No more Hard Weaknesses - A community plea

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Fnarrr wrote:

    I agree with this. And it doesn't invalidate my statement. The 2.0 update was meant to be a relatively minor one, mostly there to bring armies in line with the new rules functionally, with generous scope to get about half a dozen things tweaked to improve internal balance. Trying to do major and groundbreaking things is "greed" in that context, and unsurprisingly backfired a lot.
    What about trying to get back simple things which we used to have, and the loss of which has had a major impact on the related unit/option/item?

    First example which comes to mind being Light Troops for mounted SE druids, so that they can join our cavalry units without making the entire unit lose one of their most vital rules? Especially considering that Druids are hardly durable enough to go in combat units, nor do we have effective bunker alternatives (a 350 ish point unit of skirmishing archers who are easily blown away by a magic missile is NOT a durable bunker, just one of the best of several bad choices).
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    SE categories are being redone AGAIN though, and from the latest news I've received its still a botch job IMO, so maaaaybe lets not use that mess for a case study on ASAW.
    And for example giving back special deployment to WDG?
    Sure some things can be done by going around but 5 hard weaknesses is too much I think.
    Current armies:
    WDG - Waiting for better times
    VC

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armywide Signature Spells - Check! Maybe you could add something more? Success! We got Hereditary Spells!
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    I don't have a problem with this per se? Would probably require a price adjustment, but I don't see why its an issue.

    SE categories are being redone AGAIN though, and from the latest news I've received its still a botch job IMO, so maaaaybe lets not use that mess for a case study on ASAW.
    If we asked the ACS chat (or went back through hundreds of pages of past posts there, which I doubt you want to do any more than I do :D ) we could put together a substantial list of similar cases of trying to put back removed things, or add fairly small, ASAW appropriate, things which were turned down.

    A few big (perhaps even OP) things being allowed through isn't enough to say "RT have been pretty liberal with designs that have been aligned to the armies' ASAW, as long as you don't go mental on the greed." when so many ASAW aligned designs (many far less powerful than some of the things allowed) were declined.

    Again, just to clarify, not taking a pop at RT. I might disagree with the decisions, reasoning, or processes, but I have no doubts of their hard-work, commitment or good intentions.
  • Manxol wrote:

    Wasn't the ACS who proposed current CoA instead of TC and losing of +1 AP on flintlocks?

    It's obvious than that is a nerf which doesn't really has been showed in the cost of the unit (despise flintlocks being #1 pick due to lack of competition in core).
    Ive already explained this in the ID subforum.

    TC was going to be lost eventually, the task team for the 2.0 wanted to bring ID closer to its ASAW for testing it during this beta.
    The task team was aware, or that was my impression, that the second round bonus was weaker than the previous rule. But nothing that couldnt be priced fairly.

    ACS were there as advisors with no decision power. With this Im not desvinculating myself of the decisions made, good or bad, but things have to be clear. Whamme shouldnt claim for himself the failure of CoA, in they same manner that we dont take the merit of the success of the new gunnery teams.

    The process of developing the new CoA rule was convoluted, as any change made, with many parts involved. The decision of changing CoA in first place didnt came from ACS, but in the end it didnt matters.

    I dont remember who proposed -1 ap on flintlocks for CC, but probably the -1Ap was again result of a colective thinking.
    Lets be real, when flintlocks got a "nerf design slot assigned". There is nothing that ACS did or could do about it. They were going to be nerfed and I cant imagine a more gentile nerf that losing half an ap. (while Im sure that many feel it unnecessary).

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Gomio ().

  • Wow, this thread exploded since I went to bed.

    Anyway, to respond to my concern (and the responses to it from 4 pages ago):


    Shlagrabak wrote:

    So, is that not an example of one Strength being already implemented and two weaknesses not yet implemented in 1.3? Not saying it was done right or not, but I thought the purpose of ASAW was not to say how an army would evolve compared to the last version of itself; it was to say how the army is supposed to compare to other armies in general. In other words, it would be a destination, not a direction of changes.

    Giladis wrote:

    If a trait already qualified as a strength (in your case WDG Armour) it was left untouched, but if the trait was qualified as a weakness (in your case WDG shooting) it had to be cut down to size.

    Unfortunately, this is the source of the problems that everyone has with ASAW, and why people are now dreading their own army getting looked at.

    Like it or not, any new book we do will be judged based on the version before it. It is inevitable: many units and themes will be shared between versions, and even though there may be a bunch of new stuff added or subtracted, the players of each army have expectations of how the army will play. So long as that is the case, this kind of implementation will always be negative.

    Case in point: if we were to release a brand new book (let's say we were making a werewolf based army for purposes of example), there would be no negative views of this implementation in the slightest. Let's say that this werewolf army had no shooting, but did have high speed and agility. Sounds good: the army is flavorful, as werewolves don't typically concern themselves with guns (in fact, they fear silver bullets), and it has a good mix of strengths and weaknesses. No one will complain about this implementation of ASAW, because there was nothing that came before it for them to compare to, either positively or negatively.

    However, in the case of WDG, there will always be that comparison. To use armor and vanguard as examples again, the army had both armor and vanguard in the past (and the army worked fine - it had a defined flavor, and there was no way that the army could be built around one of the weaknesses). Armor is definitely a strength, as a great majority of the units are heavily armored, and vanguard is definitely a weakness, because only a very small part of the army has access to it. In the current book, armor is still a strength, as a great majority of the units are heavily armored, but now vanguard is even more of a weakness, as it is gone entirely. When you look at the two, it does not appear to be an evolution, only a nerf.

    People were expecting that if you are going to take away an ability that existed before, then they would at least receive a strengthening elsewhere as recompense. That would keep the power of the army consistent with what it was before. Instead, the strength stayed the same, and the weakness was removed entirely, resulting in a perceived depowering of the army.


    To use a visual representation: (as a key - 1=armor, 2=vanguard, X=perceived power)

    WDG v1.3:
    Powerful - - - - - - - - - - - - - Weak
    - - - - - - - - 1- - - -X - - - -2- - - - -

    WDG v2.0 (expectations):
    Powerful- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Weak
    - - - - 1- - - - - - - -X- - - - - - - - -2

    WDG v2.0 (reality):
    Powerful - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Weak
    - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - X- - - - - -2


    This is why the concept of "hard weaknesses" is viewed so negatively (and the reason why this thread exists). It may be a simplistic view of balancing, but this is definitely the crux of the issue.
  • KeyserSoze wrote:

    CariadocThorne wrote:

    One could also argue that balancing armies by nerfing them has never worked in the past either.
    Well it has worked much better than other solutions like arms race.
    That is your personal opinion which many of us do not share.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • @lawgnome I understand what you are saying, but just because some people (or even most people) will make this leap of reasoning intuitively doesn't make it any more right.
    "My army lost things!" is not constructive criticism with respect to ASAW, because it doesn't tell us what isn't working and why. However (and there are quite a few people that have built a good argumentation on this basis, fortunately), "my army struggles in 2.0 because this weakness is too strong/this strength isn't sufficiently well implemented" is much more informative (provided it's elaborated upon, of course). I think the past pages of debate have been overall improving in quality in that regard. :thumbup:
  • Shlagrabak wrote:

    @lawgnome I understand what you are saying, but just because some people (or even most people) will make this leap of reasoning intuitively doesn't make it any more right.
    "My army lost things!" is not constructive criticism with respect to ASAW, because it doesn't tell us what isn't working and why. However (and there are quite a few people that have built a good argumentation on this basis, fortunately), "my army struggles in 2.0 because this weakness is too strong/this strength isn't sufficiently well implemented" is much more informative (provided it's elaborated upon, of course). I think the past pages of debate have been overall improving in quality in that regard. :thumbup:
    Well to be honest argumentation in favor of ASAW is even less sound. It basically is - we want to make all armies even more different because we want them to be and we will use vaguely stated 5 strengths and 5 weakness framework to describe complex multi entry armies.

    Games ultimately boil down to fun, if you strip fun noting remains. At this point it is pretty obvious that WotDG treatment doesn't bring any fun so since only one army got it we still have plenty of room to reverse this horrible idea. The more we press towards it the harder it will be to reverse especially that each change away from fun drops some people from the game.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Adam ().

  • KeyserSoze wrote:

    CariadocThorne wrote:

    One could also argue that balancing armies by nerfing them has never worked in the past either.
    Well it has worked much better than other solutions like arms race.
    That is another argument that is used were it has no place to be. We don't want an arms race, we want the 1.3 power level of armies contained, that is we want a stop to the nerf race, but that is not reversing it to an arms race, it is simply a stop, as the armies already are nerfed enough.
  • Adam wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    CariadocThorne wrote:

    One could also argue that balancing armies by nerfing them has never worked in the past either.
    Well it has worked much better than other solutions like arms race.
    That is your personal opinion which many of us do not share.
    You know where arms race ends up? the end of 7th edition 40k - the whole reason I got back into fantasy wargaming and 9th age was because of how annoyed I was at 40k that 8th didn't even appeal to me.

    ASAW is far from perfect, but the concept is (in my opinion) sound. And no, I am not fanboying because of the staff tag - trawl through my post history in the VS forums and you will see a LOT of anti-ASAW posts.

    I think ASAW is a tool we use to meet our design goals, do we rely on it too much? probably. Do we need to improve our usage and reliance on it? Absolutely (or else this thread would've gone no where).

    ASAW are a framework, they provide us the do's and don'ts of an army - but the degree to which we fall back on them. The degree to which we say "this CANNOT happen" because of ASAW needs to maybe be re-examined.

    WDG are the first book that is going through this. We are learning as we go. We have 9-12 (but lets hope for 9) of testing and adjusting/design work to do for the WDG book to go through. Everyone is talking like the next 203 WDG update doesn't exist, when it exists solely for improving the enjoyment of the WDG book, as well as improving the processes guidelines we will use going forward.

    WDG are the beta test of the book design.

    Is there too much nerfing? maybe - but I think this perception is because we tend to nerf by rules and buff by points drops.
    But I would rather this than an arms race power creep - that BREAKS the game.

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team

    "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

    - Grouchy Badger

  • rolan wrote:

    That is another argument that is used were it has no place to be. We don't want an arms race, we want the 1.3 power level of armies contained, that is we want a stop to the nerf race, but that is not reversing it to an arms race, it is simply a stop, as the armies already are nerfed enough.
    well then remember that besides army weaknesses there are armies strenths which are emphasized enough in the redesigns.

    Army Design Team

    Rules Clarification

    Lexicon Team

    Oceanborn