No more Hard Weaknesses - A community plea

  • Altao wrote:

    @Giladis
    You forgot to add that choosing one combat strength means also weaken (if not removed at all) other one.

    Looking at other categories at ASAW I think that just two categories at combat (first combat turn damage capacity & grinding) is not enough.
    It should be more divided - just like magic - buffs, debuffs, small magic missile, big magic missile, ability to cast, ability to block magic.
    Same goes for Agility - I don't get why it wasn't included in ASAW polls and elves, vs and wdg are getting this strength because of "legacy reasons".
  • saint_barbara wrote:

    Same goes for Agility - I don't get why it wasn't included in ASAW polls and elves, vs and wdg are getting this strength because of "legacy reasons".
    As I understand (and read in some thread) that somehow belong to First Combat Turn Damage Capacity - strike before enemy to reduce casualties you would receive from enemy.

    For example Combat in ASAW could be divided that way:
    Combat:
    Strength
    AP
    Agility
    Number of Attacks
    On-Charge Potential
    First Turn
    Non-first turn

    Grinding as Damage Capacity from Second Turn is bad idea IMO as grinding more require some sort of defense to soak damage while have same damage all time.
    Current armies:
    WDG
    SA

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armywide Signature Spells - Check! Maybe you could add something more? Success! We got Hereditary Spells!
  • @Giladis I found better example to illustrate why I think that hard weaknesses and outright removal of options and rush to differentiate in all areas are bad idea.

    Our hobby takes a lot of time and money as an investment. One similar one is buying your dream car. You won't feel that it is less special because other cars have engine and steering wheel too. It also won't feel less special because it has wheels and roof. On the other hand you chose it because it was better in some areas than others - it might have been more comfortable, it might have had this elusive thing that attracted you to it, it might have been faster, or better off road. Still it doesn't mean that only this one car is comfortable and all others are not. Or that just a single car can be an offroad car or can be fast. The whole point is that we have a huge spectrum to choose from and therefore we can find something that suits us. With removal of options you are just lowering the amount of choices and as a direct consequence the amount of happy players. If car manufacturer suddenly dropped stopped producing sedans because they are too close to limos or SUVs because they step too much in offroad car territory everyone would instantly see that it is ridiculous argumentation and crazy decision. In my opinion exactly the same applies to T9A.

    I do not care the slightest if other army can do similar things to mine. I am fine with facing WoTG with 2 cannons or Vanguarding banner of speed and copters DH. What bothers me though that lists and models I have prepared for them cannot be fielded and entire playstyles I enjoyed a lot are sacrificed on altar of ASAW and differentiation.
    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
  • Altao wrote:

    @Giladis
    You forgot to add that choosing one combat strength means also weaken (if not removed at all) other one.
    It doesn't have to be a weakness merely average.

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    THE THRONG OF NEVAZ RIG - ARMY BLOG; ZAGREB GT 2018 - 3rd & 4th February - Singles Tournament
  • Giladis wrote:

    Altao wrote:

    @Giladis
    You forgot to add that choosing one combat strength means also weaken (if not removed at all) other one.
    It doesn't have to be a weakness merely average.
    Tell that to ID bulls.
    Current armies:
    WDG
    SA

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

    saint_barbara wrote:

    Same goes for Agility - I don't get why it wasn't included in ASAW polls and elves, vs and wdg are getting this strength because of "legacy reasons".
    As I understand (and read in some thread) that somehow belong to First Combat Turn Damage Capacity - strike before enemy to reduce casualties you would receive from enemy.
    There was no such conclusion in the end (I imagine you are talking about this thread: WotDG FAB and implications towards potential HBE FAB).
  • saint_barbara wrote:

    Altao wrote:

    saint_barbara wrote:

    Same goes for Agility - I don't get why it wasn't included in ASAW polls and elves, vs and wdg are getting this strength because of "legacy reasons".
    As I understand (and read in some thread) that somehow belong to First Combat Turn Damage Capacity - strike before enemy to reduce casualties you would receive from enemy.
    There was no such conclusion in the end (I imagine you are talking about this thread: WotDG FAB and implications towards potential HBE FAB).
    No, no. Some earlier thread - possible DE subforum, but not 100% sure.
    Current armies:
    WDG
    SA

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

    Lets not exaggerate. Strength 4 on the charge (5 with IW) is not weak, its quite the definition of average.
    A charging bull to the gut is not an avarage amount of damage. And it certainly is more than the bull would do standing still.


    And btw, the ID forum did not rage because it was suggested they should be less elite. We raged when we pointed out that the majority of our infantry units are overcosted, and presented mathmatical data to back that up, it was dismissed by gut feelings/bias rather than any actual proof to refute what we had shown.
  • Altao wrote:

    It should be more divided - just like magic - buffs, debuffs, small magic missile, big magic missile, ability to cast, ability to block magic.
    Sorry to come back to this point, but the magic categories are a complete nonsense for me - when all the armies are using the same 10 paths, only the last 2 from your list has any meaning.

    I mean sure - you can drop 5 bound spells on WDG, each with potential damage like gateway, but these are no real solutions, just band-aids.
  • Giladis wrote:

    Altao wrote:

    @Giladis
    You forgot to add that choosing one combat strength means also weaken (if not removed at all) other one.
    It doesn't have to be a weakness merely average.
    This is very good news.

    Moving a bit up the First Turn Damage weakness of ID till the point that we could keep some flavourful charging rule for bulls would be a good step.

    Something to think about for the full rework.
  • saint_barbara wrote:

    I mean sure - you can drop 5 bound spells on WDG, each with potential damage like gateway, but these are no real solutions, just band-aids.
    That's right, but this should be another discussion - lack of Path with Devastating Spells as main theme - which either should result with remove of that strength or with changes to paths (additional one or total rework).


    Looking at first post 3 days passed and 43(!!!) likes.
    Current armies:
    WDG
    SA

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

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    (So, specifically: push things you want to excite people. You can nerf away power creep later if you have to, but we really DO need to consider marketing, people. We're already a finely balanced game - what we need is more EXCITEMENT)
    This is what was done with HbE, and then one of their leaders resigned his position when the Hotfix came around :P
    So, if launching at a conservative power level is a no-no (because people don't get excited) and subsequently balancing optimistic launches is also a no-no (because people resign), the only remaining option is...powercreep?
    That is a massive and unfair over-simplification, and a really crude attempt at deflection. Calcathin didn't resign because HBE got reasonable nerfs to the higher power stuff added to HBE. The unneccesarily heavy handed approach (ie slapping 4 separate nerfs on the same thing when one of them alone might well have been enough by itself) to nerfing was almost certainly a part of it, but from what he's said, that was hardly the only reason (see the pages and pages of discussionn about the process, scope etc which you took part in if you want some of the other reasons.

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    it is very possible to balance the armies without nerfing them, and without forcing playstyles, and without erasing playstyles.
    Hasn't worked in the past, can't see why it could work now. And where is flavour and uniqness if DH are spellcasters and VC good shooters?
    One could also argue that balancing armies by nerfing them has never worked in the past either.

    Fnarrr wrote:

    I feel that's a little unfair.

    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.
    In a very small number of cases, sure. Otherwise, there has been an awful lot of saying "No" because of ASAW, and a whole lot less saying "Yes" because of ASAW, at least when it came to anything above very minor tweaks.

    From what I've experienced, when members of the RT have got directly involved with Task Teams, engaging in dialogue about why the TT (or even just the ACS) thinks an army needs something, and why the RT don't think they should have it, it is a lot more constructive, and promises really good things when Beta is over and the RT only have one or two books to focus on at a time, not 16. For now, though, there's been a lot of saying no (sometimes with unsatisfactory compromises offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis), without finding out why it was proposed in the first place, or really trying to find an alternative which works for both parties.

    It's an unsurprising consequence of dealing with all 16 armies at once, and I'm not attacking the RT, they are doing their best. However, what you are saying is simply not true as a broad statement.

    Fnarrr wrote:


    as well as having moved forward leaps and bounds from one of the most dreaded armies to face due not to powerlevel but playstyle, into a book people are now enjoying games with and against
    People who don't encounter guerrilla MSU cloud lists maybe.
  • CariadocThorne wrote:

    From what I've experienced, when members of the RT have got directly involved with Task Teams, engaging in dialogue about why the TT (or even just the ACS) thinks an army needs something, and why the RT don't think they should have it, it is a lot more constructive, and promises really good things when Beta is over and the RT only have one or two books to focus on at a time, not 16. For now, though, there's been a lot of saying no (sometimes with unsatisfactory compromises offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis), without finding out why it was proposed in the first place, or really trying to find an alternative which works for both parties.

    It's an unsurprising consequence of dealing with all 16 armies at once, and I'm not attacking the RT, they are doing their best. However, what you are saying is simply not true as a broad statement.
    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.
    Hristo Nikolov
  • Giladis wrote:

    So in your opinion the only armies that could potentially have "grinding" as a strength are VC, UD, SE, BH, SA and KoE because they can replenish their numbers?

    Also I do not agree with you base your differentiation on units. Of course a unit of lets say 30 Clansmen and 10 Clansmen will not have the "same" grinding potential. But the individual Dwarf in the unit will.

    You forgot HBE (they have Druidism access too), who are currently really quite good at it (thanks to their racial spell effectively being a second healing spell). The infantry-heavy playstyle they pushed for and got is quite good at sustained battle.

    But no - replenishing the ranks is not the only option. Starting with numbers also works. EoS, OnG and perhaps even a redesigned VS could also work in such a role, and would be much less of a square peg being shoved into a round hole.


    As for the concept of an individual Dwarf - the game isn't about individual Dwarfs. Or individual anythings, actually. It is a game of unit combat, and a unit of Clansmen - with or without Thunderous Charge and Hatred - ain't going to win many fights by grinding. To win a fight, you need to maximise damage output in every round (damage is cumulative), so you start in line formation if you're big (and lose attacks quickly) or not if you're small (still going to lose those attacks).

    Units with multiple attacks in the front row lose capability slower, and are better in this regard, while truly numerous troops need to lose more models.


    And again, on a flavour level, this matches Dwarves quite well - because they're not numerous. Awesome, but outnumbered. One on one, sure, they can outlast an Orc - but they never *get* those odds. Instead, they get heroic charges and last ditch efforts that may swing the tide by shattering the enemy. In the classic "eternal struggle against the Orcs" they win, but it won't take too many more such "victories" before they get wiped out.

    In focusing on the individual, you miss the forest for the trees. A Dwarf PC in an RPG can grind. A Dwarf Army in a novel gets ground down.
  • personally, I like the hard weakness imo it brings flavour and forces me to think about my strategies.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    You forgot HBE (they have Druidism access too), who are currently really quite good at it (thanks to their racial spell effectively being a second healing spell). The infantry-heavy playstyle they pushed for and got is quite good at sustained battle.
    HbE don't grind, they charge in and wipe the floor with me, leaving a pile of benefits in their wake, there is no grinding, just me going poof :P
    That wich dosnt kill me better run...

    #makeVanquisherEternalGreatAgain
  • Giladis wrote:

    Manxol wrote:

    Ah, nice. Then grinding means "nothing in regards of special rules". What a great rule to have!
    Come now that is hardly what I said. :)
    I know it isn't exactly what you said. I'm just making an exageration here.

    But, anyway, constant damage is the same as "no special damage in none of the rounds", so basically Grinding means "Weak at first round damage". Or am I wrong?

    I don't think than the only armies who grind are that ones who can rise models; indeed, I opened a while ago a thread in the ID subforum about our unaviality to grind and exposed what we could do to improve it. Even if I droped the thought of "grinding throught turns", the part about shields I think still got some vivacity there; DH are the other armie than grind, and it is due to they having tools to weaker the enemy 1st turn damage (shield wall), so they constantly can do damage and put the enemy in sort of same level as them. Even wanted to diferentiate from the "good" dwarves and proposed diferent aproaches, which don't necessarily need to be the ones achieved. But to be able to grind you need to mitigate damage further than what "just" +3 AS gives you.

    Also, it has been pointed here, if you need to add models to grind, in an army when you pay between 32 ppm at the elitest unit abaliable, you just can't add that much more models, moreso when all other entries are also expensive.

    Fnarrr wrote:

    DH has embraced the fact that we aren't truly an elite army into our design philosophy, and has been trimming fat left right and centre with the aim to get costs down and therefore numbers up.

    I suggested a similar approach on the ID boards, but then everyone raged
    I would say than this is unelegant to say at finest, @Fnarr. I voiced more than a couple of times than I don't believe in the ID subject, but what has made people rage were you defending the Rocket Battery, amongst other things, when it was an enormous consensus in the "ID hotfix thread" than it really overpriced. Not numbers in hand, but I would say it was the most complained thing, amongst blunderbusses, Chosen of Ashuruk and Kadim Titan.

    Also, the ACS had already "nerfed" the army, but that discount in points you are saying here to be less elite hasn't come to live (Citadel Guard base cost remained the same despise CoA being worse than TC, extra models drop 1 ppm and flintlocks droped 1 ppm while losing 1 of AP).