I think this approaches the territory of an unsolvable problem. You can tweak whatever the current meta is, like current “problem” allies. Tweak their point cost, or the entire ally system point cost, and you’ll just see a shift in the current meta present right now. A hyper-competitive alternative will still take its place in another form. Same problem but with a different face. It’s a player problem, not something games workshop can fix. Gaming (video games too) has become a min-max experience where everything is optimized, ran through sims, confirmed by 20 UA-cam videos etc, current gaming culture is chasing min-max so much that we literally optimize the fun out of games. I don’t think this can be solved on GW’s side, I think in a casual setting the players need to say “hey do you mind not running your vexmor varanguard list again please. Maybe let’s try a no-ally league, a no-blessing league” etc. Competitive is always gonna sweat
Tweaks like this help shift the meta which helps keep it fresh. It’s not a great solution and you’re right, the hyper competitive will optimise the fun out of any change made.
An ally tax balances factions against factions--it does nothing to balance specific allies vs. other potential allies. Those are two separate, if related, challenges, that require separate, if related, solutions.
I really like the idea of using battle traits as that tax. When your warband has a good battle trait, it really makes you think about whether allying in a varanguard or anni prime is worth it. I’m looking at corvus cabal, sylvaneth, and ironjawz as examples of strong battletraits. GW should update battletraits so they are more balanced, but still keep them useful and flavourful.
Updates to the battle traits could be a really good solution - the current battle traits seem to have mostly given the good traits to the factions who were less likely to need allies anyway, which is a strange place to be
Battle traits are a mechanic to encourage people to play thematic, single-faction lists; if you take an ally, you lose your battle trait. While this is cool from a narrative standpoint, battle traits are counterproductive in balancing factions. Factions that are currently weak make up some of their weakness by taking strong allies, but if you try to "balance" them by giving them a really strong battle trait, you are making them *choose* between allies and the battle trait. Otoh, if you give strong factions weak battle traits, they have nothing to lose by taking allies. So assigning strong traits to weak factions, and weak traits to strong factions, actually ends up exaggerating the differences between the factions by making it easier for strong factions to get stronger with allies, and punishing weak factions for staying in-faction to keep their battle trait. Since battle traits directly undermine the best way that weak factions can be strengthened, they are not a means of balancing factions, barring a rule change that allows you to keep your battle trait AND take allies.
@@printandplaygamer7134as a quick clarification on my original point, I'm not saying strong factions should get weak traits and weak factions get strong - if anything I'm saying all factions should get strong traits - this is a video about an ally tax, and we were discussing potential ways an ally tax could be implemented, rather than whether an ally tax would be beneficial for game balance - as toast pointed out in the video, an ally tax already disproportionately effects the weaker factions - if we want to discuss balance between factions, I think some factions probably just need complete rewrites.
Interesting arguments. I feel that adding an extra step to an already very open listbuilding would just make it less neat, and people will still take the optimal choices (the real tax is finding the models). Personally, I'd like a framework that doesn't feel like a mix&match between Skirmish AoS, Bespoke and Underwold (very different concepts imo). You can have complex and engaging listbuilding with less but more balanced options and a good in-faction range.
Ultimately balance is a lie, because nothing will ever truly be balanced. There will always be a best pick. Having a good mixup to points and lost building norms, however, helps keep the meta fresh. Stagnation is the bane of a game
Ally taxes are an interesting concept. In AoS in the past, there have been incidents when the attractiveness of a unit as an ally has led GW to raise the points-cost for that unit (eg, bladegeist revenants), which essentially nerfed their home faction (Nighthaunt) by making their best infantry unit too expensive to field. Since JUST raising the points cost for a frequently-allied model often hurts its home faction when it wasn't a problem there, this step should be avoided. The idea of an "ally tax"--a points-surcharge for taking models out-of-faction--allows the game to raise the cost of a model ONLY when allied into other factions--a solution which would have kept Nighthaunt viable, while making it less attractive to take Bladegeists in other Death armies. It also occurs to me that once you have accepted that a model can cost a different amount of points, depending upon which faction it's joining, there's no reason that *every* faction has to pay the *same* ally tax. They could make the ally tax a lever for balancing the game, and a means of incentivizing people to play weaker factions. You could set up three "ally tax rates"--such as 0% for weak factions, 5% for mid-tier factions, and 10% for the strongest factions. So a 200 point ally would cost a weak faction 200 points, a middling faction 210 points, and a top-tier faction 220 points. You'd effectively have to add a single data field to your database for each faction--ally tax rate--and you'd be able to manipulate that data factor on a faction-by-faction basis with each FAQ to balance the factions against each other. (Of course, as Toast suggests, the ally tax should always round UP to the nearest 5 points, so a 120pt ally would cost a mid-tier faction 10 points, and a top-tier faction 15 points).
That’s a great idea, and when you consider GW already self-tier in games like Blood Bowl, the concept isn’t all that out there. Especially if we keep this as matched-play only to keep the list building smooth in casual, then I can see this being a really interesting way to tweak the game. Love this.
From a new player point of view I think this would make it a bit more complex and stain further from Warcry's core of being an easy to learn, play and build for casual game.
I'm personally for it. I think some broken allies even in casual play can make the game not only feel boring, but limit which armies you can use. Case in point, if your army is fun and mobile but doesn't have an answer to a Vex or a clawback that is in every list, you may not want to play that army. By making those less prominent, lists that could be fun but arent tailored to fight that current meta monster see more play.
The real solution is a rework of older bespoke warbands who simply don’t have the options infaction to compete. Stale rules with uninspiring abilities simply struggle to stand up to the big things currently in Warcry. But since GW seem against that kind of overhaul at the moment, points changes are the easiest way to mix up balancing. There will always be the best picks, but that doesn’t mean the norm shouldn’t be disrupted. Stagnant metas lead to dead games
My initial knee jerk reaction is to say, Yes. This video was a complete waste of time. Never speak of it again...but you posted it so and asked for comments so here's my take... If I were to take this video combined with OffMeta Musings latest videos and the call for a cull/rotation, then I start to wonder why it is that you guys are pushing for a smaller game. I get it, you guys want a tournament-centric and hyper competitive game. But warcry was built as and marketed as a casual game. And if you guys are the loudest ones in the room then I fear that someone may actually listen. When has getting less of something ever led to better things. The reduction of playable characters will not enhance enjoyment, in fact it will only foster animosity towards GW and the game. Paying a tax to ally...as if the game points, the financial cost of the mini, the time spent building and painting it and the availability of the mini, is not enough of a tax.
Yup, agree with this take a lot! But I am ok with abridging profiles (like making the various chaos warriors be one profile instead of 4 different ones) in some cases. I totally agree that this is a more casual game and being able to take the most amount of things you have is great! On GW's side I understand them cutting some profiles they no longer sell (likely to happen with the cold one riders next edition), but I hope there is a way to play them (without them being so underpowered it isn't even fun to). For example, if cutting the cold one riders just making them be able to be used as raptadons units legally aka having a raptadons rider/cold one rider mixed profile. I am not fully in support of legends profiles though since they tend to barely be updated and not be any good after little time, and when a new edition comes around the previously legends profiles tend to just disappear.
@jonhythelast i agree....much of this talk about bloat and too many usable characters (which is wild) can be addressed by culling or aggregation profiles. For example it is ok to say that the Briar Queen Chainrasp is the same as a normal chainrasp. The examples are many. But to eliminate the use of minis in the game altogether is foolish. The compendium is what makes this game great. It is what allows creative and dynamic list building...and yeah I get that you may want to bring tried and tested units to a tournament where there are stakes involved, but you should also be free to bring in a meme list of all pig riders. I would have expected this type of rhetoric from tournament-centric or want only hyper competitive play like Off Meta Musings, but thought that Toast would have advocated for a game that would be based more on how fun it would be to play.
That’s a lot to unpack. So when it comes to culling, I don’t actually think culling is a good thing for the game. What I would like to see is a condensing of redundant profiles to make for an easier to balance, and easier to parse list building system. Don’t remove models, simply smoosh some profiles together to cut down on the bloat. When it comes to getting less, I can easily just point to Warcry as a prime example of less is more. Warcry is a hyper streamlined system that has cut a lot of guff to make a really slick ruleset that we all love to play. I don’t necessarily want a hyper-competitive game. What I actually want is GW to go back in and overhaul all the first edition (and some second edition) bespokes and give them a face lift. Not make them more powerful persay, but make them more interesting to actually play. The competitive scene for warcry existed before my channel and it is growing. I have went on record and said I think Warcry is a circle being pushed into a square hole when it comes to competitive play because the system wasn’t designed to be taken as seriously as it is. That being said, I do enjoy competitive play and having a video going over some changes that could help competitive play is in an interesting topic. OffMeta and I are friends, but our videos were made independently of each other. It’s merely a coincidence that we’ve both ended up talkjg sweeping changes at the same time, haha
@wargamesontoast as stated previously i can get behind condensing profiles, in fact i would go so far as to insist it, and I agree that one of Warcrys strength is that it is a streamlined game, but that optimization is a result of the rule structure both the game and it's characters, but i believe it is independent of the number figures that can be played. Reducing the number characters that can be played will upset the user base who have gone out of their way to purchase or collect specific figures to compile their warbands. To me the idea of the bespoke warbands is great and if it stayed that way I would be OK with it, but it's not you can't put the freedom genie back in the box. Look at the push back from Kill Team players about being told that they can't use their models that they paid for, worked on and collected. And I know you said that you are not for a character call which is great and i hope people listen, instead of the complaints that "oh I can't get Scar veteran on Cold one" anymore so take it out. For one thing that's lazy and instead we should be pushing for an update on those profiles. The second is that ebay exists, Facebook marketplace exists, 3d printing exists, recasts exists, proxies exist. Now more than ever we have the ability to get any mini that we want, whether they be real, fake or proxy. Let the people use their minis.
@@Nof1Studio Bear in mind that no one *has* to play with any rules they don't like, unless they are participating in some sort of organized play. I can totally see an "ally tax" as being an "optional rule" that really only gets implemented in match play, in circumstances where balancing factions is a priority for the players and the event organizer, if any. The most common way that people play Warcry at home is one single-box bespoke warband against another; for those people, the rules applying to allies is irrelevant, because those people aren't using allies, or thralls or monsters for that matter. One thing that is true is that having an active organized-play scene is one of the best, most visible ways to show that a game alive and breathing; games where organized events--whether purely competitive or narrative in nature--are rare become perceived as "dying," which starts the downward spiral into actual death. I'd argue that the resurgence Warcry is currently experiencing is specifically *because* it is starting to catch on as a low-stress "competitive" game, with more and more organized events around the world. No game should be tweaked for competitive play to the point that it loses its soul, but the existence of organized play is a key factor in keeping a game alive in the broader wargaming community as well as commercially viable.
I like self-contained warbands. I like complete factions. I think Boxed Warbands should be run as boxed warbands, and all allies should be restricted to within the generic faction.
Also agree. And to what was said in the video, I would much rather have all of the bespoke war band fighters get overall stat buffs than point reductions. Point reductions would further mean one box doesn't get you a decent war band, but rather makes you buy another to get to the needed points.
Warcry should only be one box bespoke. That way an attempt can actually be made to balance the game. It is silly that just anything can be used. It makes it really unfriendly to new players.
who plays warcry to play the faction you already had in AoS. like who actually think that's healthy for a games whose selling feature where unique models and using unique chaos focused setting need to have every single stormcast or urrukai to play ally with..... like i am surprised the game is still alive post ally introduction as it made almost every warband "yea so pick the leader 1 warband model and the rest take these"
What is the point of buying a bespoke warband if you can not use it as is. If I need to buy more than one box what is the point. If we can just use what ever in warcry then GW should stop making useless warcry warbands. Just make warcry rules for all the AOS and underworlds models.
You absolutely can use it as is. People one box all the time - even competitively. Ultimately Warcry is what it is to you and your community. If one box is your jam, run it. Enjoy it. I do.
I think this approaches the territory of an unsolvable problem. You can tweak whatever the current meta is, like current “problem” allies. Tweak their point cost, or the entire ally system point cost, and you’ll just see a shift in the current meta present right now. A hyper-competitive alternative will still take its place in another form. Same problem but with a different face. It’s a player problem, not something games workshop can fix. Gaming (video games too) has become a min-max experience where everything is optimized, ran through sims, confirmed by 20 UA-cam videos etc, current gaming culture is chasing min-max so much that we literally optimize the fun out of games. I don’t think this can be solved on GW’s side, I think in a casual setting the players need to say “hey do you mind not running your vexmor varanguard list again please. Maybe let’s try a no-ally league, a no-blessing league” etc. Competitive is always gonna sweat
This fucking name is amazing.
Tweaks like this help shift the meta which helps keep it fresh. It’s not a great solution and you’re right, the hyper competitive will optimise the fun out of any change made.
An ally tax balances factions against factions--it does nothing to balance specific allies vs. other potential allies. Those are two separate, if related, challenges, that require separate, if related, solutions.
I really like the idea of using battle traits as that tax. When your warband has a good battle trait, it really makes you think about whether allying in a varanguard or anni prime is worth it. I’m looking at corvus cabal, sylvaneth, and ironjawz as examples of strong battletraits. GW should update battletraits so they are more balanced, but still keep them useful and flavourful.
I would love to see Battle Traits tweaked!
Updates to the battle traits could be a really good solution - the current battle traits seem to have mostly given the good traits to the factions who were less likely to need allies anyway, which is a strange place to be
100%
Battle traits are a mechanic to encourage people to play thematic, single-faction lists; if you take an ally, you lose your battle trait. While this is cool from a narrative standpoint, battle traits are counterproductive in balancing factions. Factions that are currently weak make up some of their weakness by taking strong allies, but if you try to "balance" them by giving them a really strong battle trait, you are making them *choose* between allies and the battle trait. Otoh, if you give strong factions weak battle traits, they have nothing to lose by taking allies. So assigning strong traits to weak factions, and weak traits to strong factions, actually ends up exaggerating the differences between the factions by making it easier for strong factions to get stronger with allies, and punishing weak factions for staying in-faction to keep their battle trait.
Since battle traits directly undermine the best way that weak factions can be strengthened, they are not a means of balancing factions, barring a rule change that allows you to keep your battle trait AND take allies.
@@printandplaygamer7134as a quick clarification on my original point, I'm not saying strong factions should get weak traits and weak factions get strong - if anything I'm saying all factions should get strong traits - this is a video about an ally tax, and we were discussing potential ways an ally tax could be implemented, rather than whether an ally tax would be beneficial for game balance - as toast pointed out in the video, an ally tax already disproportionately effects the weaker factions - if we want to discuss balance between factions, I think some factions probably just need complete rewrites.
Interesting arguments. I feel that adding an extra step to an already very open listbuilding would just make it less neat, and people will still take the optimal choices (the real tax is finding the models). Personally, I'd like a framework that doesn't feel like a mix&match between Skirmish AoS, Bespoke and Underwold (very different concepts imo). You can have complex and engaging listbuilding with less but more balanced options and a good in-faction range.
Ultimately balance is a lie, because nothing will ever truly be balanced. There will always be a best pick. Having a good mixup to points and lost building norms, however, helps keep the meta fresh. Stagnation is the bane of a game
Ally taxes are an interesting concept. In AoS in the past, there have been incidents when the attractiveness of a unit as an ally has led GW to raise the points-cost for that unit (eg, bladegeist revenants), which essentially nerfed their home faction (Nighthaunt) by making their best infantry unit too expensive to field. Since JUST raising the points cost for a frequently-allied model often hurts its home faction when it wasn't a problem there, this step should be avoided. The idea of an "ally tax"--a points-surcharge for taking models out-of-faction--allows the game to raise the cost of a model ONLY when allied into other factions--a solution which would have kept Nighthaunt viable, while making it less attractive to take Bladegeists in other Death armies.
It also occurs to me that once you have accepted that a model can cost a different amount of points, depending upon which faction it's joining, there's no reason that *every* faction has to pay the *same* ally tax. They could make the ally tax a lever for balancing the game, and a means of incentivizing people to play weaker factions. You could set up three "ally tax rates"--such as 0% for weak factions, 5% for mid-tier factions, and 10% for the strongest factions. So a 200 point ally would cost a weak faction 200 points, a middling faction 210 points, and a top-tier faction 220 points. You'd effectively have to add a single data field to your database for each faction--ally tax rate--and you'd be able to manipulate that data factor on a faction-by-faction basis with each FAQ to balance the factions against each other. (Of course, as Toast suggests, the ally tax should always round UP to the nearest 5 points, so a 120pt ally would cost a mid-tier faction 10 points, and a top-tier faction 15 points).
That’s a great idea, and when you consider GW already self-tier in games like Blood Bowl, the concept isn’t all that out there. Especially if we keep this as matched-play only to keep the list building smooth in casual, then I can see this being a really interesting way to tweak the game. Love this.
From a new player point of view I think this would make it a bit more complex and stain further from Warcry's core of being an easy to learn, play and build for casual game.
That’s absolutely a fair take, and honestly my biggest concern with any kind of big overhaul like this
I'm personally for it. I think some broken allies even in casual play can make the game not only feel boring, but limit which armies you can use. Case in point, if your army is fun and mobile but doesn't have an answer to a Vex or a clawback that is in every list, you may not want to play that army. By making those less prominent, lists that could be fun but arent tailored to fight that current meta monster see more play.
The real solution is a rework of older bespoke warbands who simply don’t have the options infaction to compete. Stale rules with uninspiring abilities simply struggle to stand up to the big things currently in Warcry. But since GW seem against that kind of overhaul at the moment, points changes are the easiest way to mix up balancing. There will always be the best picks, but that doesn’t mean the norm shouldn’t be disrupted. Stagnant metas lead to dead games
@wargamesontoast still praying for a Claws of Karanak rework aint ya. Someday.
My initial knee jerk reaction is to say, Yes. This video was a complete waste of time. Never speak of it again...but you posted it so and asked for comments so here's my take...
If I were to take this video combined with OffMeta Musings latest videos and the call for a cull/rotation, then I start to wonder why it is that you guys are pushing for a smaller game.
I get it, you guys want a tournament-centric and hyper competitive game. But warcry was built as and marketed as a casual game. And if you guys are the loudest ones in the room then I fear that someone may actually listen.
When has getting less of something ever led to better things. The reduction of playable characters will not enhance enjoyment, in fact it will only foster animosity towards GW and the game.
Paying a tax to ally...as if the game points, the financial cost of the mini, the time spent building and painting it and the availability of the mini, is not enough of a tax.
Yup, agree with this take a lot! But I am ok with abridging profiles (like making the various chaos warriors be one profile instead of 4 different ones) in some cases. I totally agree that this is a more casual game and being able to take the most amount of things you have is great! On GW's side I understand them cutting some profiles they no longer sell (likely to happen with the cold one riders next edition), but I hope there is a way to play them (without them being so underpowered it isn't even fun to). For example, if cutting the cold one riders just making them be able to be used as raptadons units legally aka having a raptadons rider/cold one rider mixed profile. I am not fully in support of legends profiles though since they tend to barely be updated and not be any good after little time, and when a new edition comes around the previously legends profiles tend to just disappear.
@jonhythelast i agree....much of this talk about bloat and too many usable characters (which is wild) can be addressed by culling or aggregation profiles. For example it is ok to say that the Briar Queen Chainrasp is the same as a normal chainrasp. The examples are many.
But to eliminate the use of minis in the game altogether is foolish. The compendium is what makes this game great. It is what allows creative and dynamic list building...and yeah I get that you may want to bring tried and tested units to a tournament where there are stakes involved, but you should also be free to bring in a meme list of all pig riders.
I would have expected this type of rhetoric from tournament-centric or want only hyper competitive play like Off Meta Musings, but thought that Toast would have advocated for a game that would be based more on how fun it would be to play.
That’s a lot to unpack. So when it comes to culling, I don’t actually think culling is a good thing for the game. What I would like to see is a condensing of redundant profiles to make for an easier to balance, and easier to parse list building system. Don’t remove models, simply smoosh some profiles together to cut down on the bloat.
When it comes to getting less, I can easily just point to Warcry as a prime example of less is more. Warcry is a hyper streamlined system that has cut a lot of guff to make a really slick ruleset that we all love to play.
I don’t necessarily want a hyper-competitive game. What I actually want is GW to go back in and overhaul all the first edition (and some second edition) bespokes and give them a face lift. Not make them more powerful persay, but make them more interesting to actually play.
The competitive scene for warcry existed before my channel and it is growing. I have went on record and said I think Warcry is a circle being pushed into a square hole when it comes to competitive play because the system wasn’t designed to be taken as seriously as it is. That being said, I do enjoy competitive play and having a video going over some changes that could help competitive play is in an interesting topic.
OffMeta and I are friends, but our videos were made independently of each other. It’s merely a coincidence that we’ve both ended up talkjg sweeping changes at the same time, haha
@wargamesontoast as stated previously i can get behind condensing profiles, in fact i would go so far as to insist it, and I agree that one of Warcrys strength is that it is a streamlined game, but that optimization is a result of the rule structure both the game and it's characters, but i believe it is independent of the number figures that can be played.
Reducing the number characters that can be played will upset the user base who have gone out of their way to purchase or collect specific figures to compile their warbands.
To me the idea of the bespoke warbands is great and if it stayed that way I would be OK with it, but it's not you can't put the freedom genie back in the box. Look at the push back from Kill Team players about being told that they can't use their models that they paid for, worked on and collected.
And I know you said that you are not for a character call which is great and i hope people listen, instead of the complaints that "oh I can't get Scar veteran on Cold one" anymore so take it out. For one thing that's lazy and instead we should be pushing for an update on those profiles. The second is that ebay exists, Facebook marketplace exists, 3d printing exists, recasts exists, proxies exist. Now more than ever we have the ability to get any mini that we want, whether they be real, fake or proxy.
Let the people use their minis.
@@Nof1Studio Bear in mind that no one *has* to play with any rules they don't like, unless they are participating in some sort of organized play. I can totally see an "ally tax" as being an "optional rule" that really only gets implemented in match play, in circumstances where balancing factions is a priority for the players and the event organizer, if any. The most common way that people play Warcry at home is one single-box bespoke warband against another; for those people, the rules applying to allies is irrelevant, because those people aren't using allies, or thralls or monsters for that matter.
One thing that is true is that having an active organized-play scene is one of the best, most visible ways to show that a game alive and breathing; games where organized events--whether purely competitive or narrative in nature--are rare become perceived as "dying," which starts the downward spiral into actual death. I'd argue that the resurgence Warcry is currently experiencing is specifically *because* it is starting to catch on as a low-stress "competitive" game, with more and more organized events around the world. No game should be tweaked for competitive play to the point that it loses its soul, but the existence of organized play is a key factor in keeping a game alive in the broader wargaming community as well as commercially viable.
I like self-contained warbands. I like complete factions. I think Boxed Warbands should be run as boxed warbands, and all allies should be restricted to within the generic faction.
Also agree. And to what was said in the video, I would much rather have all of the bespoke war band fighters get overall stat buffs than point reductions. Point reductions would further mean one box doesn't get you a decent war band, but rather makes you buy another to get to the needed points.
Warcry should only be one box bespoke. That way an attempt can actually be made to balance the game. It is silly that just anything can be used. It makes it really unfriendly to new players.
I think Warcry could do with a dedicated format around one box factions for sure
who plays warcry to play the faction you already had in AoS. like who actually think that's healthy for a games whose selling feature where unique models and using unique chaos focused setting need to have every single stormcast or urrukai to play ally with..... like i am surprised the game is still alive post ally introduction as it made almost every warband "yea so pick the leader 1 warband model and the rest take these"
A lot of players got into warcry because it opened the gates to AOS
@@wargamesontoast yup! It was the case for me!
What is the point of buying a bespoke warband if you can not use it as is. If I need to buy more than one box what is the point.
If we can just use what ever in warcry then GW should stop making useless warcry warbands. Just make warcry rules for all the AOS and underworlds models.
You absolutely can use it as is. People one box all the time - even competitively. Ultimately Warcry is what it is to you and your community. If one box is your jam, run it. Enjoy it. I do.