Thoughts on hatred combined with battle focus

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.

  • New

    Tyranno wrote:

    Also it does not matter if it is "only" the first turn if the resulting damage output means stuff gets blended into oblivion, removing the need for a round 2.
    but this is not the case. As I already showed the dmg done is mostly the same as before when it just was +1 attack. I can’t get my head around it. Some rules Favour some units more than others just like it’d be the case for other special rules. This is how the game works.
  • New

    noir wrote:

    but this is not the case. As I already showed the dmg done is mostly the same as before when it just was +1 attack. I can’t get my head around it. Some rules Favour some units more than others just like it’d be the case for other special rules. This is how the game works.
    I have had many occasions recently where a battle focus unit hit more times than they had attacks, by far more than just +1 attack would have given them.

    Most recent example; a model had 6 attacks, hit with all of them but 4 were sixes. So 10 hits from 6 attacks. That is very wonky and is my problem with the rule, it either does silly amounts of extra damage on some models, or none on others. Mostly monstrous infantry for the former, and 1 attack infantry for the latter.

    Whenever I use my Kadim Incarnates they obliterate anything they come into contact with. Battle Focus on 3 attack models sends their damage output through the roof; they would not have this kind of killing power with 4 attacks instead (as that would be restricted by their second rank only allowing 3 attacks each).
    I had several occasions where they wiped whole armies off the board, while the rest of my forces just watched.

    Minotaurs as well. They hit 30 Iron Orcs, blinked, and the orcs were gone.
  • New

    Tyranno wrote:

    I have had many occasions recently where a battle focus unit hit more times than they had attacks, by far more than just +1 attack would have given them.

    Most recent example; a model had 6 attacks, hit with all of them but 4 were sixes. So 10 hits from 6 attacks. That is very wonky and is my problem with the rule, it either does silly amounts of extra damage on some models, or none on others. Mostly monstrous infantry for the former, and 1 attack infantry for the latter.
    I wish people would stop using dice situations to try to argue that something is too strong. Your problem with the rule reads as you dislike the variance - I like the variance that comes with the rule. Not everything on the battlefield should be super predictable. Having some form of luck built into the game allows us to simulate a "real" battle in which nothing is guaranteed.

    In this situation getting 10 hits from 6 attacks is lucky (or unlucky if you're facing it). Rolling 4 6s out of 6 dice rolls happens about once in 1866 occurrences, which is the same as missing 4 out of 6 attacks on a 2+... You're more than 2 times more likely to miss all 6 attacks requiring a 3+ (without a reroll).

    I had a situation recently where an enemy unit succeeded with all 10 of it's attacks, requiring a 4+ and they had great weapons! :( That happens once in 1024 occurrences if anyone is interested and it lead to the destruction of my unit - when I had expected to win the combat by 1 or 2 (average). This doesn't make Great Weapons overpowered - it just makes my opponent a lucky so-and-so.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • New

    This entire game is dice situations. And the point of my post was more than just "look at what happened on this one occasion". It was more about how extreme it can get; and perhaps I didn't fully make it obvious, but even 9 or 8 hits from a 6 attack model would have been too much.

    The model in question was strength 6 with AP3, that kind of power combined with the ability to generate anything from 0 to 12 hits from "just" six attacks is really wonky and actually makes it really hard to balance/price. What do you do; make it overpriced for the times it hits 7 or 8 times? Or price it like it never gets more than one or two a game and have it absolutely ruin things when stuff like the above (or less likely outcomes, but still powerful) happen? I wouldn't want to be the person that makes that decision.

    It also is not very fun for the person on the receiving end. I absolutely hated going up against Skaven because of the sheer hopelessness of them getting lucky and getting a massive reward from it, it felt like I had pulled out all my models just for them to all go back in the case with no interaction available to me to counter it.


    And please keep in mind the rest of my post. In my times playing 2.x I have gone up against and used multiple units with Hatred+Battle Battle Focus. And it's insane. Especially for the, ironically, low offensive skill troops who get more re-rolls and more opportunities for 6s, leading to them often hitting more than any other unit anybody in our group can put on the table. And this is consistent; every combat they pile up masses off attacks and blowing units apart.
    I avoid them at all costs now.
  • New

    Tyranno wrote:

    The model in question was strength 6 with AP3, that kind of power combined with the ability to generate anything from 0 to 12 hits from "just" six attacks is really wonky and actually makes it really hard to balance/price. What do you do; make it overpriced for the times it hits 7 or 8 times? Or price it like it never gets more than one or two a game and have it absolutely ruin things when stuff like the above (or less likely outcomes, but still powerful) happen? I wouldn't want to be the person that makes that decision.
    Maybe it should be priced for average outcome, just as everything else is?
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • New

    Adam wrote:

    Maybe it should be priced for average outcome, just as everything else is?
    I don't think this is implemented that way and neither should it be. Things that can just erase other things on a lucky throw (cannons, Midnight Cloak, crushing blow, and I guess blunderbuss as well?) are certainly priced for higher than average and rightly so. The threat of deleting an enemy with one lucky roll of dice alone warrants a higher cost than the average result actually does, as the opponent needs to play around this.

    On the matter at hand: Personally I don't see a big issue with the combination of the two rules Battle Focus and Hatred, similarly as I do not see an issue with Hatred and Poison, which is also strong. I do however think that the rules should be a representation of what the units on the battlefield stand for.

    As an example: If your narrative is that Elves are good at hitting things (i.e. high Off Skill and Lightning Reflexes) and their eliteness is highly attached to that and then you come across situation after situation (without a magic buff) in which something completely average is able to hit more consistently, the narrative falls apart at that point. Imagine an outsider asking "what is special about Elves in T9A?". You answer, they are elite and able to hit better and then in a demo game models from a mass unit hit better. Wouldn't you think the outsider feels kind of perplexed?
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • New

    Tyranno wrote:



    And please keep in mind the rest of my post. In my times playing 2.x I have gone up against and used multiple units with Hatred+Battle Battle Focus. And it's insane. Especially for the, ironically, low offensive skill troops who get more re-rolls and more opportunities for 6s, leading to them often hitting more than any other unit anybody in our group can put on the table. And this is consistent; every combat they pile up masses off attacks and blowing units apart.
    I avoid them at all costs now.
    General question on Battle Focus - doesn't it only work on "natural" rolls of a 6, and not on re-rolled dice? I've seen a couple of posts here that seem to indicate the opposite
  • New

    MatRat wrote:

    Tyranno wrote:

    And please keep in mind the rest of my post. In my times playing 2.x I have gone up against and used multiple units with Hatred+Battle Battle Focus. And it's insane. Especially for the, ironically, low offensive skill troops who get more re-rolls and more opportunities for 6s, leading to them often hitting more than any other unit anybody in our group can put on the table. And this is consistent; every combat they pile up masses off attacks and blowing units apart.
    I avoid them at all costs now.
    General question on Battle Focus - doesn't it only work on "natural" rolls of a 6, and not on re-rolled dice? I've seen a couple of posts here that seem to indicate the opposite
    I think it moreso means an unmodified roll of a 6. As in if you roll a 5 and get +1 to your "to hit" rolls, it doesn't count as a 6. I would think re-rolls of a 6 are natural are they not?
  • New

    Battle Focus works on rerolls. Natural means the physical die needs to be showing a 6.


    As for the argument from fluff: Hatred + Battle Focus represents the absolute peak of berserker fury.

    And right there, yeah, actually I do not like the rules. Berserker fury and murderous hatred should help you wound, not hit.

    So what does a world where Hatred and Battle Focus (Or at least Battle Focus) triggers on to-wound rolls look like?

    Better, I think.

    Background Team

  • New

    Adam wrote:

    Tyranno wrote:

    The model in question was strength 6 with AP3, that kind of power combined with the ability to generate anything from 0 to 12 hits from "just" six attacks is really wonky and actually makes it really hard to balance/price. What do you do; make it overpriced for the times it hits 7 or 8 times? Or price it like it never gets more than one or two a game and have it absolutely ruin things when stuff like the above (or less likely outcomes, but still powerful) happen? I wouldn't want to be the person that makes that decision.
    Maybe it should be priced for average outcome, just as everything else is?
    If you price it for the average outcome, it’s 100% hit accuracy is the average. Price it according to a slightly better version of “all attacks hit automatically”. And now we’ve gone full circle to the core issue again, some units have a better version of “all attacks hit automatically”, is this okay? If so, why doesn’t the OS vs DS have almost any effect on the matter?
  • New

    Stop that guys, autohit and things that have expected value 100% isn't the same at all. At all.
    Considering the pricing, it wouldn't be fair to "price above average if variance is great". That's just that average is only partially vector of price. What count is utility ! And it may very well be that doubling the damages more than double the utility, or less than double it.

    For exemple, consider a canon that would deal D6-1 wounds (so 0-5) and a canon that always deals three wounds. Both have average 3. You can't kill a dragon in a single hit. But with the second canon you're sure to kill it with two hit, while the first may very well need more than two hit. So despite having the same average, they're definitely, definitely not the same.

    So I don't want to read more "They automatically hit", "It is 100% accuracy", etc. because it is indiscutably false. From a gameplay, balance, fluff, psychology, point of view, IT IS FALSE!
  • New

    No one cares what you “want to read”.

    Take a deep breath.


    it is TRUE that their average roll is a conversion of 1 hit to 1 attack, with the possibility of more hit’s than they had for initial attacks.

    So they should NOT be priced as if every hit roll is 100%?

    Then WHAT?! What?! The sweet heck should they be priced at? Because if not “AS IF” 100% hit rate, then it must be priced “as close to 100% hit rate as the game currently contains in regards to models that roll to hit” with the ADDITIONAL pricing included to show the not-uncommon greater than 100% possibility.
  • New

    Serwyn wrote:


    So I don't want to read more "They automatically hit", "It is 100% accuracy", etc. because it is indiscutably false. From a gameplay, balance, fluff, psychology, point of view, IT IS FALSE!
    From a “Gameplay” point of view, it is as close to 100% as anything EVER HAS BEEN in the decades.

    From a “Balance” point of view it is something with high consistency given to it by re-rolls that includes a chance to have a greater than 100% conversion.

    From a “fluff” point of view it’s entirely subjective and can represent anything at all, and absolutely does, as BF is used to as a catch all rule that is used on a huge variety of units and which has been applied for gameplay effect first and with the fluff written after (or never).

    From a “Psychology” point of view? That’s basically a non-sensical statement, but the psychological effect of seeing a unit with an entirely reasonably expected hit rate of (effectively, post rolls) 100% that could theoretically score significantly greater than that is likely not small.



    So yes “they hit 100% of the time” is false.

    However “they hit on average 1 time for each attack, and have the closest to an effective 100% hit rate as anything that has ever existed from 6th edition onwards with a chance to in fact have greater than a 1->1 conversion” IS true.

    It’s entirely reasonable to see the first of those statements as a shorthand for the second.
  • New

    DemonLordDave wrote:

    Keep in mind that these rules together don't just have a chance of spiking high(above their number of attacks) and also have an equal chance of rolling low. They have a SIGNIFICANTLY higher chance of rolling high and a strong degree of luck Protection to not roll low, due to the nature of the rules. It's statistically very unlikely for the unit to roll low.
    This is interesting. Averages are easy to calculate but probabilities are more complicated and ver unintuitive. I wonder what the probability of rolling under 100% hits compared to the probability of rolling over 100%. I could probably have done the math 15 years ago but now it's all foggy I can't remember how.
  • New

    Shane wrote:

    Serwyn wrote:

    So I don't want to read more "They automatically hit", "It is 100% accuracy", etc. because it is indiscutably false. From a gameplay, balance, fluff, psychology, point of view, IT IS FALSE!
    From a “Gameplay” point of view, it is as close to 100% as anything EVER HAS BEEN in the decades.
    From a “Balance” point of view it is something with high consistency given to it by re-rolls that includes a chance to have a greater than 100% conversion.

    From a “fluff” point of view it’s entirely subjective and can represent anything at all, and absolutely does, as BF is used to as a catch all rule that is used on a huge variety of units and which has been applied for gameplay effect first and with the fluff written after (or never).

    From a “Psychology” point of view? That’s basically a non-sensical statement, but the psychological effect of seeing a unit with an entirely reasonably expected hit rate of (effectively, post rolls) 100% that could theoretically score significantly greater than that is likely not small.



    So yes “they hit 100% of the time” is false.

    However “they hit on average 1 time for each attack, and have the closest to an effective 100% hit rate as anything that has ever existed from 6th edition onwards with a chance to in fact have greater than a 1->1 conversion” IS true.

    It’s entirely reasonable to see the first of those statements as a shorthand for the second.
    I can assure you that hatred+battle focus is quite far from 100%. 2+ with reroll/reroll 1 would be much closer to 100% hit (35/36 hits), and you don't have any major problem with these right ?