hero
Dark Riders and Harpies
Cold One Knights and Chariots
2 Hydras

This list is not as strong as the others, but it was used to great effect by a couple of people in Baltimore and Vegas, among other GTs. Its main weakness, compared to the other two, is that it actually has to fight to kill things.

Thats three builds whos only resemblance is the use of harpies. I am sure there are more.

Voodoo Boyz
18-02-2009, 17:33
We have way too much consensus for this to be a reasonable thread. :P

In my area, I can basically assume that a cheesy VC army will pop up at just about any major Indy GT or GW event. There will be variations on the cheese, or attempts to "mask" how smelly it is, but the core of it will remain the same.


Honestly one thing that personally bothers the hell out of me is the 1k in characters, then minimum core units (with command bits) that then grow. And while people talk about how Undead Units can't fight, Ghouls are damn hitty, and Skellies don't NEED to fight, they have static CR and magic movement to get flanks or favorable combats. It's not like blocks of these things aren't already good, but the fact that you pay nothing for them and are guaranteed to GET them during a game is broken as hell.

As far as DE go, I dunno. I only run the Monster list, which has the gameplay problem of "Win Big/Lose Big" and "Lose Big" is pretty common against decent VC & DoC armies; but it's a list I built for pure fun because I like the models.

Still some things aren't unmanageable from the DE end:

Black Guard that ASF? Shoot them or hit them with something that has 1+ armor or even T4 w/ 2+ armor.

Ring of Hotek requires you to kill the bearer. Unit Champs can be sniped out by low risk spells (Buboes only takes 2 dice which is a 1 in 6 against the Ring, character hunting, etc). Still I have to say that out of all the "broken crap" that's come out after VC & DoC, Ring of Hotek is my favorite. It keeps most direct damage battery armies honest without major investment, although it sadly doesn't stop the real problem armies of VC all *that* much or DoC lists that only have the Horrors for magic (though it does discourage Tzeench Heralds).

The Pendant lord is rough, and he probably will take out any "super characters" you have running around on their own, but you can isolate him and limit his options somewhat if he's on the horse. Static Res blocks with Champs will be his bane, at that point all you have is something that can run off and take down support units or some big monsters (many who should promptly run or fly away from him).

If he's on a Dragon he's *ironically* far more vulnerable than on a Dark Steed and can be beaten down by a variety of armies that can kill T6 5W models.

I dunno, I don't want to try and pretend that DE aren't super powerful when they take their toys, but I know that if I wasn't playing an army that isn't one of the Big Three, and I had my pic against someone's "non optimized" VC or DoC list against a standard DE list that has the items - I'd rather fight the DE.

Voodoo Boyz
18-02-2009, 17:50
I thought the DoC armies won a bunch of the Heats, even after the DE book was out. Also, the DE dominated the UK's latest GW events partially because of stupid loopholes like Assassins not giving up any points for being killed and people taking a bunch of them?

Also, Daemons did very well in the Chicago GT last year (won overall, had a lot of top 10 spots) and I think they also won the Necro (I think that was after Vegas?).

Also while I agree 100% with what you're saying about multiple DE builds, DoC also have multiple builds that work, and so do VC (though few things beat the retarded caster/summon army).

DoC:
Great Wall of Nurgle
Slaanesh LD+Stupidity Bomb
Khorne+Tzeench Abomination

VC:
Caster Lord + Summoning Horde
Death Star (Grave Guard, Black Knights, or even regular Skellies or Dire Wolves)

Look, I don't want to downplay DE's power. I think I've come across like an apologist, but really I'm not. I agree with what you're saying, but like you pointed out just about any DE list that faces up against VC with Wraiths = Screwed. Ditto on most death star VC builds where their shooting can be mitigated.

Any DE build that goes magic heavy will get shut out by VC or Tzeench heavy lists. They will also struggle against the Slaanesh or Nurgle builds - really what DE do well is deal with the generic Khorne + Tzeench list, or even straight Khorne or Tzeench lists.

Granted they also hold up very well against the new WoC ("My Hotek hates your Gateway!") and LM (go go Hotek & Shooting!), but again they always run the risk of hitting that bad matchup that isn't all that uncommon.

Voodoo Boyz
18-02-2009, 18:22
And since I can't edit successfully: I disagree on 40k 4th Ed.

Nidzilla & Mech Eldar dominated because they were good against EVERYTHING, not just MEQ armies. Best thing you had for a bad matchup against Mech Eldar was Necrons, and even then they could win.

Same reason Shooty Horde Orks & Nob Biker Orks dominate now. They trump just about anything you can throw at them.

Gabacho Mk.II
18-02-2009, 21:18
While I agree with the majority of your post, I would like to respond to a few points if I may-






Why don't you just come out and say "We want Dwarven Gunline and point denial elves to win this tournament" and be done with it?



The thing is that the Dwarven player and the Elven players (all 3 of them: 1 WE and 2 DE's) do not run gunlines or point denial armies. They all wish to play out games that are fun with much dice rolling, with a large amount of sarcasm and the typical bad jokes you hear when playing tabletop wargaming. [their usual armies have up to 50% core units, a smattering of special and Rare units, and two characters; nothing OTT]





I know people find this hard to believe, but the 4 herald DoC army is actually more powerful than one with a GD (Dark General's army would easily pass this checklist) and the only thing that list would change about a Dark Elf power list is that the pendant would be on a hero instead of a lord.



I agree.

In fact, for fun I ran a DoC army in the last campaign (4 games played against 4 different armies), and the DoC army with 4 heralds thoroughly trounced the opposing armies. (these games were all at 1,999pts, with no Lord characters/equipment).... Also, the now commonly fielded pendant is a 'must have' for all DE armies, in our group as well, regardless of the players go up against. [again, when GW makes a no-brainer item...)

During the last campaign I pushed High Elves, without a Dragon Mage or a Lord on Star Dragon. My armies normally had 2 or 3 units of spearmen, backed up by a unit of Swordmasters, White Lions, one lion chariot and a tiranoc chariot and some archers, a unit of Dragon Princes, an eagle, one RBT, a wizard and a hero. Period. [again, nowhere near OTT by anyone's standards]






You would basically shut down the one major WoC build out there and gimp VC into pure summon spam mode. Meanwhile, you would cripple every other army that depends on a lord level general for Leadership (Orcs, Empire, Bretts, Ogres, Beastmen) and completely shelve the viability of fighting versions for many lists (WE, Ogres, TK, Bretts).



You are somewhat correct on this point.

The only VC player was indeed fielding 4 wizards with a 'summon spam' army, but his strategy was so limited that he eventually changed to WE's and had a blast for the remainder of the campaign...

The only WoC player (who normally games empire) was quite content with the campaign restrictions, and he had the second highest number of wins, as well as being an avid WFB gamer to begin with. (which helps)

The Ogre Kingdoms player had no problem with the campaign restrictions, neither did the Beastmen player nor the Empire player.

I guess my point is that we all had an understanding at the beginning of the campaign as to how we wished to game, and we then followed through with this and wrote up rules/restrictions accordingly.







And a needed point that must be made is that all in our group (~14?) run what would be termed "soft lists".

These lists tend to have a larger number of Core units, less magic items and wizards, and no more than 2 or 3 characters. While this might seem daft for some players to comprehend, our group normally has 'fun' in mind when we get together... not the usual "let's see how fast I can destroy my opponent's army and make him cry!!!" attitude.




Lastly, our group honestly does not have too many problems with the rules. The glaring problems arise and continue to come from the resulting armybook release.

Phazael
18-02-2009, 22:37
And since I can't edit successfully: I disagree on 40k 4th Ed.

Nidzilla & Mech Eldar dominated because they were good against EVERYTHING, not just MEQ armies. Best thing you had for a bad matchup against Mech Eldar was Necrons, and even then they could win.

Same reason Shooty Horde Orks & Nob Biker Orks dominate now. They trump just about anything you can throw at them.

My unblemished win record against Orks with CC Nidzilla with a side of Stealer Shock begs to differ on that last point. Problem is all the bandwagon nid players still think Nuke Choir and shooty big bugs are where it is at because they (like the vast majority of SM players) are still stuck in a 4th edition mindset. The guys who run Lash with pie plates might also have something to say about Orks being completely without bad matchups.

As someone who is primarily an eldar player in 40k, let me state that I never had an easy win against Orks or Guard back in 4th and lost to those armies more than any other. Massed rokkit launchers and pike formation autocannon gunline completely trash any eldar list, especially mechanized. The problem was, unless I hit them round one, there was no way I was EVER going to face them because they had zero shot at beating MEQs.

Nidzilla bennefitted from the metagame situation to a lesser extent, but also from relative invincibility to being shoved off of objectives. If Tau did not just plain melt under Drop Pod/Jump Infantry/Bike Assault, then Nidzilla would not have flourished as much as it did, because Tau (and Guard and Orks) had all the answers to deal with it.

Really, if you look at the history of bitching in GW games, it always boils down to one thing: People are afraid of change. They are afraid (or are too lazy) to change their army to contend with shifts in the metagame. They are afraid to try new tactics. They are afraid to adjust their playstyle to compensate for what is out there. This is especially true for someone who started with an army that was overpowered at the time they entered the hobby and then the metagame trends/new armies knocked them off of their perch.

Brettonian players are especially guilty of this. They had it so good for so long just running Beep Beep Bus Spam Steamroller that they have gotten lazy. A lot of the rage comes from the gradual realization that rolling 5 lances across the table and crushing everything on the charge may not have been the hieght of tactical acumen and that they are not the military geniouses they thought they were. Brettonian Steamroller has ALWAYS sucked against troops that are unbreakable/stubborn, but that never used to be an issue because a couple years ago you would rarely see a Daemon or Vamp army played in competitive settings. If these Brett guys started running lots of megacheap peasants and flaming arrow archers, they would be mopping these armies they currently are crying about. But they don't. They are set in their ways and unable/unwilling to adjust, resorting to mass whining instead. Well forgive me for not having any sympathy, because you snooty poofters sure had none for me when your multibus lists of death were rectally violating my old Dark Elf armies. Players of other armies have similar problems, it is just most pronounced in the Brett players in my experience.

All of this is only relavent if you are a tournement player. By deffinition, a tournament is a competition. For every pouty grey beard who thinks other armies should be castrated until his "fluffy" all warrior dwarf army of suck can repeatedy beat it, there is a Douche Bagious, Ender of Hobbies, who is out to break the system, buying his army for tons of money from underpaid chinese painters and copy pasting his list off of the internet so that he can rub his junk in other people's faces over his ability to game the system. In my mind, the ideal should be someone who makes a tough army that is an actual army on the table (ie not twenty archers and a DP / Star Dragon Delivery System like what won Vegas or the bulk of the Vegas DoC armies) and not simply an excercise in mathematical excess. As long as both sides can roll some dice and kill some things, I don't care if one army crushes another.

On the other hand, the guy who runs a weak list insults me as much as the WAAC guy, because he is also gaming the system, namely playing the Comp Pity game and cheating me out of a game. Of course I want to massacre people, but I want it to be a challenge. Don't take an all common goblin army to a GT and then start bitching up a storm on the Internet because you didn't win best general. Only the real ********** want a massacre that takes 15 minutes to play. If you want to play like that, stick to your local circle of friends and everyone will be happy.

40kdhs
18-02-2009, 22:48
Demon army is new. I can understand why GW made this army so powerful that it can create a strong fan base from the beginning.

Caine Mangakahia
18-02-2009, 22:53
I hear a lot about how a cheesy VC list can handle any DoC or DE list. Can someone please tell me what this list is? It doesnt matter how many spell dice I have (although 10 is usually my preferred limit), a combination of a BT Flamers Tzeench Horrors and Skulltaker with fleshounds is a pretty tough ask.
Also a DE Deathstar Hotek Pendant ASF Black Guard unit with ASF and a KB Cauldron seems to be a pretty unmovable object. BAcked up by Hydras and Shoot and flee fast cavalry.

CaliforniaGamer
18-02-2009, 22:55
I hear a lot about how a cheesy VC list can handle any DoC or DE list. Can someone please tell me what this list is? It doesnt matter how many spell dice I have (although 10 is usually my preferred limit), a combination of a BT Flamers Tzeench Horrors and Skulltaker with fleshounds is a pretty tough ask.
Also a DE Deathstar Hotek Pendant ASF Black Guard unit with ASF and a KB Cauldron seems to be a pretty unmovable object. BAcked up by Hydras and Shoot and flee fast cavalry.

quick answer: there isnt some mystical VC list that can consistently down either of those 2 opponents when player skill is matched.

darkace77450
18-02-2009, 23:52
Short answer; yes. Long answer; yes.

Neckutter
19-02-2009, 00:13
i think power creep is evident, but unintentional. for example when an armybook gets a rewrite it inevitably gets better compared to itself. for example the current LM is better than the old LM, because of the slann changes, and saurus. WoC is better than HoC, because of the huge improvement of chaos warriors/knights. even DoC is better than the storm of chaos armylist. in the old SoC Daemon list, you had two choices: Khorne army led by belakor, or Nurgle army led by belakor. if you didnt take belakor, you were crazy, because he had awesomely broken rules. also you needed an undivided general for furies to be core.

but on the whole, DoC, VC, and DE are extremely powerful lists and may have been either playtested less, or intentionally made to be really good.

VC lists are inferior to DoC lists. nothing compares to greater daemons. the players, however, matter so much when playing a game. even goliath loses once in a while.

Creeping Dementia
19-02-2009, 02:12
4) "The Balance issues in Fantasy are worse than 40k"
I am not even sure where to begin with this one. For starters, take a wander over to the 40k end of this site and count up the whine threads about Orks. They would easily equal the collective DE/VC/DoC whining. The balance in 40k is completely being overturned by one army, where as Fantasy has three armies that are higher in power. What Fantasy does have is a rock paper scissors issue that 40k rescently divested itself of with silly scenarios and a supermely good codex that outshines all others. If you seriously think balanced is borked in fantasy, imagine if the game used kill points or if one summoned zombie could claim and contest a table corner. That is the state of 40k right now.

Um, Orks aren't that bad. There was a period of a couple months where they were very difficult to beat, because everyones armies were geared to beat Marine type armies. Then Orks came out and there was an actual viable Horde army that could win. If you go and check out the Army list 40k section more people are now taking some anti-horde weaponry, and the problem has really toned down. Biker Nobs are tough, but when treated like really expensive terminators, they aren't an automatic win, and throwing in a couple weapons using templates causes massive hurt on the hordes. A couple weeks ago I saw some tourney results and IIRC, 12 of the top 15 armies were various types of marines, and only one Ork. So, "The balance in 40k is completely being overturned by one army" was almost true, but the trend is already well on the way to straightening out, and has resulted in better balanced lists.

Anyway, the power abuse available in Fantasy IMO is quite shocking (at least in my area). The last time I played Fantasy was about a year ago, at a Rogue Trader that I managed to win with my Lizardmen. This was before the current wave of power armies that everyone talks about, but there were different powerful armies back then. I had to play a WE list (2 Treemen and the sisters), a Thorek Dwarf list, and some Ogres (but that was first game and not too hard).

I won the tourney, used the prize to get a second big box of Tau, and haven't played a game of Fantasy since. I still keep track of whats going on in Fantasy, but there hasn't been anything thats lured me back (including the new LM book but thats a different thread).

I'm sure there are plenty of people that disagree with me, but from my own experience, there aren't many games of 40k that I hate playing, armies can be beaten, as opposed to the good old days of Fantasy when I would have to play against several different players using Thorek in a single week (and those players are now using deamons and VC ironically). The powercreep is a funsuck IMO, and I'm sticking with 40k.





*Edit* As for the OP original question, I do not think the powercreep is intentional, but its still damaging the game.

fluffstalker
19-02-2009, 03:04
I agree with dementia. Really I almost never fail to enjoy a 40k game, even against nob biker lists or deep striking terminator hordes.

I do fail to enjoy the game when a major unit can suffer instant death to pit of shades of infernal gateways. Or when the opponent can slam into me without subtlety and then proceed to flank me anyway because he can raise 40x zombies behind me.

There is no doubt that both games contain potential for abuse, but the difference is that I find my Balanced Imperial Guard list can handle and draw or at least lose with dignity with WAAC lists with consistency, considering I play well. Whereas no matter how well I play my Empire list I almost never win against VC, DE Monsters, Knight Spam and Daemons UNLESS I play with the war altar and two steam tanks, as well as many missle units as I Can pack in to the list. Which makes for a very boring game.

Null_Sheen
19-02-2009, 03:18
The problem with the DoC and VC books is simply that they either seriously undercosted or did not cost at all Itp. Also i think the same issue goes with the special way they resolve the loosing of combat. Both these books are about 15-20% cheaper than what they should be.

DE are though but i think in time people will get used to them.

Neckutter
19-02-2009, 08:49
Really I almost never fail to enjoy a 40k game, even against nob biker lists or deep striking terminator hordes.

complete opposite for me. i find 40k to be without tactics. going first in 40k is HUGE. plus it dissolves into "i can shoot you more than you shoot me; i win"

i love fantasy because if you have an ultra hardcore unit, and it gets flanked... it is dead!

sure magic is huge in fantasy, but if you dont like it take 2 scroll caddies. my DE list has 2 scroll caddies, and null talismans everywhere i can get them.

Parsival
19-02-2009, 09:34
Just a quick query from a relative newby - how would running 1999 point games solve these problems? From what I can see at the cost of 1 point it would:
1. Avoid Lord choices - and thereby some expensive magic artefacts .
2. Reduce Heroes to three maximum (usually).
3. Reduce special and rare choices by one each.

Unfortunately it would also reduce core minimum by one also. Otherwise, is this a tweak that would combat cheese?

Disciple of Caliban
19-02-2009, 10:59
^^ It works to an extent, but several armies will really struggle without a lord choice. It is however a great way of handling larger games (for example, instead of playing 3k play 2999pts). It also does nothing to limit the effectiveness of armies with really good core. Dwarf gunlines really come to the fore under 2k, because thunderers are awesome, and many armies have limited flyers at under 2k, so once the dwarf player spends the first turn killing off cav they can kill the rest of the eneny at their leisure

Voodoo Boyz
19-02-2009, 11:58
My unblemished win record against Orks with CC Nidzilla with a side of Stealer Shock begs to differ on that last point. Problem is all the bandwagon nid players still think Nuke Choir and shooty big bugs are where it is at because they (like the vast majority of SM players) are still stuck in a 4th edition mindset. The guys who run Lash with pie plates might also have something to say about Orks being completely without bad matchups.

Were they shooty Horde Orks or Nob Bikers?

Nob Bikers, sure I can see a CC Nidzilla doing fairly well if the Nob Bikers weren't played right. If you went against someone who was used to the "Turbo Boost Forward, laugh at all attempts to hurt you, and then charge/win" then yeah a muppet won't know how to play that game (ie. Avoid the Fex's, kill the Flyrant, shoot the Stealers).

If it was a Horde of Shooty Boyz, I don't know what to tell you. They should be able to handle any kind of CC list, especially a CC Nidzilla list just fine. They will dictate the terms, always get shots off on you, and can play avoidance till it's on their terms.

If it was non-optimized, or played by a muppet, then yeah. Nothing is impossible to beat, but well built & played armies can dictate all sorts of crap.


As someone who is primarily an eldar player in 40k, let me state that I never had an easy win against Orks or Guard back in 4th and lost to those armies more than any other. Massed rokkit launchers and pike formation autocannon gunline completely trash any eldar list, especially mechanized. The problem was, unless I hit them round one, there was no way I was EVER going to face them because they had zero shot at beating MEQs.

I'm going to assume you ran some kind of variant on the old 4th Ed Mech Eldar list of assholery (3 Holofield Tanks, probably Falcons, with Harlie/Fire Dragon Cargo, Jet Bikes, and Autarch on bike). In which case the Autocannon made no difference, even IG in general don't make too much difference against that kind of list since against Falcons (or anything not a Waveserpent) Autocannons = Lascannons in terms of effectiveness, and they are not cheap enough to compensate.

Mech Eldar didn't have any real problems in 4th until the Ork book came out and Waaaghed all over their faces with Lootas & a real Horde they couldn't manage effectively.

There was no such thing as "Massed Rokkit Fire" from 3rd Ed Orks. I know this because I played Orks all through their 3rd Ed Book for years (see Avatar/Nickname). Orks in hordes were very easy to manage under the old rules before the 4th Ed Dex came around and completely changed the way it all worked.


Nidzilla bennefitted from the metagame situation to a lesser extent, but also from relative invincibility to being shoved off of objectives. If Tau did not just plain melt under Drop Pod/Jump Infantry/Bike Assault, then Nidzilla would not have flourished as much as it did, because Tau (and Guard and Orks) had all the answers to deal with it.

Patently false. I was heavily involved in tournament 40k back in 4th and one of my regular opponents was one of the toughest Nidzilla player you could face in the US Circuit. Tau do not have all the answers to Nidzilla, in fact they suffered quite a bit against them. Venom Cannons make quick work against Hammerheads and Dakka Fex's out shot anything they got LOS on. Most Nidzilla lists I played against that I actually had a hard time with also ran upwards of 100 Gaunts (or more) that would screw with traditional "answers" to Nidzilla (screen from assault armies that could munch you in CC/run out fast and tie up gunlines that could out shoot you). Other varients existed, some with Stealers that had better matchups than Gaunts against specific popular lists, but Tau were never going to have an easy time against 4th Ed Nidzilla.


Really, if you look at the history of bitching in GW games, it always boils down to one thing: People are afraid of change. They are afraid (or are too lazy) to change their army to contend with shifts in the metagame. They are afraid to try new tactics. They are afraid to adjust their playstyle to compensate for what is out there. This is especially true for someone who started with an army that was overpowered at the time they entered the hobby and then the metagame trends/new armies knocked them off of their perch.

Brettonian players are especially guilty of this. They had it so good for so long just running Beep Beep Bus Spam Steamroller that they have gotten lazy. A lot of the rage comes from the gradual realization that rolling 5 lances across the table and crushing everything on the charge may not have been the hieght of tactical acumen and that they are not the military geniouses they thought they were. Brettonian Steamroller has ALWAYS sucked against troops that are unbreakable/stubborn, but that never used to be an issue because a couple years ago you would rarely see a Daemon or Vamp army played in competitive settings. If these Brett guys started running lots of megacheap peasants and flaming arrow archers, they would be mopping these armies they currently are crying about. But they don't. They are set in their ways and unable/unwilling to adjust, resorting to mass whining instead. Well forgive me for not having any sympathy, because you snooty poofters sure had none for me when your multibus lists of death were rectally violating my old Dark Elf armies. Players of other armies have similar problems, it is just most pronounced in the Brett players in my experience.

All of this is only relavent if you are a tournement player. By deffinition, a tournament is a competition. For every pouty grey beard who thinks other armies should be castrated until his "fluffy" all warrior dwarf army of suck can repeatedy beat it, there is a Douche Bagious, Ender of Hobbies, who is out to break the system, buying his army for tons of money from underpaid chinese painters and copy pasting his list off of the internet so that he can rub his junk in other people's faces over his ability to game the system. In my mind, the ideal should be someone who makes a tough army that is an actual army on the table (ie not twenty archers and a DP / Star Dragon Delivery System like what won Vegas or the bulk of the Vegas DoC armies) and not simply an excercise in mathematical excess. As long as both sides can roll some dice and kill some things, I don't care if one army crushes another.

On the other hand, the guy who runs a weak list insults me as much as the WAAC guy, because he is also gaming the system, namely playing the Comp Pity game and cheating me out of a game. Of course I want to massacre people, but I want it to be a challenge. Don't take an all common goblin army to a GT and then start bitching up a storm on the Internet because you didn't win best general. Only the real ********** want a massacre that takes 15 minutes to play. If you want to play like that, stick to your local circle of friends and everyone will be happy.

People don't like change, I sort of understand both your position and theirs.

Problem is that GW screws the player base with rules changes. Got something really good in your current book? Expect it to get nerfed AND cost more next book, or just completely change how it works and not be worth it anymore. When I spend $500 or more on an army and I have models that are drastically not worth fielding anymore, then yeah I'm going to be leary of rules changes. They don't do the reasonable thing of just toning things down OR raising the costs, they do both or completely kill a previously viable option.

I'm not saying that all change is bad, but really 40k 5th Edition is a shining example of GW making drastic changes to the game that will screw over existing armies and force new model purchases.

Wapniak
19-02-2009, 12:25
Problem is that GW screws the player base with rules changes. Got something really good in your current book? Expect it to get nerfed AND cost more next book, or just completely change how it works and not be worth it anymore. When I spend $500 or more on an army and I have models that are drastically not worth fielding anymore, then yeah I'm going to be leary of rules changes. They don't do the reasonable thing of just toning things down OR raising the costs, they do both or completely kill a previously viable option.

I'm not saying that all change is bad, but really 40k 5th Edition is a shining example of GW making drastic changes to the game that will screw over existing armies and force new model purchases.

Well, that's the way it allways was and allways will be! GW wants you to buy new models! I lived this with CSM. From book to book the GOOD and BAD choices changed, and I had to buy, more and more if I intended to have competetive army. The change is somewhat written in the rules. If someones play-span is one-two editions he gets angry. If you're playing for three-four editions or so, you're somehow 'accepting' it.

Disciple of Caliban
19-02-2009, 12:32
^^ Guys, try not getting so far off topic otherwise this is going to end up getting closed :)

Voodoo Boyz
19-02-2009, 12:50
quick answer: there isnt some mystical VC list that can consistently down either of those 2 opponents when player skill is matched.

Incorrect:

Vamp Lord - 450
Level 3
Forbidden Lore
Master of the Black Arts
Summon Ghouls
Skull Staff
Helm of Commandment

Vamp - 203
Nightmare
Dark Acolyte
Summon Ghouls
Enchanted Shield
Book of Arkhan

Vamp - 290
Dread Knight
Summon Ghouls
BSB
Drakenhoff Banner

Vamp - 185
Dark Acolyte
Summon Creatures of the Night
Black Periapt
Flayed Hauberk

10 Ghouls - 88
Ghast

10 Ghouls - 88
Ghast

20 Zombies - 92
Std, Champ

5 Dire Wolves - 50
Doom Wolf

7 Dire Wolves - 66
Doom Wolf

Corpse Cart - 100
Unholy Lodestone

19 Grave Guard - 302
Great Weapons
Full Command
Warbanner

3 Fell Bats - 60

5 Carin Wraiths - 275
Banshee

2249 Points

There are variants, and this is my take on it, but this list doesn't care about shooting and it has all the tools necessary to tarpit big nasties like Dragons and Thirsters (see the Dire Wolf units) & take out Warmachines with ease.

Something in this style is probably one of the best lists in the game, though it's arguable if you want to do the Regen Banner + GG, but I figure why not for a quick list to put out there as an example of how nasty VC really can be.

EvC
19-02-2009, 14:27
Exactly right. If anyone is thinking- "but all you have to do is kill the Lord and you win!!!" then you do not understand how the list works, and pray that you never do ;)

Voodoo Boyz
19-02-2009, 14:45
To be honest the list may even be better without the GG+Regen Bunker and you put more blocks of ghouls in and more Bats/Wolf units to make sure you've got more "Thirster Pits" than they can down in magic/shooting.

Phazael
19-02-2009, 16:35
I was one of those ******* eldar players and I make no appologies for it. Lets face it, 40k right now is no holds barred den of ************* that makes the worst fantasy GT pale in comparisson. When every SM player is running the Big Boo (2+ Fear of the Darkness in pods) and 90% of all CSM players are sporting the Oblit Spam IW lists, why should I feel bad? If anything, the era of double lash and Nob Bikerz has made it worse. In my defense, I can say that I am probably the only eldar player I know who never runs Eldrad. But on the subject, I don't know if you just never played the older orks or not, but they could have ludicrous numbers of Rokkit Launchas, as in three per ten man unit that mobbed up into other units and everything with an AV having one. The secret to snuffing Mech Eldar has always been massed medium firepower and both the Orks and IG had it in spades, even then.

But on the topic of power creep in Fantasy, people who develop one army under the first edition they play in and expect it to play as well (or even the same) are in the wrong game. If you want a game where the balance never changes, try Chess (or Risk if you want dice involved). The fact that the balance is constantly shifting prevents stagnation in both the tournament game and the hobby at large, as people craft new lists and model new units from the new books. In two years all of the people who started (or bandwagon hopped onto) Daemons, VC, or DE will be complaining about how they can't beat Tomb Kings, Ogre Kingdoms, or Beastmen's new books. That may sound ludicrous, but consider that a couple years ago if someone told you that Vamps, Daemons, and VC would be the dominant army now how crazy it would sound. Its all cyclical.

Voodoo Boyz
19-02-2009, 17:21
I was one of those ******* eldar players and I make no appologies for it. Lets face it, 40k right now is no holds barred den of ************* that makes the worst fantasy GT pale in comparisson. When every SM player is running the Big Boo (2+ Fear of the Darkness in pods) and 90% of all CSM players are sporting the Oblit Spam IW lists, why should I feel bad? If anything, the era of double lash and Nob Bikerz has made it worse. In my defense, I can say that I am probably the only eldar player I know who never runs Eldrad. But on the subject, I don't know if you just never played the older orks or not, but they could have ludicrous numbers of Rokkit Launchas, as in three per ten man unit that mobbed up into other units and everything with an AV having one. The secret to snuffing Mech Eldar has always been massed medium firepower and both the Orks and IG had it in spades, even then.

No worries man, I ran one of the ******* Marine lists back in 4th (for much the same reasons). ;)

Still if you read my post I very much DID run 3rd Ed Orks for almost all of 4th Ed, only using my Marines for Tournies, and then only halfway through 4th did I pick them up.

Orks back then couldn't deal with Mech Eldar. Most Rokkits you could field was upwards of 20, maybe 26 if you put them on Nobz too. More if you factor in Elites but if you min/maxed it that way, you had no army and were VERY vulnerable. Mobbing up was not guaranteed since at that point your LD was crap in those units.

Orks were also super expensive then. My Marines could easily outshoot 3rd Ed Orks in terms of taking down God-Falcons. IG didn't bring demonstrably more firepower to the table than the Marines could when Min/Maxed, mostly thanks to Assault Cannons on Termies being so stupidly good.


But on the topic of power creep in Fantasy, people who develop one army under the first edition they play in and expect it to play as well (or even the same) are in the wrong game. If you want a game where the balance never changes, try Chess (or Risk if you want dice involved). The fact that the balance is constantly shifting prevents stagnation in both the tournament game and the hobby at large, as people craft new lists and model new units from the new books. In two years all of the people who started (or bandwagon hopped onto) Daemons, VC, or DE will be complaining about how they can't beat Tomb Kings, Ogre Kingdoms, or Beastmen's new books. That may sound ludicrous, but consider that a couple years ago if someone told you that Vamps, Daemons, and VC would be the dominant army now how crazy it would sound. Its all cyclical.

No I'm more talking about what GW does in terms of not just "rebalancing" things but completely screwing old options, but that's another discussion.

Also, SoC Daemon Legion lists were very much top tier tournament armies under 6th, and VC were also quite good although it was really only because of Zombie/Necromancer Bunkers, where you had less reliable magic but were still very able to buy very little troop wise and then "raise your army" with over 1k in characters.

Gabacho Mk.II
19-02-2009, 17:48
Just a quick query from a relative newby - how would running 1999 point games solve these problems? From what I can see at the cost of 1 point it would:
1. Avoid Lord choices - and thereby some expensive magic artefacts .
2. Reduce Heroes to three maximum (usually).
3. Reduce special and rare choices by one each.

Unfortunately it would also reduce core minimum by one also. Otherwise, is this a tweak that would combat cheese?



Let me give this a shot since my gaming group voted to play at the 1,999pt level for the last campaign-

The main change at this level is certainly the loss of a Lord character, this is precisely why we decided to play this point level. Without a lord character and its imposing ability to be armed with 100pts of magic items/marks/virtues/spawnings/etc and have a flying mount (or worse, the inclusion of a Greater Daemon), the tabletop game then becomes centered more around the use of tactics and movement, and less on trying to contain or limit the destructive capabilities of this one given model.

Thusly, the role of hero level characters takes more prominence, and while they are not as destructive as a lord character, they are still able to play out a solid game without being over-encompassing.

And with the inclusion of a fewer characters, the game will place a larger emphasis on deployment, the support of units in relation to one another, and will certainly provide greater enjoyment while playing all the while forcing players to be more reliant on strategy and tabletop tactics, rather than mindlessly rushing their lord-on-dragon onto a flank and then flying him through the flank of the enemy's battleline... etc. [now how many times have you seen that?]

Finally, you are forced to game with more core choices, and one fewer rare and special choices, which places greater emphasis on unit selections, size of units, if a player wants to run MSU or not, etc. This is the key to our games...





This form of gaming is not for everyone though.

Our group is of the general opinion that we are gaming in order to have fun, as well as perfect our tactics while we do so. We arent writing up soft lists and merely throwing dice around, but a casual observer would often say "hey, why dont you take this magic item combination with your hero... why dont you field three of the same special units.

The vast majority of those players who attend GT's and RTT's (given my short experience in those events) are players who tend to WAAC their lists, and provide themselves every avenue to 'min-max' with the sole purpose of having an tough, unbeatable composition of troops. They are not (imo) gaming for fun any longer, but are rather there to "prove something" to themselves and to the other attendees: "look at how bad I am... I can crush all of my opponents and make their mothers cry!!"

Thus, it is a strong matter of preference.

Some players take this game too seriously at the tables, while others give it less worry and game with the foremost thought of having fun while they are moving around miniatures and rolling dice. *shrug* ;)

Kerill
19-02-2009, 18:03
It also shafts tomb kings really hard and boost armies with a hero-level monstrous mount.

Still sentiments about fun being the main thing I agree with 100%. Also the conventional wisdom is not aways correct and a surprise can often be as effective as the most optimised list agreed on the internet.

Not always, don't get me wrong here, but sometimes lists that stray from the conventional idea can work quite well just because of the sheer unexpectedness.

Gabacho Mk.II
19-02-2009, 18:53
It also shafts tomb kings really hard and boost armies with a hero-level monstrous mount.




Funny you mention this as the only Tomb Kings player we have (who is rather on again, off again) honestly didnt feel hurt too much with our composition limitations, and he did play throughout the campaign with his TK. [IIRC he gamed over 10 battles, with a 50% win-loss ratio]

And concerning hero-level mounts, we never really had any problems with it, since the I was running High Elves withOUT a Dragon Mage, and my DE nemesis was constantly having his manticore shot out from under him... so, no real worries there. :D





Again, it all goes to the type of environment you wish to play in.

If you like a really competitive, bite-your-nails, stay up at night worrying about your armylist, having your dice blessed at church and calling your parents to finally make peach with them and tell them that you love them in order to win a game the next day, then fine. Go ahead. :p

Our like-minded group likes to game in a different manner. :cool:

Warboss Antoni
20-02-2009, 00:06
There's no constant creep. There was a huge rise in power when the high elf book came out and it went up then down ( now down ). I doubt it's intentional, but it does seem weird the demon power builds are all metal with very expensive models...

fluffstalker
20-02-2009, 01:49
I have to disagree with you neck on the hardcore unit- bunkers of GG, shadestars, trolls, temple guard and monsters with tricked out characters can take out most other larger core units, even if they are flanked. The only way to beat them is to join them, ie, play a likewise boring deathstar unit, or flank all your strongest unit into them which is not always feasible. Seriously flanking a GG unit with more weak Core units wont help, as any casulaites will be ressed up next turn, and then youll get flanked in turn by his Vhargulfs or even just raised skellies.

And as for scroll caddies its usuallly not enough unless you can generate alot of dispel dice yourself. Tzeentch and VC armies put out a sickening amount of PD and spells per turn, forcing you to rapidly use up your scrolls. Unless one sunk a large amount of points into magic yuourself, and thus making whatver balanced army you wre making cookie cutter, you woould be hard pressed to defend it. Take an Empire army for example, with a good mix of knights, core and some missle, with a wizard. Unless he wants to get eaten by WoC Tzeentch, he would have to ditch most of his core, min max, and spam dispel scrolls like mad.

The game is never going to be balanced totally, but Ithink tkhat GW should put effort into making a game where one is rewarded for taking balanced rather than cookie cutter list. This is defnitely not the case currently.

In 40k first turn is important, but the fact that the game actually usually has terrain to deal with as opposed to a lone house and forest which most FB games have mean that you have to plan for not getting first turn. Deploying conservatively and maximizing cover and LOS means that even a Tau gunline will not demolish your army on the first turn, and the increased cover saves of 5th ed and run moves of infantry definitely helped to fix the "I shoot you you shoot me mentality".

Shamfrit
20-02-2009, 02:05
I doubt it's intentional, but it does seem weird the demon power builds are all metal with very expensive models...

Got to turn the Economy's wheel somehow :D

Voodoo Boyz
20-02-2009, 02:43
Expensive Metal Models?

Plastic Ghouls with no heads = Horrors
Chaos Warhounds or Dire Wolves = Flesh Hounds

Nah, not really expensive to be honest....:P

SimonL
20-02-2009, 03:46
All this talk makes me glad my gaming group is so non-competitive. Everyone just randomly whips up a list quickly before the game and we roll for teams. Lists are made to be amusing and fun, not just to win. Of course we get ideas for useful builds, but each time is something different. Every game is a new challenge, not just the same stuff over and over. I became bored with my Skaven "Clan Skyre Hail of Radioactive Dakka-dakka" Army and try all these random combos for my own amusement. I've settled for taking the maximum number of potentially self-destructing things simply because it's funny in the first turn if, like in last game...

Warpfire thrower malfunctions, running into and Panicking several units
Warp Lightning Cannon fires three consecutive blasts of Str 2 lightning
Warlock Engineer zorching himself with WL

Sigh

Caine Mangakahia
20-02-2009, 08:35
quick answer: there isnt some mystical VC list that can consistently down either of those 2 opponents when player skill is matched.


Incorrect:

Vamp Lord - 450
Level 3
Forbidden Lore
Master of the Black Arts
Summon Ghouls
Skull Staff
Helm of Commandment

Vamp - 203
Nightmare
Dark Acolyte
Summon Ghouls
Enchanted Shield
Book of Arkhan

Vamp - 290
Dread Knight
Summon Ghouls
BSB
Drakenhoff Banner

Vamp - 185
Dark Acolyte
Summon Creatures of the Night
Black Periapt
Flayed Hauberk

10 Ghouls - 88
Ghast

10 Ghouls - 88
Ghast

20 Zombies - 92
Std, Champ

5 Dire Wolves - 50
Doom Wolf

7 Dire Wolves - 66
Doom Wolf

Corpse Cart - 100
Unholy Lodestone

19 Grave Guard - 302
Great Weapons
Full Command
Warbanner

3 Fell Bats - 60

5 Carin Wraiths - 275
Banshee

2249 Points

There are variants, and this is my take on it, but this list doesn't care about shooting and it has all the tools necessary to tarpit big nasties like Dragons and Thirsters (see the Dire Wolf units) & take out Warmachines with ease.

Something in this style is probably one of the best lists in the game, though it's arguable if you want to do the Regen Banner + GG, but I figure why not for a quick list to put out there as an example of how nasty VC really can be.

I dont really see what dire wolves can do against a bloodthirster or a dragon. Either one of these will simply fly over them to target a unit they woul rather charge. Neither really needs to worry about being charged by a DW unit either, as it would take a great deal of luck to survive. Large flying monsters go where they like. Flamers will wipe out at least one unit, and skulltaker will just forge ahead.

DArk Elves will just flame units with hydras and let anything else break upon the rock that is strikes first black guard. A cauldron is usually behind enemy lines and only the wraiths stand a decent chance of getting at them and killing them. Wraiths can indeed be game breaking unless a magic weapon or ranks gets involved.

Voodoo Boyz
20-02-2009, 11:10
I was wondering if someone was going to question that.

Notice one unit has 7 Wolves, and a Champ. The other has 5 w/ a Champ, but a Vamp has the power to summon over starting value.

Basically you need 7 Wolves w/ Champ for this, but it will tie down any "super monster", be it a Greater Daemon or a Lord on Dragon.

Wolves charge or march 18" as fast cav, Dance moves them a further 8" so that's a total of 26" of movement they can have in one turn.

Wolves charge into Greater Daemon/Dragon and.....challenge.

Greater Daemon annihilates the Doom Wolf, has max 6CR from the challenge, Wolves outnumber, lose by 5, so 5 crumble.

This leaves one wolf left with the Greater Daemon/Dragon, who will be slaughtered in the opponents turn, but the big monster is stuck just where he was a turn ago.

Knowing that this is going to happen, it's the VC players job to get the other Doom Wolf unit into the Dragon/Daemon or more likely, get the one zombie unit they took or summon a new Zombie unit that is now up to snuff numbers wise, who will then Charge (or more likely Dance) into the Greater Daemon and tarpit them for the rest of the game, not letting them do anything while the VC player uses his other units to get you.