I didnt look at comparing 2020 to 2021 specifically, but it seemed that adding the data for so far in 2021 to the existing 2020 data made the entire dataset more robust. Even though its a “longer dataset” that doesnt let us catch any new hot trends it still seems to paint an overall more correct picture now. The reason I think that is that some units that got a few questions raised last time around, since they were considered pretty good, have now dropped out of the list due to more registered usage rate. Which makes sense.
Like the Rhordia Volley Gun for instance.
The tendency is also supported by a bunch of named characters (which arent actually included in the article now, due to some crazy names that break the parser and prevents me from getting a complete result for them, but I can still mention that for instance Eckter and Nomagarok get a lot more registered use now which makes more sense overall.
the idea behind of CoK is to change the “meta” on a yearly bases for those that want that
while it also provides some balance changes, it is mainly about new units/rules/scenarios that are optional
the other way of doing this (that other games chose) is to release new army books to change things
and some do both (for example T9A which releases yearly point changes that are not based on balance but on units used in tournaments, so units that are used most get points increase and those used less are reduced, independent from how good the balance is, just to shake up the tournament scene, while at the same time heavily re-working the army books)
comparing 1st to 3rd in KoW, we have now about 3 times the amount of rules that need to be balanced and there are more combos that can slip thru
yet least used units in tournaments is something one should not care if you don’t play a lot of tournaments (and as there were not many in the past year, and there are not a lot at all in Europe, I would take that list with a grain of salt anyway)
This need for constant change and new rule hotness is something I never understood with non-historical wargaming. The more things are added after initial playtest/development, the more the game is going to get cluttered and encounter issues. The whole meta chasing is like a dog chasing its tail, futile and just looks silly, but I am a dirty casual who would like to see the ultra WAAC tournament mentality kindly remove itself from the gaming community. It damages games, due to shifting the focus onto winning being the only important thing.
Using tournaments to fix the games issues is not ideal, again due to the environment of tournaments, and how their preferred playstyle can influence the game outside of tournament play. I have heard over the years how players wouldn’t buy units even if they liked the model due to how bad those units performed in tournaments… which to me is just daft. Especially once we factor in that new editions are always going to be a thing as long as game systems are around, and models are immutable, rules not so much.
New missions are fine, as they give players more interesting games to play. Options are great, and something I am all in favour of.
Thanks! That does make sense.
I’d also been surprised to see the Rhordia volley gun there too!
a lot of people have learned “wargaming” with GW, so constant change for the sake of change is a feature
and a game that does not constantly change is dead (and not fun, because you are not forced to play a different list/army each time)
a reason why I like the approach with CoK/campaign books more than re-releasing army books or constantly releasing new units that replace existing ones (in battlefield roles, aka powercreep), because it is optional
if you don’t like or want the change, ignore it and play with the core books for years, no problem
if you think you need it, buy the books and be happy
Games don’t really die. Aure they may not be in print or available to buy in stores. However ebay is a thing, also a lot of out of print games have been fully uploaded to the Internet. So are easily accessible.
Not sure I’d agree that without constant change games are not fun, but thatbis your experience I gather
It is as you say a sales model that GW created and other companies are now copying, as (sadly) GW is for a lot of people their entrance point to the hobby and as such shapes their expectations.
For me personally I think the best method is free online rules for a couple of years, gather the as much data and feedback as possible. Then release the finished product, which contains a wide selection of viable options for all factions, that way the game doesn’t get stale due to the myriad options available to players.
of course games never die, not as long as people are playing it
a good example is Full Thrust, space ship combat game that is old and some mechanics are copied by various other games over the years, yet there are still people who play and there is a new hype from time to time
yet people who are used to GW what call it dead, because it does not matter that it is still played and no update is needed because the rules work and models are still available, there is no new edition in years and no revamp of the rules in general
we had this discussion in the very beginning of T9A, and they wanted to copy the GW model because the main group behind the project at that time considered a game that does not change every year for the sake of change as a “dead game” that has no change of growing
I personally prefer games that do not change at all except for necessary adjustments because I usually take my time to build armies and if the army list I decided on is not playable any more when I am finally done modeling and painting it, I see no value in that game (and this kills the fun for me, hence why I have my fair share of problems getting into T9A or AoS although those are more popular here)
Hang about, if a game doesn’t change it is dead, yet at the same time games never die? Not sure I follow what you are saying there.
If a game doesn’t constantly change it isn’t fun, yet at the same time if it changes it isn’t fun?
Sorry, but your last two points contradict each other.
my personal opinion VS the loud people who are used to GW type of releases
I like the release strategy of Mantic because I hate the constant change for no real reason
some people who usually come from GW are considering Kings of War a dead game because there is only a new book once a year and this book does not change anything to the core but is optional
Ah, got you. Sorry it read like you were holding both opinions.
I personally am dead set against change for the sake of change, and reams of publications, that essentially add nothing substantial to a game.
How would this impact armies like orcs or ogres where CS1 is prevalent? Bane Chant would be useless in such armies
That is the point, those armies already have Crushing strength 1, or higher, plus units with both Thunderous Charge (n), and Crushing strength.
They don’t need Bane Chant, the spell is a crutch that a lot of forces are reliant on.
Interesting, I have some suggestions too, @Stonehorse . why dont you make a new topic about bane chant and I can join you there. 
Centaurs are bad?
Local guy had me print up 2 hordes of them, and he’s been smashing face with them ever since. Good player though.
I play with two centaur regiments as my long-range striking units in my FoN army and with 2-3 hordes of lycans in my Herd army. Sure, the lycans are more expensive but always perform (for their respective points) much better than the centaurs do, at least when I play them.
I’m using 2x Centaur Strider troops in my Herd army and they’re great. It blows my mind that they don’t have nimble, but the advantages over the shooty ones are too numerous to ignore. Great chaff who can get punchy in a flank (or straight up saucy in a rear!)
Oh, I guess as far as taking them above troops, I fought against regiments of them in 2E a few times and they didn’t do much but die. Being a D4+ hammer is rough in a P1 shooty meta, which 2E was and now 3E has returned to. Maybe there was a brief window in early 3E where they could take advantage of the relative lack of shooting? But I think those times are gone.
Good idea about the centaur strider troops. I may try it out as I am really not happy with how the regiments perform in my FoN list. Though, in my Herd list I definitely prefer using harpies as my chaff units.
Fair point, Herd are spoiled for choice when it comes to chaff!
And they are getting a [1] Stampede type unit upgrade 
Real Talk: I feel like they shouldn’t have backed down, the Minotaur Chariot Regiment is pretty clearly the same thing except balanced 
Very curious to see what Stampede 2.0 means to the RC, but happy it’s [1] no matter what. IMO the Stampede was a crutch propping up Herd armies - especially as the faction basically collapsed without it! I say as a person who played against them pretty often in 2E and now as them in 3E, albeit in a wildly different (and no more successful) form.