Future of T9A hotfixes

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

  • New

    Casp wrote:

    But you have to realize, that 3 playstyle per army mean 48 variations... It just a nightmare to balanced.

    To be balanced at the best competitive level, i think that 16 variations is already a challenge.
    Yes but if we had many more playstyles then meta could take care of balancing instead of BLT mostly. So actually having more playstyles makes balance easier (because you can always field counters for meta dominant things). Lowering playstyles leads to stagnant meta and RPS matchups.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HbE generals: HbE Beginners corner
  • New

    I really think RT or whoever it is should give up on the play to control how an army is played. People will - and want to - create their own armies. And even in the old, unbalanced GW times, whenever the meta grew to clear, and everybody thought they knew what they would face, somebody showed up with an army that wasn't all that good overall, but could win in that expected meta - and did, shaking up the scene for e while. Now, with the balancing being a lot better, the effect of different, more unpredictable army builds would even be greater, and the games, especially at tournaments, would be more interesting as you would not beforehand know what you have to face just because your opponent is DH or SA.
    As @Adam said, Lowering playstyles leads to stagnant meta and RPS matchups. That means predictable, more boring games. Might be good for team tournaments, but nothing else gains here.
  • New

    Casp wrote:


    i agree with you on some point.
    But you have to realize, that 3 playstyle per army mean 48 variations... It just a nightmare to balanced.
    To be balanced at the best competitive level, i think that 16 variations is already a challenge.
    That quote shows you have NO IDEA what this game is about, and what community wants.

    With that kind of "thinking" you could just make ONE ROSTER for every army, and you don't even need to produce army books. It would be easy to balance...
  • New

    And you know what community wants?

    We are a group of 6´-8 players, and while we share the same hobby we often discuss about a lot of things and the opinions differ sometimes a lot.
    We are neither pure fluff players nor very competitive, but the range is wide. And while one thinks it was totally fine to field a former demon prince in small games, others even field vampires with additional hand weapon and without other magic gear.
    Of course we often make games where we talk about the wished powerlevel, because it is not realy fun to have very different power levels to start the game with. But in the basic imagination of each player there are wide differences. And this is for sure the same in this forum.

    This project aims at some powerlevel that makes most or all units in an army list somewhat viable to be taken. And this can only work, when there are not staples of special rules and additional special rules via banners or other synergies everywhere, because this will make a lot of "low power" units totally worthless.
  • New

    Jarek wrote:

    That quote shows you have NO IDEA what this game is about, and what community wants.

    With that kind of "thinking" you could just make ONE ROSTER for every army, and you don't even need to produce army books. It would be easy to balance...
    So - as you seem to know - what is this game about? And what does the community want?

    Furthermore I would highly appreciate if we could use a little less absolutisms and could not constantly deny competence to our interlocutors. Empathy and constructive argumentation does the trick.


    Regards

    Rata
    "Wyvern's is good fer one thing, eatin' smashin' smellin' and flyin.' They're also good fer lettin' the other boyz know who's boss!"—Azhag the Slaughterer
  • New

    Adam wrote:

    Casp wrote:

    But you have to realize, that 3 playstyle per army mean 48 variations... It just a nightmare to balanced.

    To be balanced at the best competitive level, i think that 16 variations is already a challenge.
    Yes but if we had many more playstyles then meta could take care of balancing instead of BLT mostly. So actually having more playstyles makes balance easier (because you can always field counters for meta dominant things). Lowering playstyles leads to stagnant meta and RPS matchups.
    But then you end up with the 8th Edition situation where you only ever field one type of list anyways, depending on how the meta settles. This approach does not net you more play styles. It makes you play with fewer, because if you show up with the wrong one, you basically lose automatically.
  • New

    @Jarek

    First i am part the community, i do art for T9A i dont decide anything..

    Now maybe you take too literraly what i said.
    Of course we need liberty in our playstyle and listbuilding.

    What i said, it just that we should not ask something impossible to the team.

    And 3 playstyle per army, all balanced at competitive level, seems to me an utopia. (even if it's the goal of the team)
    Get 3 or 4 playstyle , yes, but only if you are adult enough to accept that you will often play with handicap with some playstyle of you army, of course in function of your local meta.

    Actually i read lot of complain on the forum, and i feel like one part of the community is just unrealistic, and each time they see a playstyle with some handicap in comparaison to the meta.
    They just want ask buff to make it competitive and increase powerlevel. Without thinking globaly to all consequence of such buff. in different meta, or for other army playstyle of second or third rank.

    So personnaly i really encourage team to work , on fluff and fun rules, and i relaly hope that FAB will be focus on this, and not listen too much the community complain about powerlevel, to make people take some build, not because they are competitive, but because they are cool.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.

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

  • New

    There is NOTHING that makes HbE infantry not viable. A lot of armies can field infantry based lists. Some better some less strong.
    It was not necessary to add some banners to give them special rules on top.
    Taking away or reducing these banners doesn´t take away the playstyle of infantry based army.

    In most cases for competitive play a safer approach than "head on into CC where the oponent can hit back" is more viable.
    But this is true for ALL armies out there. Some have the possibility to bring enough ranged threat to do it, others don´t.
    But an all infantry playstyle is viable for HbE even without the banners. It is more risky than shooting avoidance...but this is true for ALL armies.

    So nothing is taken away. The risk of playing CC was reduced significantly due to these banners.
    And there should not have been any banner be allowed three times in no army out there. If the units getting these multiple banners NEED the boosts they provide something is wrong on the design. If this is the case, then the unit design should be checked, and not some bandaid banner effects be added via multiple banners of the same type.
  • New

    berti wrote:

    There is NOTHING that makes HbE infantry not viable. A lot of armies can field infantry based lists. Some better some less strong.
    It was not necessary to add some banners to give them special rules on top.
    Taking away or reducing these banners doesn´t take away the playstyle of infantry based army.

    In most cases for competitive play a safer approach than "head on into CC where the oponent can hit back" is more viable.
    But this is true for ALL armies out there. Some have the possibility to bring enough ranged threat to do it, others don´t.
    But an all infantry playstyle is viable for HbE even without the banners. It is more risky than shooting avoidance...but this is true for ALL armies.

    So nothing is taken away. The risk of playing CC was reduced significantly due to these banners.
    And there should not have been any banner be allowed three times in no army out there. If the units getting these multiple banners NEED the boosts they provide something is wrong on the design. If this is the case, then the unit design should be checked, and not some bandaid banner effects be added via multiple banners of the same type.
    I beg your pardon, but if your statement was anywhere remotely true, we would see a lot more infantry lists in 1.3.

    That not being the case directly contradicts your statement (part in red).

    What the rest of your post can be shortened to is "Hey, nothing is holding you back from playing infantry lists except from actually being able to win your games!"

    I am not sure about you, but I like having multiple VIABLE options, not just multiple options of which only one or max two is viable.

    For some truly fluff players, that viability may not matter overmuch, but a game system that deliberately ignores such high discrepancy in the level of viability among different units is a game system which has deep issues.

    Part of the problem lies with the core system (or rules if you will), but the rest lies within the respective armybooks.

    What you are virtually advocating is the approach of ignoring non viable options as long as there is at least a single viable list for the book.
    Used to be a Vampire ABC member... then an Elf lass bit me... nowadays I have this insatiable craving for cheese, whine and fancy dresses... 8| The Dawn Host of ArchangelusM

    Army Design Team

    Draecarion, may the Lord grant eternal peace to your soul, my Friend!
  • New

    I just want to point out that if there is a need for serious data before nerfing something, there should also be a need for serious data before buffing something.

    And no, while "not played" is a important data, I don't think it's enough to draw conclusions, especially if data comes from TO: people tend to play with the strongest stuff. Infantry lists could have been totally fine in 1.3 (I don't agree with that statement btw) but surpassed by another playstyle, thus not being played.

    You want data that something is bad? Play with it and report. It sad, but it's the only way. (NOT SAYING THIS WAS NOT DONE! Just pointing out that "not played" alone is not enough, even if it strongly suggests a potential problem).
  • New

    Honestly, at least back when we still had a local warhammer community, about half the players I knew bought an army once and then kept playing that same army as long as the list was even remotely legal, no matter what happened to the rules. If their infantry or cavalry or favourite monster was nerfed by a new edition or core book, they'd complain, but they wouldn't play anything else, since that was the models they had and the army they liked.
    Rakatoi Academy: Machinists of Avras
    Some call it shameless Wishlisting! Some call it an Unplayable Mess! Some ask what is the Point of This! Is it an Auxillary Book? A Copy-paste Ripoff? A Fan Version of an existing Book? See for yourself, citizens!
  • New

    Alzam wrote:

    I just want to point out that if there is a need for serious data before nerfing something, there should also be a need for serious data before buffing something.

    And no, while "not played" is a important data, I don't think it's enough to draw conclusions, especially if data comes from TO: people tend to play with the strongest stuff. Infantry lists could have been totally fine in 1.3 (I don't agree with that statement btw) but surpassed by another playstyle, thus not being played.

    You want data that something is bad? Play with it and report. It sad, but it's the only way. (NOT SAYING THIS WAS NOT DONE! Just pointing out that "not played" alone is not enough, even if it strongly suggests a potential problem).
    Well to be correct the statement is infantry was greatly underused and book externally had slightly below 50% win rate.

    So top builds in the book are externally balanced at 50% which means that not played entries are under powered. I agree that if the book had win rate above 50% then it wouldn't be clear especially if it was significantly above 50% but it is not true in HBE case.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HbE generals: HbE Beginners corner
  • New

    Jarek wrote:

    and what community wants
    Does anyone know truly what the community wants? You can't really always go by what the forum says. Just because someone write twenty thousand posts a day on what they feel is right doesn't mean that they need to have say in the final outcome. I've seen it reiterated before that people on the forum know gobs of others who play but never come here to read or post. It honestly makes me care even less about the vocal minority if that is true.

    Any more I really don't like coming to the forum because it has become a cesspool of complaints. I get that we as a community get to have a say and can give ideas. Anymore though it seems to have become a place of entitlement, hyperbole and petty mudslinging. Honestly I'm a little ashamed of how some of the main threads look these days. I get that the game is going through changes and people are always going to not like change. I have to deal with it too. But at the end of the day, I, a person who posts almost never, have a fun time playing this game at home with my friends and at tournaments as well. I'm also not saying things can't be improved, but I think we have a long way to go and patience doesn't seem to be found on the internet in large quantities.
  • New

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    I am not sure about you, but I like having multiple VIABLE options, not just multiple options of which only one or max two is viable.
    But how are you sure that option are viable or not ?
    I will speak of what i know the best. EoS

    Everybody tell light infantry and volleygun was not viable in V1.3 and just no body play them at competitive level.
    Well one day i decided i wanne see it by myself, so i took them at competitive level.

    I won 2 match one nul and 2 defeat.
    Conclusion, was difficult, but it work. Are they competitive in comparaison to ther choice ? no .. Are they viable yes...
    You see difference ?
    If you accept to not try to win turnament, but just won some match. Then there is lot more playstyle viable that people said.
    They just dont play them.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.

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

  • New

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    I beg your pardon, but if your statement was anywhere remotely true, we would see a lot more infantry lists in 1.3.

    That not being the case directly contradicts your statement (part in red).
    Viability is just one of the many reasons why a unit could be left at home. Sometimes a unit is totally fine, but something better takes its place, perhaps because it fits the meta better or is easier to use. I'm not saying that's the case with HBE infantry, just that viability is not the one and only universal reason for something to be unpopular.

    Infantry tends to be a bad pick unless buffed by the usual broken crap, and I would say that's true for all armies.
    From the creators of Ironfists: Internally Balanced, now in theaters War Banner of Ryma: Opens New Playstyles.
  • New

    The about 50% date has some merits, when you visit the data thread. I am not able to argue this in english. (my english is not good enough).

    There were and are infantry units in a lot of lists, but only very few lists were truly infantry based. (so not hitting the shooting limits).
    In my opinion this is due the fact that aiming a list on Close combat and play for winning is a lot more risky. Doing damage on range is a lot less risk than doing damage in CC where the oponent can directly hit back.
    So this infantry based playstyle can work, but it is a lot easier to make other kinds of lists working...more so when you aim at playing very competitive, and so not intend to play with high risk.

    I can see no evidence that HbE infantry was not competitive compared to other infantry units before the update. (at least nothing that would not have been solved by small point adjustments).
    A whole infantry based playstyle is in most armys just doable if they are willing to take more risk. Now...why are there risk reducing banners only in HbE army instead of beeing in base rulebook? I think other armies have the same proplems when they field some CC infantry centered approach.
  • New

    Jomppexx wrote:

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    I beg your pardon, but if your statement was anywhere remotely true, we would see a lot more infantry lists in 1.3.
    Other stuff in HbE in 1.3 was just so much better that infantry didn't see play.
    This statement would hold true if those other stuff in HE list was not the only reason for the HE "almost perfect middle power level" in 1.3.

    Which shows that, if the BEST that the HE book had to offer could not push HE book over the curve, then whatever lays below that is sub optimal.

    Do you see the problem with your statement here?


    Casp wrote:

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    I am not sure about you, but I like having multiple VIABLE options, not just multiple options of which only one or max two is viable.
    But how are you sure that option are viable or not ?I will speak of what i know the best. EoS

    Everybody tell light infantry and volleygun was not viable in V1.3 and just no body play them at competitive level.
    Well one day i decided i wanne see it by myself, so i took them at competitive level.

    I won 2 match one nul and 2 defeat.
    Conclusion, was difficult, but it work. Are they competitive in comparaison to ther choice ? no .. Are they viable yes...
    You see difference ?
    If you accept to not try to win turnament, but just won some match. Then there is lot more playstyle viable that people said.
    They just dont play them.
    Conclusion, you played with a list that included sub optimal elements, according to general opinion, and got let's say even split in 5 games.

    I am not sure what that proves other than that you can use even suboptimal stuff to play. Of course you can.

    I cannot really say more on the subject as I am unfamiliar with what kind of list one needs to build to make Light Infantry and Volleygun to work. But from what you wrote, it still seems as that the community perception was not wrong. "Can play with it" is not the same as "being viable choice" especially in a competitive setting.

    To you "viable" means "I can play with it" but you can play with anything. You can play even 100 EoS vs 100 Chosen of Chaos fight.

    But something being equally viable as other choices is a different beast entirely.

    The intention of the banners is to increase the number of VIABLE competitive playstyles the HE book has, especially in light of the nerf to the carrier builds of the 1.3 HE book with transition to 2.0,

    That is also crucial part of info that a lot of people seem to ignore.


    The most powerful HE builds from 1.3 got nerfed with transition to 2.0. That is a fact.

    The elements considered UP by the team (for various reasons) were brought up in power, and the banners were envisioned as a playstyle enabler tools, as the TT had no other options to achieve that very same result.

    And with the overall drop of power of carrier builds and the raise of power in UP segments, we have hoped to even out the book on approximately the same level, with the BETA intended to show us where exactly, which would have allowed us the info for later fine tuning.

    As it stands now, the fine tuning opportunity is lost or, at best, severely hampered.


    And I still find no merit to claims that the HE infantry lists were in any way viable in 1.3.
    Used to be a Vampire ABC member... then an Elf lass bit me... nowadays I have this insatiable craving for cheese, whine and fancy dresses... 8| The Dawn Host of ArchangelusM

    Army Design Team

    Draecarion, may the Lord grant eternal peace to your soul, my Friend!
  • New

    berti wrote:

    The about 50% date has some merits, when you visit the data thread. I am not able to argue this in english. (my english is not good enough).

    There were and are infantry units in a lot of lists, but only very few lists were truly infantry based. (so not hitting the shooting limits).
    In my opinion this is due the fact that aiming a list on Close combat and play for winning is a lot more risky. Doing damage on range is a lot less risk than doing damage in CC where the oponent can directly hit back.
    So this infantry based playstyle can work, but it is a lot easier to make other kinds of lists working...more so when you aim at playing very competitive, and so not intend to play with high risk.

    I can see no evidence that HbE infantry was not competitive compared to other infantry units before the update. (at least nothing that would not have been solved by small point adjustments).
    A whole infantry based playstyle is in most armys just doable if they are willing to take more risk. Now...why are there risk reducing banners only in HbE army instead of beeing in base rulebook? I think other armies have the same proplems when they field some CC infantry centered approach.
    Again, you say you see no reason for HE lists to not be infantry heavy and viable, yet the data directly refutes you as those lists were simply NOT used in any form of competitive environment.

    Lower risk with shooting heavy lists is one part of the equation, but not the only one.

    You dislike the banners as you refer to them as "risk reducing" which is half correct in essence.

    The other half of the problem lies in the fact that the Elven armies were from the start designed to have advantage in charge ranges and movement, which dropped with transfer from 7th to 8th edition.

    And this core problem has still not been addressed in full.

    So the main reason that the elves prefer charges is that they have NO other means to acquire dominance in CC outside of heavy shooting support, which later transformed in castle counter punch style.

    So, what we have at work here, is some people simply do not like how elven design works, hence the so many threads with"issues" based on evles in general (the lightning reflexes and high I being the most obvious ones).

    And again, hence why you have so much problems with elves: you do not like their core design and the way they function in this game we call T9A.
    Used to be a Vampire ABC member... then an Elf lass bit me... nowadays I have this insatiable craving for cheese, whine and fancy dresses... 8| The Dawn Host of ArchangelusM

    Army Design Team

    Draecarion, may the Lord grant eternal peace to your soul, my Friend!
  • New

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    This statement would hold true if those other stuff in HE list was not the only reason for the HE "almost perfect middle power level" in 1.3.

    Which shows that, if the BEST that the HE book had to offer could not push HE book over the curve, then whatever lays below that is sub optimal.

    Do you see the problem with your statement here?
    Yes. Also no. Sure infantry might not be WAAC tournament competitive but nothing stops you from playing infantry. Sure it's an uphill battle but it can be done. If it was desired that infantry was competitive then there would be changes made as there were. Now they certainly are competitively playable which I see as a positive since I think infantry heavy HbE is a cool style.
    It's okay, it has frenzy.

    Just Flank It © KoE - Tactics 101

    Painting and maybe other stuff in the future