Why is this game still so centered around the General/BsB?

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.

  • The problem that it's really hiding, is that 50 points is almost always way too cheap for what it brings to the table. Think about it, at which price would you stop buying the BSB upgrade? Depends on your army of course, but in many cases (I play a full goblin army ...) it would go through the roof. Another problem for rebalancing it is that an enormous amount of content would have to be rebalanced. Especially low Ld units. I believe things have been designed with in mind the BSB as an auto-include (or 90% of time at least). Also, it could result in many lists would be suddenly pushed above point/category limits.
    Since it is imbalanced anyway, I think a simple solution for the developers has just been to provide it at standard cost for everyone.

    Perhaps it should just be free like the general (which is also an unbalanced upgrade I believe) as what you actually trade-off the ability is extra victory points to your opponent in case it dies.

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

  • points costs are not mentally taxing at ALL.
    There is no need to reference the upgrade costs of units while playing the game. Not during setup, not during the turns, not even at the end while adding up victory points.

    Also, the cost of the BSB is not 50points across all army books. EoS it is free.
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    @Shlagrabak Well very true, but along with what i posted however, was the rest of my opinion on what BSB should do, different effects per the army's strengths
    Welcome to AoS!?
    Different effects for the same command groups and equipments.

    It's one-sided to think you only need to learn your army's rules. You need to learn 16....plus whatever comes in the future. Thats already a mess for everybody who doesnt play several matches a week.

    Almost every army should have a BSB.
    What would an army be without a general?
    like stated above, it's a representative point costs which saves you few points if you really go without.
    You cant balance the points anyway, because every army list is different. E.g. you can build completely fearless army lists with no need for a panic test....and other lists with only low Dis troops.

    Quick Starter Team

    Playtester


  • @DJWoodelf I don't play several matches a week, hell i haven't played more than 2 matches in... what 2-3 months? i don't even remember. As i said, i don't even have memorized the points for my own army.

    And you have a problem with different effects for the same command group? Where do you draw the line? Why not same stats for same type of unit across armies? I mean, i learn one army.. i learn them all! Thats what you guys are looking for right? Also this then if that's a problem, why increase inspiring presence on models with.. what was that rule again? Lets just make it all 12" no matter what, no? Streamline.

    Ok, lets take a step back and look at the big picture. These little examples you guys seem to be against are ALL over the game already. You expect me to believe that BSB for x army = 50 pts and BSB for z army = free, and add one more... is what breaks the camels back and you're fed up with this game?

    Aren't you the one that JUST said something like "let's add shaken and have it do this new rule"... how is that making the game less complicated?


    DJWoodelf wrote:

    IMO a toned down bubble effect while at the same time introducing a simple wavering/shaken status would have been the best solution.But no need to re-discuss....after a 100page internal thread months ago incl following specific threads about various concepts. ;)
    We will surely see some homebrew solutions...unfortunately requiring adjusted point costs to keep the balance.

    Introduce a new rule. a new "whole" rule (of which i'm in favor of by the way, keep that in mind). Not just change points. But introduce a new rule. No matter what that rule is or how simply it's written, it cannot be more simple than... EoS BSB = Free. HBE BSB = 25 pts. O&G BSB = 100. Or whatever.

    You really think about exactly what it is is bothering you about these suggestions, and need to be very VERY specific when complaining, because you guys aren't really convincing us that those suggestions are "too much to learn" or "mentally taxing..." you're not performing surgery here guys
  • I'm happy with the game, don't get me wrong, what annoys me are these weak arguments against random suggestions, that don't seem to carry much weight. I honestly interpret them as "i don't like it but i don't really know why so i'm going to pretend that not changing them is for the good of the game and everyone else because its too hard to learn"

    Give me a solid argument and you can convince me, i'm not dead set on causing change. But "too complex and hard to learn" is weak

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Marcos24: Spelling ().

  • DJWoodelf wrote:

    ...
    You cant balance the points anyway, because every army list is different. E.g. you can build completely fearless army lists with no need for a panic test....and other lists with only low Dis troops.

    Marcos24 wrote:

    ...
    No matter what that rule is or how simply it's written, it cannot be more simple than... EoS BSB = Free. HBE BSB = 25 pts. O&G BSB = 100. Or whatever.


    You really think about exactly what it is is bothering you about these suggestions, and need to be very VERY specific when complaining, because you guys aren't really convincing us that those suggestions are "too much to learn" or "mentally taxing..." you're not performing surgery here guys
    I already gave my main opinion why BSB pricing per army wouldnt solve anything.

    Theres a difference if running a full goblin army or a full feral orcs + iron orcs army.
    The same is the case for most armies.
    A lot of armies can build some kind of elite and a cannon fodder army. E.g. KoE peasant army and cav army.
    I would say the peasant army is much closer to a goblin army than to an elite orc army.

    Its the same why I think that individual magical item pricing wouldnt have solved anything. There is a difference if a goblin hero or iron orc big boss uses a weapon enchantment....while a common orc is closer to a human character than to a goblin.

    So it would need to be priced per individual character.
    And BSB priced per whatever....definitely not per army because one single army can have very different lists.

    Quick Starter Team

    Playtester


  • Marcos24 wrote:

    But let’s pretend there was an army that had literally no need for a bsb. Would you really kee it at 50pts just because “it would be too mentally taxing to see it cost anything else”?
    The UD are a really good example for this - there is hardly a bsb in any list cos they don't need it. Same with WDG or MSU dwarves, they hardly play a BSB since they don't need him.
    But there are still builds that would want to take the BSB(eg. a barbarian army or big blocks of scellies).
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Basically it boils down to "reducing randomness" and re-rolling your discipline tests so they almost never fail does exactly that.
    That's an incredibly narrow interpreation of what the OP wrote and basically it tells more about yourself and how you see the game than actually providing an answer. As stated by other posters: There are a lot of ways to implement the influence of generals and BSBs on the units morale that can be done with less, equal or more randomness built into the game.

    DanT wrote:

    Is it that people feel like they cannot play outside of the bubble?
    Is it that leadership in the bubble is too good or leadership outside of the bubble is too bad?
    From a Dread Elf player:
    Yes, I think that I can only put a very small part of my army outside the bubble.
    Yes, I think the bubble mechanisms of general + BSB re-roll are so good, all armies want to have as much as possible inside that bubble.
    Yes, I think compared to the efficiency of the bubble, leadership outside the bubble is generally too bad to put significant troops outside of it, unless they have special rules to compensate.

    Also the other way around: Players specifically aim for causing panic checks outside the BSB because of the incredible high pay off if a single panic check fails.

    -------

    I once proposed a different morale system, which I still think would be much better than the current one. Basic idea: Roll D20 on Discipline. Generals grant +General bonus on the roll, depending on their capability of being a leader. BSB does the same thing. Differentiate armies by how much (i.e. Marshal grant +4, WDG lord only +1). This would prevent low LD armies to achieve Dis 9/10 + RR bubbles (because the system will always use the base value of the unit not a "set to-mechanic"), it could differentiate armies much better regarding their leadership setup (e.g. you might want to actually add another character to provide better leadership). Also a D20 scales linear instead of a 2D6 roll. Basically the most criticism I got was "how dare you try to introduce a D20 into the game, imagine the costs"
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • jimmygrill wrote:

    ...

    However, that’s beyond the scope of v2, so for the time being keeping general and BSB is necessary and important...
    may I correct this:
    It has been very high on the scope of staff-internal discussions enough time ago so that it could have been considered.
    E.g.
    - it has been discussed to introduce a linear Dis scale (e.g. d10) instead of 2d6
    - it has been discussed to introduce a status between flee and stay


    So time can not be the excuse for not having done any of this. Of course now its obsolete to talk about it.

    Quick Starter Team

    Playtester


  • flammy` wrote:

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Basically it boils down to "reducing randomness" and re-rolling your discipline tests so they almost never fail does exactly that.
    I don't see how centring the whole game around a 12 inch diameter is reducing any randomness.
    Radius ;)
    The area it effects is large enough to cover most units that would want to be covered by it, as you don't need to be fully inside it to get the effect(s). Really the potential area it covers is a 30-36" bubble around the General & BSB.

    You're right though, it's not the area it affects but the effect itself.

    flammy` wrote:

    I'm sure there are plenty of other great ideas, but after my first 9th games I was really disappointed to notice that it did not address one of the major flaws of 8th.
    It wasn't (and hasn't been) considered a major flaw by those in charge to get it changed.

    That and a lot of the community are quite happy with their Re-rollable Dicipline 9+ Goblins and such units.
    They're the ones who need convincing that not having that is a bonus, which is possibly an impossible task.
  • DJWoodelf wrote:

    may I correct this:
    It has been very high on the scope of staff-internal discussions enough time ago so that it could have been considered.
    As have, undoubtedly, other things. No use crying over spilled milk.

    To me, this issue is like the #67 most important thing to fix on the list. While #1-#40 have been fixed, coming back to issues like this one is a) important for constant improvement but also b) let's not forget that the most annoying issues have already been improved and c) if you change too many core mechanics at once, people will moan.

    Let's keep this all in perspective.
    WDG player - "Please, not in the face..."

    GRILLZONE - mein Hobby Blag
  • jimmygrill wrote:

    ...
    To me, this issue is like the #67 most important thing to fix on the list. While #1-#40 have been fixed, coming back to issues like this one is a) important for constant improvement but also b) let's not forget that the most annoying issues have already been improved and c) if you change too many core mechanics at once, people will moan.

    ...
    Which core mechanic has changed (not taking magic flux into consideration...which in the end is no new mechanic but an adjustment to reduce randomness)?
    LOS change maybe has the biggest influence of all changes while this still is no "action mechanic" but a "determination mechanic".

    The thing is, no big thing has been touched....evaluated neutrally.
    The even more important thing is: we don't even know what the majority of the community would have preferred...we just know that the majority of RT obviously didn't want any big change.
    Unfortunately most energy seemingly went into IP (e.g. rewording) and clarification.....which of course was really important but well just delegate it to specific task teams.

    Quick Starter Team

    Playtester


  • I don't really find books to be that varied in their "out of bubble" play.

    Okay, sure, I've seen the odd Elf player go wide with any old troops, and I've definitely seen Dwarven Holds go wide (I've seen them skip a BSB too).

    But the thing is? You know what the #1 and #2 "yeah I can go wide here" moment is? Fighting against an enemy with no real shooting, and fielding an army that ignores Panic checks.

    Because it's fishing for free wins via lucky Panic checks that is where Discipline matters.


    And I just do not like that, either way. It's an extra incentive to take shooting (which is already too good on a strategic level), it's still highly random (Ld 8 checks still fail often, Ld6 checks still pass equally often) in a game that has virtually removed all other highly binary randomness... it's just not a good fit.

    I've suggested fixes before (in a nutshell, you need to add an intermediate step between "fine" and "fleeing", but make it a bit easier to be pushed down to that intermediate step), but honestly... the official takeaway was "let's introduce Shaken, but not as an intermediate step" and that was not encouraging.

    Background Team

  • Random thought: would the game be better without out-of-combat panic tests?

    If we did this, they you don't have to worry about units outside of the bubble fleeing before seeing combat. They might still break after combat if they aren't in the bubble, but now there is no fear of losing units before then. If you want to get rid of a unit, you need to kill it completely from afar or break it in melee.
  • Hmmm.

    On reflection, no.

    This is a game designed for top level players, by top level players, and that has meant systematically stripping away anything that would let a "bad" player get lucky and beat them.

    Which is terrible game design, and removing the last vestigial remains of lucky breaks from the game wouldn't actually make the game better.


    (8th ed WH, for all it's flaws, could sometimes be randomly won by a bad player 6-dicing that spell that had good odds of killing your mage etc. - which means that players had at least a chance of winning against a better player. Which gives them a reason to keep trying, rather than just throw in the towel and get lunch.

    The way they got there wasn't necessarily great - particularly in how it got repetitive - but there is a *reason* why Blue Shells exist.

    kotaku.com.au/2011/03/the-make…justifies-the-blue-shell/

    )


    "At the end of the day, getting completely stomped just isn't fun."
    "If you're just dominating,... there's really nothing for you to do"


    This is the problem with getting hyper-competitive players to design a game.

    Background Team