AoS Let's talk about nerfs and buffs from 3.0

I think the only ones who believe it's been destroyed were riding the high of the first tome.

There are legitimate gripes to be had with it though. I will say that I feel for my local Slanneshie player who wants to make them work competitively.

 

no it's the loss of battalions that did that

 

making out like a bandit through the first discussion of points that gw talks about

 

They mentioned in the article doing 5point changes at a time so maybe we will see more frequent but minor changes to cost of units.

 

Gotta love the 5 point change to Nagash, that level of perfect testing and tuning is a master class in game balance

 

But what if a month or so from now you see across the board various units getting tweaked by 5pts and then then next couple months the same happens. No clue what pace they are going to set for point changes but with their "system" and talk it sounds like they are more open to that

Perfect balance is nice in theory but gets stale if you play that forever. You will know who is going to win before the game starts based of this "perfect" balance. At least with changing things up either by changes like 3.0 or just 5pt tweaks across the board it's good to keep the meta from getting too stale

 

i think we can asume it will be the same pace as always twice a year

tell that to chess

 

I wish I knew how to paste in that GIF of Orson Welles giving the standing ovation at the opera in Citizen Kane.

 

So the mention of chess has me thinking, is there a game that could be considered perfectly balanced where the two sides aren't working with exactly the same tools? I can't come up with one, at least right now.

 

Mmm...if there's any game where balancing whining was more of a pastime than Warhammer, it was Starcraft, lol

Even old Starcraft.

 

No it doesn't. The only reason people keep thinking that is due to modern (video)games obsessivly implementing rock-paper-scissor-type balance with hard-counters.

Step away from the constant hard-counters (and preferably from the obsessive rock-paper-scissor approach that "balances" out over an entire tournament but results in wildly unbalanced individual matches) and you'l get something that's balanced without it being stale.

 

exactly it can be fun to get steamrolled my buddy sam and i laughed comedically for about 5 minutes when my girlfriend double turn tabled my buddys big waghhh it was hideously funny

 

Whites' winrate is higher!

 

I can't see them ever revealing the details of that formula, but it would have been interesting to get a closer look at it. I've found myself wishing for separate point costs for Coalesced several times since our book was released, and reading that article only made that wish stronger.

 

I agree 100%. Starborne and coalesced are so different and value our units so differently that it's impossible that every unit could have one point value that's balanced for both. It would save a lot of whining online as well if skinks were 1-2 pts more in starborne armies for example. And saurus units could be less in starborne

 

This sounds imminently sensible to me. But, speaking as someone who knows next to nothing about other factions, would that mean that subsections in other armies would require (or want) similar points granularity?

 

Our subfactions differ more than the subfactions for other factions, noone else as a mechanic as powerfull as summoning and teleporting tied to subfactions, those are generally main-faction abilities.

Though it's not something that's generally needed, though I can imagine there might be some others that would benefit from this approach.

 

GW apparently doesn't know the difference between a skink priest and a starpriest: