Warhammer Community wrote:For open play, the multiplayer rules have been massively expanded, and now include Triumph & Treachery – devious rules for mid-game betrayals.
Narrative players are about to get really spoilt. With Path to Glory soon to become its own stand-alone expansion, this section has been freed up for a huge amount of new content in the 2017 edition. Highlights include rules for siege warfare in the Mortal Realms and Time of War battlefield rules for locations in every realm (even the one’s we haven’t been to yet!).
Matched play is set to get plenty of updates too. These include new Battleplans, new rules of one, and updated points for units in every faction in the Mortal Realms.
Perhaps most excitingly of all are the new Allegiance Abilities. These are much expanded from those four Grand Alliance army-traits from the previous General’s Handbook. The new book will cover Allegiance Abilities for the likes of Fyreslayers, seraphon, Slaaneshi hosts, Nighthaunts and over a dozen others.
Tah-dah! It's coming soon! New points updates from Matched Play, Siege Warfare for Narrative Play (cool!) and expanded Allegiance Abilities for the armies lacking a new Battletome.
I hope Dispossessed get their own Alleigance Abilities. If that is the case, I will just take a complete break from 40K for AoS.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So excited for Slaanesh allegiance and hopefully not-broken point costs!
If the SCGT alternate point costs are a reflection, some of the busted items are looked at, but things like kunnin rukk are still bent.
The SCGT points costs are an incredibly small sample of the overall point cost changes, I don't think you can extrapolate anything meaningful out of them.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So excited for Slaanesh allegiance and hopefully not-broken point costs!
If the SCGT alternate point costs are a reflection, some of the busted items are looked at, but things like kunnin rukk are still bent.
It would be tough to cost that formation appropriately with its current requirements. They need to rethink that formation as a whole. The issue with Kunnin Rukk was never its points cost but rather the fact that Arrer Boyz could be included. Not everything can be fixed with points alone.
You could fix it if you made the formations multipliers of units.
Kunnin rukk archers have 2 issues
1) they are too cheap period even without the formation.
2) the formation effectively doubles their capability, and should thus double the unit's cost.
I can't wait for this! Looking forward the most to the new Battleplans for Matched and then Narrative. I know my Hurricanum is going up in points so I hope some of my naff units like the Steamtank, Knights and Archers are going down.
Yup. Day one buy (maybe even preorder, though I usually don't do that) for me. Sounds like pulling out the Path to Glory stuff was good to make room for other content, while keeping the size down so the price didn't go crazy.
I wonder if they'll condense some of the tiny factions into larger factions? Or is that more likely to be done in Battletomes than in the GHB?
I just got a Start Collecting Malignants box because I thought they looked cool, then to my surprise found out the box actually wasn't all the same faction. (I'm not super worried about it, since they look cool regardless.)
I think that's a battletome thing. I expect that to happen when the high aelves and dark aelves get their tome and get organised into four sub-factions each as are on the AoS app.
High & Dark Aelves will never get a battletome because High & Dark Aelves do not and have never existed in AoS. At all. There are Aelves of various cultures and professions, and like humans or duardin there are some of better moral standing than others. There is no racial distinction.
NinthMusketeer730446 9455778 90f12b2ac611d905c7a0947bb2b7b1bd.png wrote:High & Dark Aelves will never get a battletome because High & Dark Aelves do not and have never existed in AoS. At all. There are Aelves of various cultures and professions, and like humans or duardin there are some of better moral standing than others. There is no racial distinction.
I find that a bit pessimistic, if high borne and exile aelves aren't considered opposites anymore then they can still gain a battletome, it'll just likely combine them then.
We all knew it was coming and I wonder if many of you thought, like me, it was going to be 'just' an update to tweak a few things and keep everything current.
However, looking at the content thus far, I wonder if a new thing might be possible (and this applies to 40k, with the Chapter Approved book)... Every year, we don't just get an update but a revitalisation of the game. I mean, just looking at some of the things included (Allegiance abilities, siege rules, Time of War sheets), that is going to get me back into the game in a big way!
I'm super excited about this! I knew it was coming but it's nice to have it confirmed.
So I understand, are they expanding the Allegiance abilities beyond simple Grand Faction abilities? Will the GA abilities remain for allied multi-faction forces? So many questions. I can't wait to find out!
EnTyme wrote: I fully expect to see tweaks to the various rulesets, maybe even to the core rules, each year.
Per their Warhammer facebook, someone asked if core rules were being changed (they requested the shooting into/out of combat to be changed) and the AOS Account replied there were no core rule changes in the new GHB. Looks like its just points, though perhaps matched play had some tweaks which would affect the core rules.
All I have to say is SIEGE WARFARE!!!!!! I am so excited for this. We have been playing a seige game at my lgs and been using modified rules for it, so I am stoked to see how AoS puts these rules into effect.
Well even tough nighthaunt is still severly lacking models and even more so now that hexwraiths is no longer avalible, i hope my frozty ghosts will be better in ghb2.
I would really like to see the 40k rule of chargers strike first worked in. Also, if a bunch (or all sub factions) are getting allegiance abilities and artifacts, what point is there for new battletomes..?
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: I would really like to see the 40k rule of chargers strike first worked in. Also, if a bunch (or all sub factions) are getting allegiance abilities and artifacts, what point is there for new battletomes..?
FrozenDwarf wrote: Well even tough nighthaunt is still severly lacking models and even more so now that hexwraiths is no longer avalible, i hope my frozty ghosts will be better in ghb2.
We know skeleton warriors are being reboxed, so presumably black knights are too. Hexwraiths arent going anywhere.
Personally i cant wait to see peoples reactions when skyfires etc get their points raised to some absurd level and then people realize i can still nuke out almost any unit/hero/monster in 1 turn without them
Reading the new white dwarf today and there is a deck of cards for 40k open play coming (not maelstrom). I read the descriptions of those previewed and it looked like a real blast (I think I will get it).
It made me think that for AoS, up until now I only saw Open Play as good for multiplayer games (or for total beginners). I hope that the GHBII can have some fun 2 player Open Play rules like these cards for 40k.
Not really if the rumored/suggested point values for alot of the other shooty armies goes up...i have yet to see an artillery heavy list do well anyway
Not really if the rumored/suggested point values for alot of the other shooty armies goes up...i have yet to see an artillery heavy list do well anyway
Mesokhornee wrote: Personally i cant wait to see peoples reactions when skyfires etc get their points raised to some absurd level and then people realize i can still nuke out almost any unit/hero/monster in 1 turn without them
Not really if the rumored/suggested point values for alot of the other shooty armies goes up...i have yet to see an artillery heavy list do well anyway
You're the special snowflake that can do what no one else can then
I bought GHB last year and never got a single game in beyond using the starter set to show someone the basic game play. That said, I'll probably pick this up sooner rather than later.
Does GHB17 replace the original or do you have to have both in order to play?
privateer4hire wrote: I bought GHB last year and never got a single game in beyond using the starter set to show someone the basic game play. That said, I'll probably pick this up sooner rather than later.
Does GHB17 replace the original or do you have to have both in order to play?
Tried to ask on the Facebook page. Didn't get a direct answer, but here's the reply I got:
Warhammer Age of Sigmar wrote:Hi <REDACTED> - there's going to be a General's Handbook every year. This one is packed with almost 100% new content, so you'll want to hold on to the previous General's Handbook for all the battleplans and ways to play inside.
EDIT Finally got a direct answer to your question:
Warhammer Age of Sigmar wrote:Hi <REDACTED> - sorry for not being clear! You'll only need the General's Handbook 2017.
I know they announced new allegiance rules for stuff like Fyreslayers, Slaanesh, etc., but does anyone know if the 4 Grand Alliance allegiances are going to be the same?
auticus wrote: I'm excited enough to hold off my work on azyr 2nd edition so that I can include the siege stuff etc without having to update my own rules.
My only plea and hope is that they reign in some of this broken stuff and maybe expand on what they have laid out already.
I'm really happy about the time of wars for every realm. Thats huge for me.
I'm hoping they adopt the 40k point structure so we can be rid of the silliness that all upgrades are free. Add in renown as a counterpart to power and everyone's happy.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm hoping they adopt the 40k point structure so we can be rid of the silliness that all upgrades are free. Add in renown as a counterpart to power and everyone's happy.
I am really hoping that they do NOT do this, as it's so nice to be able to assemble a box of minis as they come, without having to buy multiple just to have extras to switch in and out depending on whether or not I want upgrades on the unit in this particular game.
So for me, it's not silly, it's nice and easy (plus cheaper).
Which is nice if all the options are relatively equal, but thats not the case. Take Judicators, where one weapon option is essentially non-existent because its so much worse than the other.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Which is nice if all the options are relatively equal, but thats not the case. Take Judicators, where one weapon option is essentially non-existent because its so much worse than the other.
Which is why I appreciate their putting different points for differently kitted out units.
Javeline flying guys or hammer-throwing flying guys.
Build 'em the way you want and pay the points for whichever unit you take.
I don't like the nickel and dime addition/subtractions you have to do with 8th edition 40k.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm hoping they adopt the 40k point structure so we can be rid of the silliness that all upgrades are free. Add in renown as a counterpart to power and everyone's happy.
I am really hoping that they do NOT do this, as it's so nice to be able to assemble a box of minis as they come, without having to buy multiple just to have extras to switch in and out depending on whether or not I want upgrades on the unit in this particular game.
So for me, it's not silly, it's nice and easy (plus cheaper).
Which is why they should preserve the current point structure in a manner like how power works in 40k, so that people who just want a basic structure without having to fiddle with details can play that. But for those of us who play in tournaments having these things be exact is a very big deal, something that can't be fixed by splitting up a few profiles. To name another example, the vampire lord on zombie dragon. Both the chalice and shield options make the model dramatically more powerful, but to deal with that via entries would require 4 different costs before even getting into the weapon options. Or look at Grundstock Gunners, where each model picks an individual weapon and those weapons vary dramatically in effectiveness.
Have they been regularly tweaking the trial points for GHB II on Warscroll Builder or did they just put up one set of trial points? I'm wondering because it seems like if they have been frequently changing the points it would be more likely to be representative of what's actually in GHB 2017.
From Warhammer Community, the table of contents for the General's Handbook 2017 and information on Allies:
Allies are an exciting new addition to matched play games. We’ve all had that struggle when building our armies having to choose between focussing on one faction to take advantage of Allegiance Abilities and battleline units, or using the full Grand Alliance to get access to a wider selection of options. Each faction now has a list of other factions it can ally with, fitting the theme of each force; if your army is made up of the multitudinous hordes of the Clans Verminus, you can ally in the specialised troops of the other great clans, while the Deathlords can rule over any of the other Death factions (the clue’s in the name).
We’ll be going deeper into the allies for each Grand Alliance in the coming weeks, but to tide you over, here’s your allied contingent allowances for matched play games:
With between 200 and 500 points, you’ll have plenty of space to experiment – that’s enough for an Aleguzzler Gargant in an army of Ironjawz, a furious Spirit of Durthu aiding a warband of Wanderers, a vicious Chimera alongside the Khorne Bloodbound or a fast moving pack of Vargheists to aid your legion of Deathrattle skeletons.
Allies are particularly useful in light of the new Allegiance Abilities. We’ll be going into these further with future previews, but armies like the Hosts of Slaanesh or the Dispossessed will be able to make full use of powerful unique skills while having a range of choices available when writing lists for matched play. Similarly, you’ll be able to combine powerful allegiance-specific battleline units with allies to make for focused lists made up of the models you want to play.
This is a major change for all matched play games, whether you’re looking to compete at a tournament or just use some new tricks in battles with friends.
We’ll be taking a closer look at Death in the new General’s Handbook tomorrow, so make sure to come back so you don’t miss it.
YES!!! I like the allies mechanic. Limited enough in points at the standard level (400) to ensure it's not to badly abused but also allows me to add a bit of flavor to my destruction, dwarf, or undead armies without losing my faction benefits.
Encouraging to see the entry for page 113. Hoping that'll be some official errata-type updates. Also excited to see some new battalions included. Hopefully they'll also use this as an opportunity to update some of the current problem battalions (like limiting the use of Arrer Boyz in Kunnin' Rukk).
I picked up the Open War cards for 40k, and was hoping they'd do something like them for AoS, and looks like they did. That's a day-zero buy for me.
Also, I agree that it's good odds on a Nurgle and possibly Deathrattle battletome before the end of the year, judging by the lack of Allegiance Abilities here, plus Nurgle for 40k and Shadespire later this year, which seems pretty death-flavored.
I am completely stoked for this. I still enjoy AOS to 40k and some friends and I are talking about getting back full swing into AOS when GHB2017 comes out.
Also I really want to see what they give my poor Flesh-Eater Courts; alas my kingdom hath been overrun by barbarians, but the people remain strong that one day we will receive aid and push back the villains!
NinthMusketeer wrote: Which is why they should preserve the current point structure in a manner like how power works in 40k, so that people who just want a basic structure without having to fiddle with details can play that. But for those of us who play in tournaments having these things be exact is a very big deal, something that can't be fixed by splitting up a few profiles. To name another example, the vampire lord on zombie dragon. Both the chalice and shield options make the model dramatically more powerful, but to deal with that via entries would require 4 different costs before even getting into the weapon options. Or look at Grundstock Gunners, where each model picks an individual weapon and those weapons vary dramatically in effectiveness.
We're on the same page I think. I realize for games to stay alive that tournament play has to be heavily supported. I just appreciated their having easy to choose options for us non tournament players.
auticus wrote: The facebook account said there were no core rules changes.
Right. Though they did mention updated Rules of One. I'm betting on Arcane Bolt no longer having the "only once per turn" restriction (like Smite does in 40k). I can't really think of any other changes to the Rules of One that I would expect, though.
auticus wrote: Yeah. I'd expect tweaks to matched play rules but those aren't core mechanics.
Shooting into combat is a core mechanic.
Yup, we're on the same page. As much as some folks may want it, I expect no change to rolling for priority every turn, either, since that is also a core mechanic (and, FWIW, I'm fine with it).
Looks like a decent number of new Battleplans, too, which is cool. Curious to see how the siege rules work.
Also, can't wait for you to finish up your Empires of Sigmar or whatever you want to call it so I can use my Mighty Empires tiles again.
DarkBlack wrote: Allies is actually a great idea! Now I can use my monsters of chaos again!
They gave the Slaughterbrute the 'Khorne' keyword and the Mutalith Vortex Beast the 'Tzeentch' keyword some time ago. It will be nice to be able to use the Cockatrice with my Arcanites as the fluff says they do.
Well, saving and hit mechanics are part of the core rules and the rules of one affect them. MAYHAPS they make the following rule of one: natural rolls of 1 for to hit and to wound rolls for ranged weapons in combat cause a mortal wound on the shooter.
I suspect a rule saying multiple instances of the same buff don't stack in matched play. I would really like to see matched play go to fixed initiative as well, since it is a cruel joke when trying to create balanced matchups. So many of my least fun games have been because I got a double turn and won with no effort.
auticus wrote:Yeah. I'd expect tweaks to matched play rules but those aren't core mechanics.
Shooting into combat is a core mechanic.
The matched play rules could add a caveat to shooting into combat in matched play without changing the core rules.
DarkBlack wrote:Allies is actually a great idea! Now I can use my monsters of chaos again!
Good news for me an my next project list! I'd have to drop one of the Monsters (probably the Gargant), but I'd otherwise be able to run this as Slaves to Darkness Allegiance!
Ghaz wrote:
DarkBlack wrote: Allies is actually a great idea! Now I can use my monsters of chaos again!
They gave the Slaughterbrute the 'Khorne' keyword and the Mutalith Vortex Beast the 'Tzeentch' keyword some time ago. It will be nice to be able to use the Cockatrice with my Arcanites as the fluff says they do.
As far as I can tell, the non-god-aligned warscrolls are still valid. At least they're still available in Azyr. Doesn't really matter right now since Chaos wants to be using Tzeentch or Khorne allegiance over Chaos Allegiance, but the Brayherd, Skaven, or Slaves to Darkness Allegiances may get some cool buffs you want to use on your chaos monsters. It would allow Brayherds to use Bullgors, Centigors, Harpies, and Jabberslythes again without breaking Allegiance. Old school Beastmen armies are now legal again!
NinthMusketeer wrote:I suspect a rule saying multiple instances of the same buff don't stack in matched play. I would really like to see matched play go to fixed initiative as well, since it is a cruel joke when trying to create balanced matchups. So many of my least fun games have been because I got a double turn and won with no effort.
I'd be surprised not to see them heading this way. When Blades of Khorne came out, the Bloodsecrator and Bloodstoker abilities were updated in such a way that they can no longer stack.
I definitely don't want fixed turn order nor do I want shooting into combat taken away. I especially don't want the 40k character targeting rule.
I am very excited about the ally rules. I can't wait to see what the Free People's allegiance looks like, and hopefully it means some of the old Empire factions are being merged together again.
Bottle wrote: I definitely don't want fixed turn order nor do I want shooting into combat taken away. I especially don't want the 40k character targeting rule.
I am very excited about the ally rules. I can't wait to see what the Free People's allegiance looks like, and hopefully it means some of the old Empire factions are being merged together again.
Agreed. I'm good with all the current stuff and am super excited for the allies.
In general I am hoping they don't go the can't stack route. Though it's why I held off on my sky dwarf army. I'd say it's 50/50 on whether they go the single time route since they changed the wording in khorne not to stack but kept the wording in Kharadon that would allow them to stack. So we'll see.
Bottle wrote: I definitely don't want fixed turn order nor do I want shooting into combat taken away. I especially don't want the 40k character targeting rule.
I am very excited about the ally rules. I can't wait to see what the Free People's allegiance looks like, and hopefully it means some of the old Empire factions are being merged together again.
I seriously doubt shooting into/out of combat will be touched since its a very core mechanic of AoS and even adding something like a -1 hit penalty would hugely change how the game is played. Ditto for the character rule.
I'm still surprised to see so many people be opposed to fixed turn order in matched play. It's unquestioningly bad for competitive play and it wouldn't be removed from narrative play where it really shines.
Bottle wrote: I definitely don't want fixed turn order nor do I want shooting into combat taken away. I especially don't want the 40k character targeting rule.
I am very excited about the ally rules. I can't wait to see what the Free People's allegiance looks like, and hopefully it means some of the old Empire factions are being merged together again.
I seriously doubt shooting into/out of combat will be touched since its a very core mechanic of AoS and even adding something like a -1 hit penalty would hugely change how the game is played. Ditto for the character rule.
I'm still surprised to see so many people be opposed to fixed turn order in matched play. It's unquestioningly bad for competitive play and it wouldn't be removed from narrative play where it really shines.
Random turn order is just as much, if not more of, a "core" mechanic for Age of Sigmar than shooting into combat or character sniping. Changing any of the three would have a significant impact on tournament list building and match outcomes.
Not really. It's possible for any random AoS game to end up with fixed initiative simply as a result of the rolls. The mechanics don't change, the way the phases work don't change, etc. Tactics would, but that isn't a gameplay mechanic, and the rule of 1 for spells had more of a dramatic impact than fixed initiative would anyway. While great fun at times, in a tournament setting the idea is to match players such that their skill is the greatest determining factor in winning a match; as long as random initiative exists that will not be true. I resent that the balance of my competitive games has to be sacrificed to subsidize people who can't win without a double turn. If I secure turn choice and go second the first round, I know I have a 50/50% chance of winning outright because of the double regardless of who is sitting across the table and how skilled they may be. It's so demotivating that I don't even want to play in tournaments because I can't actually test my skills there.
I have heard top table tournament players say they like the double turn because it always keeps you in the game with a chance of a comeback. If the top table tournament players enjoy it, I am trusting it's good for the tournament scene overall.
I am not a top table tournament player myself (and forgive me Ninth, but from what I understand neither are you), but from my experience with 40k 8th I think that taking out the double turn will suck the enjoyment out of the play styles of many armies, and lead to a stronger shooting meta. Here are the reasons why:
I play Genestealer Cult in 40k and their army tactic is built around a the 'Cult Ambush' an ability that potentially lets you set up within 9" and then charge. To make a 9" charge on 2D6 is a 27.77% chance. As you can imagine the cult ambush is an almost unusable tactic right now with close combat units because of this low probability - instead I now run my Genestealers and Patriarch up the battlefield and use the ambush to set up my gun troops because gambling everything on a 27.77% chance makes for some brutally unforgiving games.
There are so many rules in AoS tied to a similar 9" set-up radius (for example all of summoning) that taking away the double turn would really cripple a lot of play styles.
40k has a saving grace with the Strategems (allowing me to reroll) - AoS does not have a mechanic like that currently. Instead it has the double turn which turns a 27.77% chance into a 27.77% followed by a 50%. It's the risk and reward that I like and opens up more tactics and playstyles in my opinion.
Lastly there is an interesting dynamic between scenarios giving first turn advantage, the advantage of an early double turn, and securing the choice with a low drop army (allowing your opponent to counter deploy you to some extent). Take Border Patrol for example, there is such an inherent first turn advantage in the scenario that most people still opt for it even if it puts them at a 50% risk of a turn 2/3 double. Taking away the double turn will make some scenarios massively weighted onto the first turn (and as a result massively benefit one-drop armies).
So these are some reasons why I like the double turn. I actually wish they had included it in 40k too.
What you are talking about is exactly a problem--subsidizing a strategy that doesn't actually work or punishing a player who played a game well by giving his opponent a double-turn comeback. Further, a double turn is more likely to cause one player to become dominant in a game than it is to give the other player a comeback, if such a situation is to be avoided then so is random turns. Listbuilding currently revolves around undercosted units/battalions first, and exploiting the double turn second. A good spread of unit roles in an army or proper positioning does not matter as much as one's ability to exploit (or mitigate) random initiative. Note how there is only dice in the whole game system that Kairos cannot modify because it would be too strong. Placing that much weight on a single dice roll takes control away from players and makes luck a bigger determining factor. Which in Matched Play, ostensibly the mode for players to test their skill, is a bad thing. If chess tournaments ran off random initiative no one would take them seriously. In 40k specifically, try it. Play random initiative games with other players and see how it works out, just notify them ahead of time so they can optimize their list appropriately. Or go to the 40k forum as suggest that it should be used at tournaments. Maybe I'm wrong and people will be receptive to it, and it will actually work.
As for top table tournament players; if that means large national tournaments or regional ones then no, I don't have a chance to be because I cannot afford to travel to them. So it's great to hear that my financial status now affects the validity of my opinion on the game. Pay to win taken to a whole new level.
I have no idea of your financial status Ninth, so to try and twist my comment into being a stab at that feels somewhat dishonest. Hopefully you have spoken with me enough to know I simply value the opinions of those prominent in the scene because they themselves play tournament AoS more than anyone else and have the largest pool of experience to draw upon. Nothing more should be construed and if it came across as anything else I apologise.
I would say even with tournaments and matched play, promoting an enjoyable game trumps over testing a player's skill. If removing the double turn makes the games a truer test of skill but makes matches more cagey and turns certain match-ups into rock-scissor-paper because the randomness is toned down, I say overall it is worse for the game. This is what I have heard people say and it also corresponds to my own experience of playing two very similar games (AoS and 40k 8th) where one has the double turn and one doesn't.
Oddly if they kept the lower drops equals auto go first then I could see double turn worming in 40k. But since the competitive scene is going to roll for first, because the play testers are also the tournament heads, it doesn't matter much.
As a guy who has won or come in second every AoS tournament he's been to locally and has for years finished in the top at national level gts for 40k it's my opinion that random turn is good for the game. The style of play it enourages in combination with the scenarios is excellent. I find aos much more enjoyable and far less rock paper scissor than 8th 40k and I wouldn't want that to change.
It came across like you were saying 'well these bigwig tourney guys said they like it so your concerns are invalid'. At least to me.
As for fun vs skill I see your point, and I think its a good one that helps me understand your position much better. The reason we fundamentally disagree so strongly here is because for me random initiative doesn't make things more fun in matched play--it makes them significantly less fun. I don't dislike random initiative inherently but when I show up to matched play I want to test my skill against my opponent, this is as opposed to just creating an entertaining 'cinematic' like I would in a narrative game. I even have whole armies that I only use for one or the other. Turn order changing hurts my enjoyment in the former but helps my enjoyment in the latter.
See Ninth, I think random initiative actually takes the skillet of top players to a higher level. The ability to control the game and leave options for the randomness is huge. It's why I think random initiative is better. It helps the middle pack players feel like they have a chance even when things are grim but it also seperates the upper end too.
Hulksmash wrote: See Ninth, I think random initiative actually takes the skillet of top players to a higher level. The ability to control the game and leave options for the randomness is huge. It's why I think random initiative is better. It helps the middle pack players feel like they have a chance even when things are grim but it also seperates the upper end too.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It makes the top players harder to beat but also easier?
I think Hulksmash is saying it creates swingy and exciting games on the lower/middle tables and requires high level strategy on the top tables because it forces a player to account for the luck going with or against them if they are to succeed.
Random initiative.....I think should be adjusted some how. Its like a double edge sword to me as on one hand it can really help you out but on the other hand I know there are times when im praying to dice gods for my opponent not to get the double turn cause it would mean the game is over turn 2...
It is a cool concept for sure because a good player would have to really weigh options as to if the opponent or themselves would get the double turn but with some of the armies out there....it becomes more of a stress.
I did a team tourney last weekend at a local shop and while my partners and mine lists were not too competitive but still decent, we came across alot of mortal wound lists. Let me just say FEC and TK doing shouts at -2 bravery grots.....I was brown in the pants every time. When roll for initiative came up each time I was worried cause if they got it I was for sure a goner and always needed my turn after theirs to re-adjust my units so I could survive. So maybe they can do some sort of modifier on the roll to benefit the underdog of the turn, that would make people think about how aggressively they will play and if they could cripple the opponent enough that the double turn wont hurt them as bad. Idk if its a solid idea or not, sure there are ways to break it.
With the new GH17 the only real rules changes I want to see are mystic shield giving a 6+ save against mortal wounds, not being able to shoot at a character if a battline unit is closer, and alligence abilities for moonclan grots (dont think the last one even has a chance due to the leaked images)
Random initiative can stay cause at the end of the day its AoS and I dont want it becoming too much like the new 40k. Love the new edition of 40k but still want each system to play a little different since I play both and dont want to be burnt out on either.
Well it seems my experience with random initiative may just be unusually bad. Anecdotal but what I'm hearing here and from other regions is that round 1-2 doubles don't decide games very often at all. Though I would still like to see round 2 be fixed order and random initiative kicking in starting round 3.
Typically the games I have played in, random initiative ends the game in turn 2 or 3 for all intents and purposes to the player that gets it first.
I don't like that the game is so hugely dependent on an initiative roll like that. I don't care what the top tournament players enjoy. For me it makes the game grossly unfun.
The option to have it removed would be my preference. I don't want to take things away from people that enjoy it. But I also don't want "officialdom" shoved up my butt every time either. Much like base to base is an option, I'd like to see things like this become an option.
The other positive is that Game of Thrones game has alternate activation and I'm going to back that as if it has enough players would become my go to fantasy game if anything else. My community is also trying to revive kings of war, though I'm less excited about that.
I really like what they've put out so far. I'm excited to see what tidbits they release for Death tomorrow.
This is purely conjecture, but they've said that there will be no core rules changes in GHB 2017 and if they've also left out the core rules that could mean they might update the core rules separately a couple months down the road. I actually don't think they will do that, but ti's possible. It seems like right now they have a good opportunity to see how certain things work in 8th 40k and use those observations to help decide what (if any) changes to make to the core rules in the future.
I really don't know what they would change. They might not change anything. I do think that since AoS and 40k now have somewhat similar rules (definitely different, but somewhat similar) they might use each system as a way to test out new things for the other.
I still haven't played AoS yet so I don't have strong opinions about how things should be.
The old 5th edition siege book had a lot of depth-rules. I'm hoping for something similar. I added them to azyr empires for siege battles in AOS and they are fun, but of course "official" rules would go much farther in the community.
I am hyped beyond hype for GHB2017. I have been dabbling a little bit in 40k but I am much more drawn to the AOS aesthetic and feel, so I'm hopeful that it fixes a lot of the issues to make AOS a solid game, because right now I'd much rather play it than 40k and while 40k will be way more popular, I have at least one friend and maybe 2-3 others who share my love of AOS.
On the subject of rules, I think there are three major "issues" with AOS when they all are taken together; each one is not that bad individually, but the combination in my view is problematic overall:
1) Shooting into combat; the issue here is that there is zero way to really counter the high-powered shooting units. You have to take it on the chin every turn until you wipe them out or they wipe you, and a lot of the biggest offenders in the shooting category are also fairly hardy in combat as well. Armies with little or no shooting basically have to eat shots the entire game; maybe completely stopping shooting in combat would make some melee armies too good (e.g. Ironjawz who can charge first turn with Ironfist), so maybe a penalty instead, but something to "reward" you for engaging enemy units and provide a semblance of strategy, traditionally you engaged missile troops to stop them shooting and other than Age of Sigmar I can't think of a single other wargame that has a similar rule.
2) Hero sniping; This is primarily an issue for armies that are wholly dependent on heroes, namely Bloodbound and FEC and possibly a couple others. Granted I'm biased because I play FEC, but having my army essentially be useless if you kill 3-4 characters doesn't feel like a good game, and the extremely lax (dare I say lazy) LOS rules means that it's almost impossible to prevent it no matter how hard one tries. This is something I do NOT think can be made a global rule because of the outliers (e.g. Kunnin Rukk, which is a problem in and of itself, Tzaangor Shaman, etc.)
3) Double Turn; probably the most controversial, I actually like the double turn in theory, but the problem is combined with the other two it becomes super strong if you get it, because that's two rounds where your opponent can do nothing but take it on the chin and hope that you don't wipe him out. It's bordering very close to a "negative play experience" and I think, despite it being an interesting part of the game, is the most likely to be removed since it's so unlike anything else, including its sister game.
Freaking SIEGE battles? Now that's what I'm talking about! GHB 2017 is getting 2 thumbs up from me so far - we'll just have to see how well the points are balanced out.
NinthMusketeer wrote:Not really. It's possible for any random AoS game to end up with fixed initiative simply as a result of the rolls. The mechanics don't change, the way the phases work don't change, etc. Tactics would, but that isn't a gameplay mechanic, and the rule of 1 for spells had more of a dramatic impact than fixed initiative would anyway. While great fun at times, in a tournament setting the idea is to match players such that their skill is the greatest determining factor in winning a match; as long as random initiative exists that will not be true. I resent that the balance of my competitive games has to be sacrificed to subsidize people who can't win without a double turn. If I secure turn choice and go second the first round, I know I have a 50/50% chance of winning outright because of the double regardless of who is sitting across the table and how skilled they may be. It's so demotivating that I don't even want to play in tournaments because I can't actually test my skills there.
It might be the worst offender, but random initiative is not the only rule that makes Warhammer games swing so wildly. Any ability that lets you simply remove models or have devastating results on the right rolls has that effect. Warhammer has not shortage of those. Honestly, if you want a game that reflects skill and is well suited to competitive play, I would not recommend anything by GW.
Bottle wrote:I think Hulksmash is saying it creates swingy and exciting games on the lower/middle tables and requires high level strategy on the top tables because it forces a player to account for the luck going with or against them if they are to succeed.
The games stay swingy and exciting, some people are just better at taking calculated risks. Sorry to say, but I think Warhammer games have a significant luck component, enough to be the deciding factor often (more often the closer the skill level, but still).
GW's design philosophy (as far as I can tell) seems to be geared toward being exciting and "epic"; which is fine and loads of fun, but does not lend itself toward balance and rewarding skill.
Commanders of Death armies in Warhammer Age of Sigmar have a lot to look forward to in the new General’s Handbook. Followers of the Great Necromancer can expect updated command traits, artefacts and allegiance abilities. You’ll be able to raise a variety of powerful and versatile armies – from classic hordes of shambling minions to an elite core of ancient necromantic constructs.
Death factions benefit hugely from the new allies system, able to harness powerful allegiance abilities and battleline choices while making full use of the great synergies available within the Grand Alliance. A Deathlords army, for example, can make use of powerful Mortarchs and use a strong core of Morghast Archai while allying in a key monster like the Terrorgheist that would otherwise be difficult to summon. Similarly, many Death factions can add a caster like Arkhan the Black or a handy Necromancer to their forces, providing key magical support; this is great in a force that otherwise lacks wizards, like the Nighthaunts or Deathrattles.
Excitingly, several Death factions are gaining completely new Allegiance Abilities. Flesh-eater Courts armies can now choose a powerful Delusion that applies to the whole force, like The Royal Hunt or Defenders of the Realm, and have command traits and artefacts to further arm your heroes. Your Abhorrant Ghoul Kings just got deadlier.
Nighthaunt forces make powerful and otherworldly armies in the new General’s handbook. They are capable of deploying to the battlefield in the middle of the game or even turning one of their Cairn Wraiths or Tomb Banshees into a Wizard. If you choose the Nighthaunt allegiance, you’ll also be able to benefit from Hexwraiths as battleline units, allowing for a whole army of spectral riders to run down your foes with. Overall, the Nighthaunts are a surprisingly fast and hard hitting army.
Finally, the Soulblight are a versatile elite army, taking advantage of some of the strongest Death heroes, in the form of loads of Vampire Lords, as well as hard-hitting units such as the Blood Knights. You’ll also be able to pick a bloodline for your Vampires indicating if they hail from an ancient clan of Necromancers or a draconic order of knights and giving them powerful traits. We’ll be taking a closer look at these guys in a later preview, so watch this space.
One small but significant change that’s going to be great for Death armies in the new edition is Massive Regiments. This new addition to matched play is aimed at making horde units more viable by offering players a points discount when they take a unit at its full size; you’ll want to take your Skeleton Warriors in units of 40 and your Zombies in units of 60.
Not too happy about pushing Death towards hordes, even if it makes sense. Also, this makes me really really hope there is something to address character sniping as without them, FEC are still going to be lackluster, and you can just make any deep striking Nighthaunts useless by killing the tomb banshees and/or cairn wraiths.
Wayniac wrote: Not too happy about pushing Death towards hordes, even if it makes sense. Also, this makes me really really hope there is something to address character sniping as without them, FEC are still going to be lackluster, and you can just make any deep striking Nighthaunts useless by killing the tomb banshees and/or cairn wraiths.
If you're referring to the Massive Regiments at the end, they don't say it's unique to Death, just something Death will benefit from.
Hmmm. So skeleton hordes, which are already operating on a discount, will get more of a discount.
Lol.
(to clarify: 10 skeletons cost whatever points. 20 skeletons are that twice, 30 skeletons that three times, etc. but 20 skeletons get a bonus to fight and 30 get more of a bonus to fight and you pay no points for this as it is)
It's a curious change, as you point out Auticus you're already penalising yourself by not taking them in their max amounts, and now with a discount on top of that - doubly so.
Looks like I'll need to get a lot more skeletons for my Death!
Movement trays are also going to be a must.
Do you think we can expect 'Massive Regiments' for all battleline that cost <100 per block?
well, that change for nighthaunt was LONG overdue and should have been included when the alliance book was released....
never the less, now the black coach finaly can be used if we can get a reliably amount of necros. ( i have to make a conversion of it tough, the model is horribly outdated)
but whit the change to hexes, does this mean that we now get 2 battle line units or will spirit hosts be removed as battle line unit?
This is the exact opposite of balancing the game. This is making it kind of like 8th edition WHFB... where you are stupid if you aren't taking a giant horde.
I like hordes. Don't get me wrong. But I like balanced games more. I'm not seeing why you would never do this, or how this fits into the matched play mantra.
Perhaps there is more that has not been revealed that I am missing that will make this make sense to me, because right now this is aggravating.
auticus wrote: Perhaps there is more that has not been revealed that I am missing that will make this make sense to me, because right now this is aggravating.
The AoS horde rules work fine for ranked formation play:
- many extra bodies cheer instead of rolling dice; but
- a few actual fighters roll better instead of more.
It turns a unit of 30 skeletons and gives them like 90 attacks. If that is supposed to be, then cool, but make them cost correctly! Make them cost like a model that would have 3 attacks! Not discount it!
Player complains about specific elite units (Kurnoths, Skyfires, etc.) being overrepresented in the meta. GW adds rule that would encourage use of large horde units in addition to elites. Player complains about horde units being favored in the meta. I do not envy GW.
I loved everything until the very last line. That is the OPPOSITE of what hordes need. Like others have mentioned, the units were already getting an effective point reduction as they went up in size because the models became worth more. Units like that being maxed out for effectiveness beyond their cost is already a problem (see Grots) and something like this will make it immensely worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EnTyme wrote: Player complains about specific elite units (Kurnoths, Skyfires, etc.) being overrepresented in the meta. GW adds rule that would encourage use of large horde units in addition to elites. Player complains about horde units being favored in the meta. I do not envy GW.
The line was always 'elites are favored, with the exception of those hordes with size-based scaling rules' and GW added a rule to help the exception rather than the units that needed it. Me and Auticus were even calling out stuff like 60-man grot units as too strong before they appeared in the tournament meta. If this new horde rule applied only to units that did not have scaling effectiveness it would be a completely different matter altogether.
I would argue a lot of the "horde" units are overcosted even when you currently horde them out. Because you're already paying for the bonus but you lose if if you drop below 50% etc. I'd prefer they just drop the point value of the units or do a 100/10, 190/20,270/30 but I'll take this because I'm already paying for an ability that disappears with a bit of work.
EnTyme wrote: Player complains about specific elite units (Kurnoths, Skyfires, etc.) being overrepresented in the meta. GW adds rule that would encourage use of large horde units in addition to elites. Player complains about horde units being favored in the meta. I do not envy GW.
My complaint is that their balance is garbage and that they were supposed to be fixing things and tightening up balance... not making it worse.
"Player complains about specific units being broken powerful and thus being overrepresented in the meta. GW adds a rule that busts large horde units. Player complains about specific units being broken powerful and thus overrepresented in the meta."
Fixing the game does not mean making other units broken too. That is the opposite of balance. I made mention of that GHB release day one when I noticed that all of the units that get better with size were costed as if they had no bonus at all. When other comps had scalling costs for these abilities, the tournament guys that were behind the ghb said that that was too complicated and it would come out in the wash.
Your misrepresentation of my complaint, however, garners a sweet 5 stars out of 5.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: I would argue a lot of the "horde" units are overcosted even when you currently horde them out. Because you're already paying for the bonus but you lose if if you drop below 50% etc. I'd prefer they just drop the point value of the units or do a 100/10, 190/20,270/30 but I'll take this because I'm already paying for an ability that disappears with a bit of work.
THey most certainly aren't overcosted when you horde them out. Spreadsheet their cost out. Skeletons are costed as if they were base 10 skeletons. Adding more you are still paying what you'd pay if they had no bonus.
And from what information are you basing your assertion of what is over/undercosted? If you've seen the new points costs, please feel free to share them. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love the chance to go ahead and adjust my army lists to fit the new costs.
Hulksmash wrote: I would argue a lot of the "horde" units are overcosted even when you currently horde them out. Because you're already paying for the bonus but you lose if if you drop below 50% etc. I'd prefer they just drop the point value of the units or do a 100/10, 190/20,270/30 but I'll take this because I'm already paying for an ability that disappears with a bit of work.
What it needs to be is the opposite. What you say here is an issue; the unit loses effectiveness as it loses models. Accordingly, the unit should be cheaper at smaller sizes and more expensive at larger ones. Going with your example, 90/10, 190/20, 300/30 would be more balanced than having a flat cost-per-10. I often make my armies using PPC (which scales costs like this) and I can say on the tabletop it works really well. It goes for both ends; the small units actually have a cost representing their effectiveness, verses the current system where small units are points-inefficient, medium units are fine, and large units are too strong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EnTyme wrote: And from what information are you basing your assertion of what is over/undercosted? If you've seen the new points costs, please feel free to share them. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love the chance to go ahead and adjust my army lists to fit the new costs.
If you have a flat cost certain sizes will be over/under simply because of the math. And trust me, he's done the math.
It makes sense to me that the units meant to be taken in large quantities are meant to be balanced at their maximum size for just that reason. You aren't meant to take a unit of 10 skeletons, you're meant to take a unit of 30-40. Why wouldn't you encourage people to take them in large numbers?
Ideally people could take them at any size they wanted and the unit would be effective. Why force people to take the unit in huge numbers for them to work right? A lot of people simply don't want to buy, assemble, and paint that many models, let alone move them around the table.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Ideally people could take them at any size they wanted and the unit would be effective. Why force people to take the unit in huge numbers for them to work right? A lot of people simply don't want to buy, assemble, and paint that many models, let alone move them around the table.
As someone who doesn't want to buy, assemble, paint and move that many models around the table, I 100% agree. That's why I hate the "better at 20+" rules in general, especially since for Matched Play it means you need the next highest level so one casualty doesn't remove the bonus.
EnTyme wrote: And from what information are you basing your assertion of what is over/undercosted? If you've seen the new points costs, please feel free to share them. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love the chance to go ahead and adjust my army lists to fit the new costs.
Thats why I posted above "unless I'm missing something"... I'm going off of the old point values.
If their old point values remain the same and math shows that they pay less for their abilities at max size than other models of comparable statlines, then a discount on top of that would make them more undercost.
t makes sense to me that the units meant to be taken in large quantities are meant to be balanced at their maximum size for just that reason. You aren't meant to take a unit of 10 skeletons, you're meant to take a unit of 30-40. Why wouldn't you encourage people to take them in large numbers?
Ok - so again... the issue is balance. Matched play is supposed to entirely be about balance. Balance is supposed to be the #1 thing about matched play. Encouraging people to take more models by making them grossly undercost is the opposite about caring about balance.
I don't care that horde units get more powerful. I think thats awesome. Just pay the points cost for that added awesome.
You know what else was busted about AOS pre-ghb? Summoning. Why? Because summoning was a mechanism to get free points.
If we're going to go down the rabbit hole of giving already-discounted units more discounts to encourage giant units, why bother with reserve points? Why not just also let summoning go back to free stuff... because discounted blobs of hordes is essentially free stuff.
This assumes that skeleton costs and any other unit that gets free buffs didn't change in point value.
I know that the units were given discounts not only from spreadsheeting the entire game out and seeing what skeletons pay point per model with their statline vs every other thing in the game, but because the originating comp packet that GHB is based on had said they weren't going to cost units that get better because its too complicated and wasn't needed and that it was ok to have them grow in power but not pay anything for it because thats how AOS rolls.
I think we're aiming for different types of balance here. I feel like we're starting to drift a bit off topic though, so I may make a separate thread later when I have the time to fully flesh out my thoughts, but first I do want to clarify something, Auticus. I respect your opinion about this game as much as just about anyone I see on this forum or the community at large, so don't mistake my comments as disrespect. You're very knowledgeable, and I know you put a lot of effort into you comp. This goes for you, too, Ninth.
My main issue is with the tone I've noticed when you comment about GHB2. I have no illusions that AoS will be perfectly balanced after its release, but I'm willing to withhold judgment until I've seen the adjusted points costs. After release, I'll look over any adjustment made and decide then just how good/bad GW did. I'm not going to just assume a spectacular failure before I've even seen the effort.
This is a bit OT but curious Auticus because I wasn't around for the initial launch of AoS since without points no one in my area played and I didn't have the time to launch a group. When you spread sheet it out I'm assuming you were doing stats and basic abilities across the board. Were synergies included in your calculations for points?
The main reason I ask is that while I do see hordes of goblins because they work in a specific build for board control but little seen elsewhere. I simply don't see hordes of models outside of giant rats, brims, savage orc arrow boyz (good even without kunnin rukk), and those goblins in lists with beastclaw raider characters. While I never see hordes of skellies, zombies, or ghouls. That leads me to think that even with similar stats they don't serve the same purpose for their points that other horde units do in other allegiances and that even in other allegiances those types of units are used as exceptions and not the rule. I feel like those types of units (for which there is definitely a place) then do need something extra instead of being simple 10-man minimum choices.
This is why I'm good with the horde bonus. As long as it doesn't make them insanely OP, which I doubt will happen, I think it's fine because maybe we'll see at least SOME of these arch types of units that currently don't really exist.
EnTyme wrote: I think we're aiming for different types of balance here. I feel like we're starting to drift a bit off topic though, so I may make a separate thread later when I have the time to fully flesh out my thoughts, but first I do want to clarify something, Auticus. I respect your opinion about this game as much as just about anyone I see on this forum or the community at large, so don't mistake my comments as disrespect. You're very knowledgeable, and I know you put a lot of effort into you comp. This goes for you, too, Ninth.
My main issue is with the tone I've noticed when you comment about GHB2. I have no illusions that AoS will be perfectly balanced after its release, but I'm willing to withhold judgment until I've seen the adjusted points costs. After release, I'll look over any adjustment made and decide then just how good/bad GW did. I'm not going to just assume a spectacular failure before I've even seen the effort.
I think this is a fair point. I am actually very excited for the GHB2 and I'm expecting that it will put AoS in a better place overall, even in regards to balance. My biggest concern was allies but seeing that it is a specific list of factions (as opposed to anything in the same alliance) goes a long way to alleviate that concern. But I can see how I have been coming across as very negative about this release when I'm actually far from it. I'm also against jumping to conclusions in general, and I know what it looks like in regards to this new horde rule.
But on that specifically, I know that on a basic mathematical level its a bad idea, because there is no way to price a unit like skeletons such that a discount on the maximum size will improve things (the best it could be would them being overcosted in all respects save maximum size) because the warscroll already makes the largest size the most efficient. Even that said I am not upset about it more that I am disappointed that GW would impliment such a thing without actually investigating the matter. I could still be wrong (I hope so), but there would have to be a significant factor such as a new rule of one that hurts hordes for it to even out. However, going from an elite-favoring meta to a horde-favoring one is still an improvement because it is more difficult to exploit on a practical level (that is, actually putting all those models on the table).
But on that specifically, I know that on a basic mathematical level its a bad idea, because there is no way to price a unit like skeletons such that a discount on the maximum size will improve things (the best it could be would them being overcosted in all respects save maximum size) because the warscroll already makes the largest size the most efficient. Even that said I am not upset about it more that I am disappointed that GW would impliment such a thing without actually investigating the matter. I could still be wrong (I hope so), but there would have to be a significant factor such as a new rule of one that hurts hordes for it to even out. However, going from an elite-favoring meta to a horde-favoring one is still an improvement because it is more difficult to exploit on a practical level (that is, actually putting all those models on the table).
I'm interested to see what the rule actually is for it. Which units qualify? How much is the discount. AoS has had a modular point system since GHB, so something like a 10% discount would make for some unusual point cost on some units (everything thus far has been a multiple of 5). And I've always said that horde armies had a built in limitation in their cost to purchase, build, and paint so many models, so I agree with your point there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thought: as opposed to 40k 8th edition, wounds bleed over in AoS. Large units may be more points-efficient, but they quickly fall below the number required to get the warscroll bonus. This doesn't change the Massive Regiments discount, but it illustrates my point about the inherent point efficiency not being quite as high as some may think. There is definitely still a place for MSU in the game.
Hulksmash wrote: This is a bit OT but curious Auticus because I wasn't around for the initial launch of AoS since without points no one in my area played and I didn't have the time to launch a group. When you spread sheet it out I'm assuming you were doing stats and basic abilities across the board. Were synergies included in your calculations for points?
The main reason I ask is that while I do see hordes of goblins because they work in a specific build for board control but little seen elsewhere. I simply don't see hordes of models outside of giant rats, brims, savage orc arrow boyz (good even without kunnin rukk), and those goblins in lists with beastclaw raider characters. While I never see hordes of skellies, zombies, or ghouls. That leads me to think that even with similar stats they don't serve the same purpose for their points that other horde units do in other allegiances and that even in other allegiances those types of units are used as exceptions and not the rule. I feel like those types of units (for which there is definitely a place) then do need something extra instead of being simple 10-man minimum choices.
This is why I'm good with the horde bonus. As long as it doesn't make them insanely OP, which I doubt will happen, I think it's fine because maybe we'll see at least SOME of these arch types of units that currently don't really exist.
The comp system that I wrote was based on damage output and how much damage they could take plus a misc modifier for synergy.
I always see hordes of skeletons and zombies from our death players. Because they know they are stupid to not min/max all of those extra attacks.
The only hordes I ever see are the units that gain the free bonuses though. You are right in that AOS unsurprisingly so let people take tiny armies and that given a choice between a horde army and a tiny army that both do relatively the same damage and absorption are going to choose the tiny army because its cheaper in $$$, less time to assemble, less time to paint.
I'm perfectly fine with letting horde units gain bonuses. If they pay the proper points for them. I am beyond frustrated with the free point giveaway that has been GW for the past few years.
I think we're aiming for different types of balance here.
There have been threads on this and yes the type of balance most people seem to want has nothing to do with 2000 points being equal to 2000 points. Thats the type of balance that I want. I am fatigued by having 1000 models in the game but only 25 of them are worth taking if you want a good game.
Other games do a much much better job at this, and I know GW can also do a much much better job at this as well.
My main issue is with the tone I've noticed when you comment about GHB2. I have no illusions that AoS will be perfectly balanced after its release, but I'm willing to withhold judgment until I've seen the adjusted points costs. After release, I'll look over any adjustment made and decide then just how good/bad GW did. I'm not going to just assume a spectacular failure before I've even seen the effort.
It is assumption yes. But we're dealing wiht a company with a 20+ year history on point-failure and amateur-hour when it comes to balancing their systems. 20+ years of failed point system after failed point system, and then on top of that the GHB which also had huge glaring issues on day one that most of the community was able to pick out (and to this day continue to exploit) are why I am assuming that this will be another epic fail for those of us that don't want to have to run around with the right handful of models out of the thousands of builds.
Part of the allure of GW games is the models are great. I could go play Kings of War right now but I hate the models even though the game system is a lot tighter (not perfect) in balance.
But the GW experience is not so great if the models you find so great cannot be used without a one-sided beat down because the points costs are jacked.
And jacked points aren't getting fixed for another year. I'm beyond tired of having to see kunnin rukk and skyfire spam and busted stormcast game after game and having to wait a year for that to change to something else.
Again - the community did better so I know GW can do better. Other games do tons better so I know that GW can do better. I want them to stop amateur-hour and dishing out hot garbage for a point structure. Right now the alarm bells are screaming that we're going to be seeing the next always take for the next year.
@Hulk, maybe its a local thing regarding hordes, we have tons ghouls running around tables at my flgs.
@Cold, people have mentioned hordes being a problem, note grot and bonesplittta hordes even showing up atop tourney lists. It's also a case where the idea is flawed on a fundamental level that there's no question it will negatively impact balance, only a question of how much. I'm lucky enough to have a less competitive gaming group but for Auticus any potential exploits are something he must deal with all the time. Further, the 'your concerns are premature' line has been mentioned plenty of times before, for concerns that have been broadly validated every time. So I feel his position is a legitimate one.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Hulk, maybe its a local thing regarding hordes, we have tons ghouls running around tables at my flgs.
@Cold, people have mentioned hordes being a problem, note grot and bonesplittta hordes even showing up atop tourney lists. It's also a case where the idea is flawed on a fundamental level that there's no question it will negatively impact balance, only a question of how much. I'm lucky enough to have a less competitive gaming group but for Auticus any potential exploits are something he must deal with all the time. Further, the 'your concerns are premature' line has been mentioned plenty of times before, for concerns that have been broadly validated every time. So I feel his position is a legitimate one.
The balance conversation has mostly been around shooting and the initiative roll for the last period. There have been specific builds of armies that have had a lot of models and done well, but hordes haven't been dominating the meta. If anything, I think this move is to counter the larger trend of people taking minimum battleline.
We don't even know the points of horde units in the new book, so I call it premature. Maybe you're completely right. We'll have to see how it shakes out on a worldwide scale in the next several months. AoS has had a lot of dominant builds come and go. It's a constantly changing meta.
I haven't seen a constant change in dominant builds since GHB came out. Its been essentially the same builds though sylvaneth was brief because skyfire came out and did it better.
Death hordes are not as common simply because Death does not have a lot of new models and people want the new models so are holding out. Players that still play death hordes still incite annoyance because skeleton hordes are already nasty with the bucket of attacks they push out, and will now be getting cheaper to boot.
Removing all of that and just looking at the rule change in isolation: they are giving point discounts to hordes to incentivize taking them.
I don't have to know the point costs to know that this is making something cheaper in points to hope people max out on them, same as 8th edition WHFB did with the steadfast rule. This is the opposite of balance to me. This makes points not count for anything. There is really no point in using points if the points aren't there to balance things. Giving models discounts so you take more is not balanced. Its sales. There is no use in saying you can't summon for free, and then on the other hand give out free points in the form of discount vouchers to horde units.
You have in essence given them free models, the same as summoning. The difference is one was made with math, the other is made by rolling 2d6 and hoping to hit a 5+ over and over and over and over again.
Other games have issues but for whatever reason nowhere near the type of skew that resides in GW games. I was holding out hoping that the new GHB would tighten things up but it seems to be headed in the opposite direction - the direction where min/maxing and listbuilding remains dominant.
As such, there is a large kings of war group that meets about 90 minutes south of me that has invited me to use my models in that, and it looks like I better get my car an oil change and get used to driving a lot because this amateur-hour with the balancing mechanism has reached its final breaking point for me. As much as Kings of War is definitely not really what I want to play, it beats this.
One doesn't need to see point values to know that discounts are the same as free points and I'm tired of the listbuilding epeen wagging. Give me a game where player agency and skill is what matters most, not who can figure out the highest power coefficient on their spreadsheet and then who can get double turn first. Yeah - giving hordes a steep discount to make you want to take them is great and will make people take more. Because they will then be undercost and that will fit right in with min/max play since they will be operating at a level higher than what they paid for. I'd rather they FIX THE POINTS IN THE FIRST PLACE instead of busting other parts of the game to compensate for their point failures from last year. People don't take hordes not because they are bad, but because they don't want to pay for and paint a large number of models that are not COST EFFICIENT (broken, undercost) when they have the option of taking a handful of models that are broken and undercost. Make those models NOT UNDERCOST.
You want to see hordes taken? Make goblins 30 points for 10 of them and then give them 2 4+/4+ -1 rend 2 damage bows at 24". You'll see oceans of goblins. Because they would then be super undercost and do a ton of damage. The community has proven over and over again thats what they want. They will flock to what is undercost and busted. Thats how you make people take models in a system where the skew is always so volatile... you break units and make people flock to those for a while. I wonder what would happen if they actually fixed the stuff that was broken instead of breaking other things?
There is a vast difference between summoning and discounted large units meant to be used in large units. Reality is that I can do a lot more with MSU in AoS than I can with hordes right now. On the table large units tend to actually play out poorly than the same points in MSU. So finding a way to make hordes more usable works for me.
Sorry it doesn't agree with your view on it but it is the game we have. I recognize you helped grow and build AoS prior to GW realizing they needed it to have structure for army building but it's probably good to take a break from it since they aren't doing it the way you want them to. See ya in late 2018 or never I guess if GW doesn't start doing things the way you prefer..
So long as the game primarily rewards min/max list building over playing the game, yes. It is not the way I want them to design the game.
THere isn't a vast difference between free summoning and free models given via discount. Its identical.
I summon 10 horrors and get a free 80 points or whatever they cost.
I have a unit of 10 skeletons that cost 80 points and they discount them to say 60 points. I'm getting a free 20 points worth of skeletons for every 10 skeletons I buy.
If I buy four units of 40 skeletons I have now received 320 free points. Basically an entire unit for free. That doesn't even begin to touch the fact that they are point costed as if they had a single attack and now have 3 attacks per model and are operating as if they were a 3 attack model at the cost of a 1 attack model.
There is no difference between that and summoning save one way is spreadsheet and math and the other is relying on a wizard to cast the spell four times to get the same benefit.
Why would I never move to an army that is giving me free points? I've just turned a 2000 point game into a 2320-2000 point game. The same as if I summon an 80 point unit four times in a game. The same reason why they said "no more free epoints its not balanced" and made summoning cost reserve points. They have just brought back free points - which makes points a useless structure if you are searching for a "balanced game". If skeletons were really that poor (which I strongly believe they are more than fine) then they could have just adjusted their points to reflect what they should cost.
Out of curiosity, Auticaus, what do you believe a model with a skeleton's stat line in a 30 model unit (so 3 attacks) should cost? I'm just curious what your baseline is.
Do you have the same bone to pick with models that replenish units then, Auticus? What's the difference between summoning 10 skeletons from reserve points, getting a free 10 models for a Massive Regiment discount and replenishing 10 models from your banner?
It's all free models.
What about other models that replenish other units, is the points cost for a Crypt Court Infernal bringing back Crypt Flayers each turn paid for by the Crypt Flayers or the Court Infernal? If taking both gets me access to free models, is it any different from taking 3 units of Skeletons and getting free models?
There are countless things in AoS that you don't pay points for. The stuff mentioned above, every single aspect of the allegiance abilities and all the other synergies and buffs that make a unit more hardy or choppy.
I think GW are trying to balance the game at an alliance level first and then at faction level rather than a unit vs unit level. They look at all the models your points can get you + all the free stuff you get (like the allegiance abilities) and then tweak it from there. Last year they did a fantastic job at alliance level. Major tournaments were constantly being won by any of the four alliances - but then within those alliances there was disparity, so that's the action they are taking now. For example for Death, it was the Tomb King builds that dominated but now GW have repointed them (coming into full effect soon with the trial points being made standard) and they are giving the other death factions a boost with this 'Massive Regiments' rule.
I think this rule among others will be used to give certain units a boost in factions that need it.
There will always be imbalances and we know GW doesn't do points perfectly, as that's an impossible task. But so far, hordes (except for very specific builds, like kunnin ruk, which the problem is more a battalion than a horde) have not been dominating the meta, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to immediately assume this move will overpower them. Maybe, in the context of the overall meta GW is aiming for, it will just bring some horde units into contention.
Now if this were a blanket +1 to all shooting, it would be easier to say that's clearly adding power to an already dominant aspect of the game.
It's one thing to think hordes aren't good for the game. Personally, I love the visual aspect, but moving more than 20 models around in AoS is a chore I don't know if I'm up for. But saying they're already undercosted at this point is another thing and premature, IMO.
EnTyme wrote: Out of curiosity, Auticaus, what do you believe a model with a skeleton's stat line in a 30 model unit (so 3 attacks) should cost? I'm just curious what your baseline is.
Well per analysis on the site I've posted a bunch of times, 10 skeletons come out in point cost as a "C" in efficiency which means that they are point costed correctly with the majority of the game (in a perfect system, all efficiency scores would be a "C")
30 skeletons come out as an "A" in efficiency right now which means that they operate much higher than their point cost.
So 30 skeletons should cost whatever other units cost that have the same output. I haven't researched that lately so I can't give you an off the cuff answer. If I'm using the old azyr formula that I had, then if 10 skeletons is 80 points, 20 skeletons would be 100 points per and 30 skeletons would be 120 points per to account for the bonus attacks. Now whether that makes them undder or overcost still I don't know since I'd have to plug that all into my data model and analyze it, so thats an off the cuff answer.
These things are baked into the points already
No. They absolutely are not baked into the points already. The designers of said points already said that they point costed the unit at the minimum and let you get free points because its AOS and thats what AOS is about, and that sliding point scales are too complicated to implement. That was from a post on the ghb points from over a year ago when these points were unleashed and the first round of complaining about units that get better not having point increases was discussed. It was one of those "get over it" things.
I think this rule among others will be used to give certain units a boost in factions that need it.
I really don't think deathrattle need any boosts. They are already operating at above capacity with what they shoudl be. They are not as seen as much simply because they haven't gotten a new battletome yet and many people don't want to run something that isn't up to date. I know I hear that daily. The skeleton players we have locally do grossly well, and when I run my tomb kings I rarely lose if I'm using big blobs of skeletons because they just do so many attacks that they are like khorne skeletons.
I think some units could definitely use the boost but I think that goes back to them adjusting points correctly in the first place.
In a game where you have things that are grossly undercost like skyfires etc, then the things that are not as undercost seem overcost and the things costed correclty seem brokenly overcost. Thats where I think the bulk of the issue is.
There are countless things in AoS that you don't pay points for. The stuff mentioned above, every single aspect of the allegiance abilities and all the other synergies and buffs that make a unit more hardy or choppy.
This discount will be providing a power gamer with what is essentially a free unit.
So if we're going to be ok with this lets do a few things:
1) lets stop pretending points are needed to "balance" because... there is no balance in this system at that point when points mean nothing. Points are kind of like paper money. They only mean something because we put an emotional value into them.
2) lets remove the restriction on summoning needing reserve points. Its not fair or right to say that you can't have free ssummons when we can give discounted units free models.
As to units that replenish, I have always been of the opinion you should pay more for those units. In Azyr, you did pay more for the banners that raised skeletons. For the most part that was seen as ok.
If you're of the opinion that units should pay more for replenishing don't you think that when that replenishing doesn't scale with the unit size and is instead fixed that units should receive a discount when adding extra models?
For example a unit of 10 skeletons can return D6 models every turn. 2 units of 10 skeletons can return 2D6 models every turn. And yet a unit of 20 can only return D6 the same as a unit of 10.
I'm playing devil's advocate here a little, because I don't think anything such should be introduced. I am only pointing out that increasing unit sizes in AoS has some abilities that scale with them and some that don't. You seem to argue that increasing abilities should always be accounted for in a scalable points system, but as units both have advantages and drawbacks in increasing in size I don't think it is needed or feasible.
As for free summoning, only you so far seem to think uncapped AoS summoning is the same as receiving free models from anywhere else. To me they are very different because uncapped summoning is limitless on how many free models you can receive (bar space on the board to deploy) whereas the amount of free models a discount gives has a very tangible fixed limit.
Lastly, the idea that Skeletons are fine as they are because they rest on the centre of the bell-curve, you might want to consider that not everyone sees the meta this way. For others they might see a plateau of acceptable unit strength (perhaps falling into an A or B category on your database), and then everything else is either weak or grossly weak. For people that view the meta with this sort of lens, pushing Skeletons up to A grade is seen as a push to where they should be.
To be honest I think this is where 90% of the arguments you have with people on forums about what is under costed and what isn't falls down to. Remember the time we all had a merry old soul destroying debate on if "all monsters are overpowered or not"? You said it so yourself in the post above, you would like everything to be a C grade which is why you call many things over costed that most wouldn't consider to be so. For other people they would rather have everything pushed up to A grade. In the end it has a similar effect.
THere isn't a vast difference between free summoning and free models given via discount. Its identical.
Given what you replied to was discounts for large units (rather than discount generally) I tend to disagree.
Summoning what you want where you want it is pretty significantly good. A discount for a large unit can't really compare on that point.
Maybe more my own experience so far, but as a rough generalisation the unwieldy nature of large units (pinning spread out units by attacking at one end), or large numbers not able to make contact due to attack range etc, plus the increased chance of large battleshock failures makes the same number of models in a large unit less valuable than the same number of models in multiple units.
Auticus, fundamentally, I don't put much stock in your math about points in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, as it's a very cool thing to come up with your own campaigns, systems, etc., and I'm all for that. But in discussing what points should be, your idea is one of thousands.
On the other hand, we have a much larger meta of anecdotal experiences and many podcasters involved in the top tournament scenes. Your opinions are unique, and as valuable as anyone's, but I don't take your approach as gospel.
For example, you talk about Khorne being bad, when people like Russ Veal have shown how they can work. Hordes have not been dominating the meta currently. It's not just that people don't want to paint up the models.
There may well be truth to what you say and time will show that if so. But the general social media meta is much more indicative of the state of balance than one person's math, in my opinion.
Again, your commentary is valuable and appreciated. We should all get news and opinions from a variety of sources, our own included.
It's one thing if GW, say, reduces the points on an overcosted unit and overdoes it. That happens, balance won't ever be perfect. But this is different. Units with scaling benefits based on size are most point efficient at maximum size, we know this. So the best way to take skeletons right now, the way in which they are strongest, is at maximum size. Giving a discount to that (and only that) is completely nonsensical; there is no points value in which that is a positive change.
And again, concerns Auticus has raised based on his numbers have previously been proven right. He talked about mono-Khorne being bad before the Blades battletome and he was right, mono-Khorne did not win any tournaments. He's talked about how grot and bonesplittta units are too strong at max size, and they show up in winning tournament lists. He's talked about how kurnoth hunters, dracoth cavalry, and others are an issue. He keeps being right so telling him to wait and see isn't a very good argument, and will probably come off as rather disrespectful to him given the track record.
Auticus has to deal with a very competitive gaming group that exploit any potential weakness in AoS balance. For a lot of us that sort of thing we only need to deal with at tournaments or from TFG, but for him that is the vast majority of the games he gets. Viewed through that light, one can see why balance issues like this are a very big deal to him.
Yes, skeletons seem the most points efficient in their max size now - but it's still not a no brainer for the Death player to take 120 for Battleline. Say the 25% discount Auticus mentioned is true, it's still 960 points for those skeletons which is half your tournament army.
I still say we should be looking at this at an Alliance and Faction level, not unit vs unit. We know that since the Tomb Kings got repointed Death have struggled at the top - I see this as a boost to make Death overall a more competitive alliance again. We've already seen Deathlords have had across the board points reductions too. We need to see the whole picture though. They'll be some point increases in there too and changes to the allegiance abilities, but to me it seems GW are trying to boost the faction to compete with what is currently out there.
And I think that is a better approach. Reigning in everything to be a "C" grade as Auticus wants would mean across the board nerfs for every single army with a power build. No-one likes to be nerfed. Everyone likes to be boosted. So I like this approach (or my interpretation of it) that GW are for the most going to boost other factions up to the top power level.
Well my math has proven to be mostly correct so I'll continue to follow it. If you can find a place where my math is not correct, please let me know so it can be examined.
If it proved to be flawed I'd definitely have went down a different route.
I'll take math over anecdote anyday when we're discussing a game that revolves around statistical probability and mathematic models.
Khorne isn't bad now. They are about middle of the road. Certainly they can be fun unless they are up against tournament stuff, and khorne can be competitive because of a couple of formations, but before they got their new book with the tithe system and the pilgrim formations they were hot garbage.
Based off of my own modeling, calcualting power coefficients on the model that I built (which was assisted by a phd mathematician specializing in probability and statistics that also lends his expertise to our local casinos) the system has been right about 9 times out of 10 in every game it has been used in terms of predicating a winner based solely on the list.
We had around 1,100 test games before I folded Azyr because GHB official points was never going to be deviated from. For the most part GHB offiical points were close enough to not be that big a deal barring a few edge cases that are what is ruining the game for me right now (because the edge cases are what 3/4 of my local meta focus on fielding because they play almost exclusively in tournaments), and have about 500 additional campaign games using the model.
You can't prove a system with a mathematical model because most of the people invested in AOS are coming from an emotional angle where it doesn't matter what system is presented them, they will want to be positive about it and embrace it regardless of the math or where the holes seem to be.
I've been told about a dozen times now this week alone to just deal with it, git gud, and be like everyone else and buy a new army to chase the meta... because that seems to be what the overall answer is to GW games.
I think thats crap and I expect better from a company that I know can do better if smaller less wealthy companies are able to do so on a shoe string budget in terms of getting their faction balances tighter.
Lastly, the idea that Skeletons are fine as they are because they rest on the centre of the bell-curve, you might want to consider that not everyone sees the meta this way. For others they might see a plateau of acceptable unit strength (perhaps falling into an A or B category on your database), and then everything else is either weak or grossly weak. For people that view the meta with this sort of lens, pushing Skeletons up to A grade is seen as a push to where they should be.
This is absolutely the case. The giant chunk of the community views 15% or so of the aos model collection as usable and the rest hot garbage. So moving skeletons from balanced to over powered is to them moving a unit into acceptability again.
Which to me is... hot garbage lol. That is inded where most of my issues arise with the overall community. If it aint busted it should never be taken.
Thats not balance. Thats not even a pretense into balance.
I have a tomb kings skeleton swarm all ready to exploit the upcoming holes you can drive a truck through.
For other people they would rather have everything pushed up to A grade. In the end it has a similar effect.
Sam... with respect... if everything was pushed up to "A" grade thats the same thing as it all being a "C".
From my perspective we have 1000 units, 100 of which are worth taking. And now with the hordes getting ready to get their undercosted busting we'll have... 125 units worth taking or thereabouts. (numbers are rounded because I don't have an exact figure, the scale of my inflation is still clear)
This is seen vastly as a giant positive thing because 25 more units have entered the "viable to play" category.
It should be appalling that we're cheering for 25 more units entering the viable to play category while the other 875 units remain garbage, when instead the 100 viable units should be toned down to meet the other 900 units in the first place.
From my perspective.
From my perspective, the game would flourish if people could collect armies that connected with them emotionally rather than them having to go out and either find out via negative play experience that GW games are 1 army out of 10 is viable... or have to put to the side an army they connect with emotionally to purchase, assemble, and paint on a yearly basis a new git gud army just so that they can have good games. I realize that a lot of tournament players accept this as part of the game. In fact they enjoy this. I hate this and its why my community is rather dried up when it comes to AOS players. Because very very few people in the wargaming community as a whole view that as a positive thing and they have shown that for the most part by making AOS in most places a rare bird to find. I know there are places where its hot. I'm not disputing that. But overall I don't think thats true and I point to the imbalance as one of the things I hear daily from people telling me that AOS is crap. I have a lot invested in my GW models and games. This is frustrating for me.
Git gud only goes so far. I've gittin gud for many years. I've a box of trophies and plaques and high GT placings from gittin gud. I expect more from the game system that is supposed to be the pinnacle of fantasy wargaming. It is also frustrating for me when people assume that if one is complaining about bad balance that that means they are bad players. Thats a lazy accusation (i'm speaking in general not at anyone). I've lost with my undead army in AOS about four or five times right now in two years because my skeleton horde is already that good. I've gotten a few high places with my undead army because they are already pretty good. Thats why when I saw skeletons getting this boost even more that I already see the alarm bells clanging. So gittin gud and learning to win is not my problem. I can do just fine at the game. I want more diversity in the game and I want more viable builds.
There's a reason why most people report that AOS has a tiny player base if any at all.
There's a handful of us moving over to Kings of War, which makes me vomit a little in my mouth because Kings of War is not a system I really enjoy, but the trade off is that the min/max players I have to deal with on a weekly basis don't have as much skew to git gud with and the number of viable builds is a lot larger.
Sam... with respect... if everything was pushed up to "A" grade thats the same thing as it all being a "C".
Not quite the same because one requires across the board boosts, the other nerfs. I said it has a similar effect overall.
So you would be content for everything being pushed up to "A". Then what is it about these changes that have soured you so quickly? We've seen points reductions for Deathlords and a boost to Skeletons and Zombies. I understand it makes MSU skeletons a bit useless. Is that really enough to turn you off the whole game because you can't make a competitive MSU skeleton army? Otherwise we're seeing an effort by GW to boost a faction that outside of old Tomb Kings was lacking. If they do this for many other factions that were lacking surely the game will be in a healthier spot from your perspective?
Lastly, I find it odd that you fully understand you have a different point of reference for balance than the majority of the community (who want to see everything pushed up to A rather than stuff toned down to C), but instead of explaining it to people you instead lock horns with them and get nowhere in the discourse.
Its that a multitude of units he still uses are stuck on C grade while skeletons (and presumably other hordes) get bumped to A grade. I understand that people dont like to be nerfed but the reality is that only a very small minority of units actually need it (which is good, better than then a ton of them). In theoretical number-speak it would be a huge amount easier to nerf that 10% of units than buff the other 90%. But that's not even what's happening, instead it's like nerfing half of the OP units while buffing 10% of the UP ones. So now we have 15% A grade and 85% C grade, which is actually worse.
Of course thats a theory and I personally think we'll be left in a better balance spot overall due to a variety of factors, but hopefully you can see the validity of Auticus' concerns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for why he locks horns, think of it from his perspective. He raises a concern based on math that has previously been proved quite accurate, only to have people repeatedly tell him that his concerns are not valid, or to wait and see. But he's heard that before, and after waiting and seeing his concerns validated on the tabletop (constantly) its not like people come back and apologise, they just turn around and say the same thing next time. Given how incredibly frustrating that is, I think Auticus has been admirably civil.
Not quite the same because one requires across the board boosts, the other nerfs. I said it has a similar effect overall.
One is boosting 25 or so units out of 1000 and making them busted leaving the other 875 units garbage. The other would be making the entire game on the same footing. Thats what I want - the entire game on the same footing.
Lastly, I find it odd that you fully understand you have a different point of reference for balance than the majority of the community (who want to see everything pushed up to A rather than stuff toned down to C), but instead of explaining it to people you instead lock horns with them and get nowhere in the discourse.
I already explained - if everything is an "A" that is the same thing as everything being a "C". There is no difference to me in that case. If everything is busted then nothing is busted. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with 125 units being busted and 875 units getting teabagged by those 125 units under the git gud mantra.
If the announcement was that all of the 900 other units in the game were getting busted too, then I'd probably wait and see.
Instead what I see is that 25 units are getting busted too now yayyyyyy and people celebrating regardless of the other 875 units still sitting as garbage.
I don't really care if I'm in the minority. I mean we can go a step further out. AOS is in the minority in terms of people enjoying the game. The vast swathe of wargamers I know hate AOS and mock it daily. I'd like to see AOS succeed and be as powerful as whfb ever was.
I might be a minority - in the camp that still tries to play the game, but outside of that to the wargaming community in general, I don't think i'm the minority at all. I'm just an idiot that punishes himself with waiting to see the latest incarnation of rules that turn out to just open up other holes for min max players to drive through.
And Ninth pretty much nails my frustration. I went out of my way to remove emotion from my argument and insert math, and the result is "yeah thats nice but we don't care about math. Yeah you were right before but... meh. We don't care about that." or "I don't think your math is right. I'm not going to explain why I don't think its right, I just don't think its right. Your argument is flawed because I don't think your math is right." despite the fact that the predictive model has pretty much rolled exactly as we have said it would since day 1. As to arguing with the math - it was set up by a game theory math doctorate that specializes in this field. So listening to people say that the math is flawed is ... well... special I guess. I do put a lot of stock in a doctorate that specializes in this area, and the results have spoken for themselves.
I honestly at this stage don't believe people really want balance. They don't. You can't have list building be as potent a thing in a balanced game. I think that the community really enjoys bending and breaking the game via list building. It makes people feel clever. The problem is that a giant number of people want to play a game where 2000 pts vs 2000 pts really means 2000 pts vs 2000 pts. You can't do that with listbuilding skew being so powerful as it is in AOS (or 40k). I play kings of war, saga, runewars, battletech, none of these games are perfect... but none of them have the level of skew as aos or 40k.
And thats why I believe AOS will never have a shadow of the success whfb ever did and why the majority of our hobbyists will continue to avoid AOS. Which to me is a shame. I want AOS to be dominant. And it certainly could be but won't be while it continues this power skew thing that GW seems to intentionally put into its games (i assume to boost sales of certain items then rotate to other items. Assumption yes, but its the only thing that makes sense to me why they'd keep doing this because I know they employ smart people that could actually do a balanced game if they were allowed)
I've spent the past couple weeks in Kings of War land, feeling like Glass Joe hung up on the ropes, because I really dont' like that system but at the same time my games have all been about player agency as opposed to the list winning the game from the get go. (yeah the lists mean something there too but not as much as in AOS)
I haven't had that happen in years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And we've seen less than 10% of the new points costs, so we don't really know where we are from a balance perspective.
This is valid. We haven't seen those point costs yet. Most of my frustration is aimed at them giving discounts (free points) which regardless of point values would be against balanced game design. Based on what they said anyway about how they are going to be giving discounts (free points) to large horde units.
Interesting. I saw quite a few games that were decided from the get go in KoW when I tried it briefly between the birth of AoS and when it got the first GHB.
Either way I'm excited for this. My experience runs counter to Auticus regarding hordes of units. I think they might be pointed individually well before bonuses as he states but unit size is a huge detriment as the vast majority of models aren't going to be able to take advantage of those rules and you've got morale problems too. I think the original bonuses helped with that issue but that it wasn't enough, hence the boost to the hordes in general.
Well yeah. In a system where its players like to only take the undercosted units, you need those horde units to be grossly undercosted before people start to seriously consider taking them.
I keep reading about how the "vast majority of models" aren't going to benefit from those rules. I'd like some visual examples please, because my very last game was full of demon hordes where a good 15 of the 20 models in the unit were contacting and fighting. And those were on 32mm bases.
Skeletons still on older 25mm bases are going to have an easier time.
A "vast majority" to me would be 10 of 30 contacting and thats it, all the time... and thats not what I'm seeing hardly ever.
I think people argue against your math because it goes against everything anacedotally they experience from the game. But in the end your Maths is probably fine, it's just the conclusions drawn from it by you but that is because you use the same terminology ("overcosted"/"undercosted" ) as everyone else but use a completely different set of parameters. I.e. As explained before most people consider balanced to be tournament competitive (your A grade) whereas you think of middle of the pack as balanced (C grade).
I've seen so many threads that are essentially:
Person: The Mawkrusha is overcosted!
Auticus: According to my math is isn't. In fact it's undercosted.
Person: Well, your math must be wrong then because it's not winning any tournaments.
And then instead of pointing out that to the person A>= undercosted but to you C<=overcosted, and that the Mawkrusha is a B unit so from your different stances it is both overcosted and undercosted you instead just plough forward happy to keep the debate going around in circles with no one benefiting from it.
You are currently arguing with the entirety of TGA on one of these assumptions. It just baffles me that you don't overtly tell people you are arguing balance from a different central point.
As for if its better to boost C units to A or nerf the other way round, again I think it needs to be done on a Faction level rather than a unit by unit level and that is the approach GW is taking. In my opinion there is nothing but to be positive about with he changes we have seen so far. Deathlords getting point reductions, Death getting a boost with Skeletons and Zombies becoming more potent in large numbers - we also know from Heelanhammer some extreme examples of OP units or crutch units are getting nerfed. For example Kurnoth Hunters and the Hurricanum were both hinted to go up.
It could be the case that there are some changes coming that will make balance worse, but we've not seen any examples of that so far. The opposite, we've seen some really encouraging changes and I can't wait to see what's next.
Auticus, your opinions are valid. It's good to have lots of sources of information.
Just as valid as you are the thousands of other people giving opinions, many of whom are involved in the public/podcasting/tournament scene.
I believe the overall social media narrative is the best indicator of what's going on, not any one person's opinion, though everyone's opinion is valuable.
Ultimately, I think the doom and glooming is just too premature. AoS has had a constantly changing meta, and it's something I like about the game. It doesn't get stale.
Hordes might be a big thing for a few months. Then a new army with a new mechanic or unit will come out. Then GHB 2018 will drop and change the game again. And so on. Community feedback plays a major role in GW's moves these days, so I'm confident they will adapt to outcries about anything being too out of line.
It took less than a month for GW to nerf flyers after 8th edition dropped. You can't really say GW is ignore the tournament scene and the imbalances it reveals. Sure, be skeptical. Be critical, but optimism is no longer futile when it comes to GW games.
Fwiw, a unit on 25mm bases with a 2" melee range (skeletons with spears, grots with spears, etc) will get three ranks attacking if properly ranked up. I often run a 60-man unit of grots and more often than not I am getting the majority of the models attacking. It also means that my enemy needs to put 15+ wounds on the unit before the attack power starts dropping at all. That unit has slaughtered its way through even ironjawz and stormcast with little trouble. If I'm not playing against an experienced opponent I won't even bring it because it's too strong.
auticus wrote: Well yeah. In a system where its players like to only take the undercosted units, you need those horde units to be grossly undercosted before people start to seriously consider taking them.
I keep reading about how the "vast majority of models" aren't going to benefit from those rules. I'd like some visual examples please, because my very last game was full of demon hordes where a good 15 of the 20 models in the unit were contacting and fighting. And those were on 32mm bases.
Skeletons still on older 25mm bases are going to have an easier time.
A "vast majority" to me would be 10 of 30 contacting and thats it, all the time... and thats not what I'm seeing hardly ever.
I'm considering that most units are faster than skellies. So unless they are super clumped you can normally ensure a decent portion of the unit isn't fighting. Add in that moral plays a much larger part of in the game against large squads and it makes the points worse. MSU skellies are actually great for their points because you have to kill them all or they just come back. Horde skellies aren't good because the same damage to remove a unit of 10 skellies normally removes more than 10 regular skellies and in units of 30 drops you below your bonus threshhold. Honestly I think it's a bit of a mix of to much faith in math that leaves out intagibles, your local scene, and some "it's not how I'd do it" that causes you to have fairly extreme negativity about the state of the game.
Bravey 10 and -1 to battleshock per 10 models in the unit means that killing ten skeletons off a unit will at most remove 3 models from battleshock. On a 1-3 they wouldn't lose any at all.
Speaking as not at all a tournament player, I haven't found large units of skeletons to be overpowering at all. However, it already is the case that they are really only effective at all when taking a big unit. I don't mind much as I like the idea of an unending horde of skeletons. But it does mean that you're never going to take a unit of 10 or even 20 of them. They rules they gave skeleton's means, in a practical sense, fewer options. If you want to play a small game and take a unit of 10 skeletons, you're going to lose because they'll be useless.
Giving a point discount for hordes just makes this more obvious. That's kind of the issue. I'd like the option of taking a small unit of skeletons in a small game, and not paying way more points for them than they are worth.
On the other hand, I can kind of see the point discount for hordes making sense because much of the unit won't be able to attack. So really the point reduction is probably not as bad as the giving each model extra attacks for the big unit.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Bravey 10 and -1 to battleshock per 10 models in the unit means that killing ten skeletons off a unit will at most remove 3 models from battleshock. On a 1-3 they wouldn't lose any at all.
The bonus is calculated in the battleshock phase, so if a unit of 30 skellies lost 10 models, they'd only get -2 to battleshock, so 1-4. Sorry if that seems pedantic, but a lot of players I've faced seem to think you calculate the battleshock bonus based on the starting unit size.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Bravey 10 and -1 to battleshock per 10 models in the unit means that killing ten skeletons off a unit will at most remove 3 models from battleshock. On a 1-3 they wouldn't lose any at all.
The bonus is calculated in the battleshock phase, so if a unit of 30 skellies lost 10 models, they'd only get -2 to battleshock, so 1-4. Sorry if that seems pedantic, but a lot of players I've faced seem to think you calculate the battleshock bonus based on the starting unit size.
AFAIK skeletons max at a unit size of 40, so 40-10=30 remaining. Though I could be mistaken.
You understand the concept though right Ninth? It was a general example of one of the reasons large units don't get the same value per model that smaller units do. But you pay the same cost and possibly for a portion of that time they have a small bonus. I think that actually makes discounting larger units worth it.
Hulksmash wrote: You understand the concept though right Ninth? It was a general example of one of the reasons large units don't get the same value per model that smaller units do. But you pay the same cost and possibly for a portion of that time they have a small bonus. I think that actually makes discounting larger units worth it.
Honestly if they hadn't called out skeletons and zombies we wouldn't be having this discussion. In regards to units that do not have scaling size bonuses a discount on maxing them would be appropriate. Look units like tree-revenants that are never taken beyond minimum size. If the bonus was small, too, it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. Bonesplittaz with sword n board or chaos marauders are good examples of size-scaling bonuses that simply offset the disadvantage of larger size. But then there are units like skeletons, where deploying them 10 wide and 4 deep means getting 90 attacks (from the front 3 ranks). Sure 10 skeletons arent attacking, but your enemy has to put 11 wounds on the unit before their offense reduces at all. At 30 skeletons the first wound reduces offense considerably; 90 attacks down to 58! Deploying with 20 skeletons will let you run the unit 7 wide but only gives you 40 attacks, at least until you take a single wound and it drops to 19.
To illustrate in a more practical manner, do it on the table. Pit 40 skeletons against two units of 20, then pit 40 against 4 units of 10. You'll find that the 40 man has a consistent advantage, and that 4x10 actually performs better than 2x20 because of four banners instead of two. The reality is that there are four effective costs in play; skeletons 1-19 are worth X each, skeletons 20-29 that are worth Y each, skeletons 30-40 that are worth Z each, where X<Y><Z, and finally the presence or absence of a command group worth W. It all adds up to 10 or 40 being the best options, so really its 20 and 30 that need a discount, not 40.>
Not to be rude but who in gods name is attacking 40 skeletons 10x4 across their front? And if I hit that 40 man unit with 2x20 or 2x10 on the flank with the 4 models it's ugly as hell. I can maximize my damage output and seriously hamper yours. Yes, if people drive right into you then large units get crazy good bonuses. Reality though has shown something different.
Math doesn't always account for actual value. I realize that you feel skeletons and zombies are outliers for hordes and they are. But it's still something I think is needed and death as an overall needs the bump. I'll be stoked if I can get my ghouls cheaper. Because unlike skeletons I'm paying points for my d6 to come back.
If it is indeed a matter of tabletop performance over math then get a buddy and test it out! I've certainly learned a lot from doing so in the past. Though for skeletons you may want to assume a death character nearby otherwise it could take a while...
Edit: Actually I think I'll try it out myself, I haven't actually tested skeletons myself so I should put my money where my mouth is
If you have a counter argument that can describe point costing a model without taking math into consideration, please do so and change my mind. I'd love to live in a world where this change won't bother me.
I'll be stoked if I can get my ghouls cheaper
Everyone is stoked when their units come cheaper.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I played a game this evening with the current using my tomb kings.
I had three units of 40 skeletons. My opponents and I have discussed this proposed change, and while all of us are in total agreement that it will be making them stupid cheap and thus a must take if you play death, they were instructed to do their best to make sure that I couldn't get the majority of my models into contact.
THat was their entire mission. The scenario if you will.
They failed hard.
One of my skeleton units was tied up pretty good but the other two came in and hit 30/40 and 32/40 and then through attrition managed to stay nearly entirely engaged in the first game and in the second game I was only at about 25 - 28 in contact because I was fighting ogres and low model count army.
So against a medium to higher count army I was easily getting the majority of my unit engaged. Against a small model count army it was a bit of a struggle.
Both games ended with me destroying both my opponents by turn 3 because they couldn't keep up with the skeleton blocks and they conceded. One game could have kept going on but his general died and it wasn't looking good for him though I think he could have made that game a bit clsoer.
Both of those opponents play tournaments regular and place fairly high so it wasn't a matter of incompetence. Its that the skeletons are already underpriced and I waltzed all over their face with a min/max list.
This is why when people say "but you won't get them all in contact so their extra attacks are wasted and they should BE FREE" I vehemently strongly disagree. Because I know *I* can get the majority of my attacks in, and when they get EVEN CHEAPER you've just handed me something close to my 7th ed whfb demon army.
If plaguebearers get that benefit I'll probably run 3x30 as my battleline because they. would. never. move!
I was also able to get in some skeleton testing, though this was several games of 40 vs 2x20, assuming a Death character in range. Hulk was right in that when it came to putting them on the field I didn't go with 4 ranks of 10 and instead went more for and ovalish grouping about 5 ranks deep. Like Auticus they really didn't have much trouble getting nearly everyone into melee range though, pile-ins went a long way. The results were heavily in the 40-man unit's favor. Only if the two units got off successful charges on opposite flanks did they have a chance, but the edge was still to the 40. A big factor I didn't think of was alternating picks for combat; even on the 2x20's turn one of them had to swing after the big unit, while on the big unit's turn it got to swing everyone first.
Im not going to complain about the horde change probably buffing Free Guild, but i feel like i wont be seeing more Empire models, but instead more easier to paint rats and skeletons.
Blehhhhhhhhh.
Lets see the actual discounts before we fly off the handle, though.
Crazyterran wrote: Im not going to complain about the horde change probably buffing Free Guild, but i feel like i wont be seeing more Empire models, but instead more easier to paint rats and skeletons.
Blehhhhhhhhh.
Lets see the actual discounts before we fly off the handle, though.
I won't lie...I can field a horde of Eternal Guard and Glade Guard and I really like this change.
Crazyterran wrote: Im not going to complain about the horde change probably buffing Free Guild, but i feel like i wont be seeing more Empire models, but instead more easier to paint rats and skeletons.
Blehhhhhhhhh.
Lets see the actual discounts before we fly off the handle, though.
Yeah if the discount is just 10% it shouldn't be too bad, it will just save a few points off units people were going to max out anyway.
Edit: Warhammer TV video is telling us the bloodletters (and therefore other daemon troops) are getting a max discount, horde meta here we come! I'm hoping for a plagueclaw discount now because then I could totally take my Epi-Foulrain list to tournaments.
Second day of breaking the game testing. I ran the same army today. Played two games again. This time against a kunnin rukk army and the second against a low model count demon army.
Kunnin rukk tabled me in three turns. No surprise there. I just couldn't do anything to the orc archers and the leader was hidden the entire time out of LOS. I managed to drop most of the archers but most of my army was destroyed by the end of turn 3. My characters were taken out by turn 2.
Against the demon army I could get about half my skeletons into combat. I ended up winning by tabling him turn 5.
What I'm seeing right now is that against low model count armies, the horde has a hard time getting all its models into combat.
Against armies running actual units, getting most of my skeletons is very easy to do.
Ending weekend prognosis... the remains of my AOS group lost a few more members to the new GHB's proposed changes and a larger kings of war group is forming now. There is a tournament coming up in sept for KOW that has 32 registered players. Our AOS group is now down to 6 with three of those six considering dropping entirely and waiting to see what GHB 2018 does.
The reasons cited were primarily that players are opposed to feeling the need to collect hordes again like they did in 8th edition, and no one wants to have to buff up units by buying more and painting more.
The secondary reason cited mirrored mine. That the point system here is not indicative of balance and is being used to emphasize certain play styles as opposed to being created to allow as many models feasibility as possible and that list building has gone off the rails and is getting even more stupid.
I don't know how kunnin rukk fares. Even with a discount in skeletons I still cannot figure out how to crack 240 shots a turn and a 480 shot double-turn from one unit alone not to mention the other elements in the army.
TLDR: what's left of my AOS community is about to evaporate because of these changes and I may be left with virtual tabletops to play any games of it or only get to play it by driving to the big tournaments and playing tournament style games as campaign games will be non existent. Or also go full in to kings of war.
I suspect they will nerf kunnin' rukk in some manner, ideally by just removing the shoot option, or by increasing its point cost. GW seems pretty allergic to battalions costing above 150 though.
Hope so. Regardless, hordes are definitely going to be broken powerful. To be more specific - hordes that gain abilities based on their size that already don't pay for those abilities, like skeletons.
Tons of free points / abilities. Its basically back to the days of free summoning only using points to make people feel better about it.
For my money, I'm glad I still have so many skeleton models from my tomb kings and vampire counts days. Because I'm about to suddenly be a really skilled and tactical opponent.
Still wondering about that Table of Contents listing for "Warscroll Changes" or whatever it was. I'm hoping they'll use that to hand out a few nerfs (like removing Arrer Boyz from Kunnin' Rukk).
I think GW are trying to balance the game at an alliance level first and then at faction level rather than a unit vs unit level.
Yes, this - this is the way GW have always done things (well, since 'proper' army books came out). To get a grip on 'balance' in GW games (with the understanding that balance is not the bullseye, but rather the whole target) you cannot look at straight unit v. unit comparisons. If you check out the 40k pages, you will see people trying to do this and coming up short every time - this morning, I was reading someone complaining that Ork Trukks were below par compared to Razorbacks. Leaving side any possibility for that actually being the case (always possible, but remember the whole target not the bullseye is the goal), there was no attention given to the context of the vehicles and that the armies function completely differently, thus altering the 'worth' of units.
GW works on balancing armies, not individual units or models...
GW works on balancing armies, not individual units or models...
That would be great. If they actually balanced their armies instead of what they normally do, and what was done to AOSGHB year one, which is to let two or three armies run amuk all over everything else.
All I'm hearing today is death players wringing their hands with glee and cackling because they all feel easy-mode has been handed to them for a while until GHB 2018 moves the goal posts.
I'd also argue that GHB version 1.0 was done at the unit / model level based on developer blogs and discussions taking place before GHB when the fan comps were all being updated ... as GHB is based on the SCGT fan comp and to my knowledge all of the fan comps that were high visibility were all working at the unit level.
I'd acknowledge that this could very well be Games Workshop taking the reigns and inserting their special flavor of balance into the game. And I think it may even be cool for some of those horde units that don't get jack (like marauders or reavers) by themselves, but the issue comes out to me glaringly when applied to those units that get stat buffs for free already simply by min/maxing them. THis is just encouraging powergaming min/max even more because it puts forth the question "why would I never do this"
All I'm hearing today is death players wringing their hands with glee and cackling because they all feel easy-mode has been handed to them for a while until GHB 2018 moves the goal posts.
I was following your maths project when AoS came out - good work... but I had some issues with it
First off, I believe it left out the Battalions - prime army-level stuff that GW has engaged in, and Battalions can have a powerful effect (see Kunnin' Rukk in your example above). Add in synergies with characters (or other units), and I am thinking the maths starts getting very nasty (you will be the expert there).
Second, something that occurred to me while reading your example of getting big block skellies in. A proportion of the push back you are getting from other players may be because they are not seeing the same thing you are, and that they genuinely don't see big blocks getting the majority of their models fighting. Let us assume, for a moment, that this is because you are a Better Player and they are Worse Players.
Might that not skew your interpretation of data?
I think what you are doing is Most Worthy and has utility, but I also think it cannot provide a comprehensive picture of these games because there is too much going on and, importantly, too much going on that is not being modelled in your system.
Maybe a slightly different approach, a Theory of Every Model?
If balancing the game at the alliance level is what they are trying then they may succeed. Of course its likely to imbalance the game at the tabletop level where we are actually playing. I've simply accepted that we are going from an elite meta to a horde one and am building more movement trays. When GHB1 came out there were a number of people insisting that it had good balance, and I have a guilty pleasure in crushing those people with a hard dose of reality on the tabletop.
Azyr had battalion points. That came out during the third revision.
The big issue is indeed trying to calc points costs into abstract effects. That is where math starts to break down from an absolute standpoint you are correct. How we modeled it was to take the most gregarious example and point it against that, since thats what powergamers were going to powergame with.
As to the pushback from other players, I agree with you just as I agreed with Sam (bottle).
If one's environment is mostly low model count elite armies, as I think the tournament environment is, which becomes many areas' default environments, then indeed paying full cost for a horde of skeletons seems unfair since you can't get all your models in base contact.
Against a medium size or large size unit however you become the lawnmower man. Easily. The math models it, and I've seen it many many times. The counter to the horde if you pay actual points is the elite low model count approach.
Now that begs the question: do you discount the horde then and assume elite low model count approach? I don't think there's a good answer to this here. I can argue either way.
I was very heated against the GHB to begin with for the skeleton reason in the first place because they were giving free points essentially but I got over it and lived with it because it wasn't as bad. Now they took that issue I had and tore it wide open by making skeletons even more low costing.
Now let's assume the better or worse player syndrome. This is entirely fair. This cannot be measured because I find a lot of good players are not that good when given normal armies, so measuring good player vs bad player is a difficult task for me.
I am often accused on other forums of being a very bad player because I complain about balance, and only bad players complain about balance, since a good player will know how to powergame and obviously I don't know how to powergame or else I would and would be winning and not complaining about balance.
That bothers me. That people are ok with balance so long as they are winning and thats a popular counter argument to math.
The second most used fallacy is "if that faction hasn't won a major tournament its not that powerful". Because again that eschews other reasons for a powerful army not winning a tournamnet such as number of players playing the army, the reason why people aren't collecting the army (for death its because no one wants to paint 200 skeletons and no one wants an army without a battletome it seems)
Now back to the skeleton issue, I have tried looking at it from a bunch of angles but it keeps coming back to they are modeled at the price point of 1 attack, but when maxed and have 3 attacks they are grossly overpowered. I've used my skeleton blobs to wipe out wholesale armies because I'm simply doing kunnin rukk only in melee. I'm rolling so many dice that the odds are hugely stacked in my favor.
And now I'm going to get even more of a discount and essentially will be getting a free 40 skeleton unit on top of what I bring.
Why would I never do this?
I have about 5000 emails in my box from the azyr days. The #1 complaint was "your system makes listbuilding not count for anything because everything seems to be as powerful as everything else and I don't like that". That colors a lot of my opinion too. I even had a guy on facebook write me and wish cancer on me because his group used azyr at the time and he hated it because his listbuilding was not as potent and he didn't like that.
Now, what are the arguments countering skeletons are too powerful?
1) they really aren't undercosted and are instead overcosted. I've heard this one a lot, but no math to back the assertion up. I cannot see this since I've modeled the entire game and the standard 10 man block of skeletons falls in the middle of the bell cu rve in its efficiency rating (that being how many points you pay for how much damage you put out and can take). A "C" rating is what I want everything to have because then nothing is more or less efficient by grotesque means. By the math of the model that calculates that, skeletons at 10 models are perfect at their cost.
Therefore 20 and 30 skeletons at +1 and 2 attacks respectively are undercost.
2) that you cannot get all of the skeletons into contact with the enemy and therefore its not fair you pay all the points for them.
I find this to be... well very underwhelming. This is situational and also dependent on player skill. As noted above, I don't find it hard to get most of my models in contact, particularly against medium and large size units.
So then we come down to what is balance, what does it mean to be balanced, and what should points really represent?
In Kings of War, and in Saga, and in Lord of the Rings, and in Runewars I don't seem to have this issue as much. Spreadsheeting those games I did find some more effective units and I expected that but the number of viable builds is leaps and bounds more than in Age of Sigmar, and before that Warhammer Fantasy (which also had the same balance issues as has 40k forever)
IDK man I had a unit of 30 ghouls wiped out by over 50% in one turn from two units of Ogors (one with 3, one was a unit of 6 that got 4 models in range) yesterday in a game. I lost like 12 guys in one combat phase, and then another 4 to battleshock (even with 11 bravery, when you're rolling d6 + 12 stuff is going to run). Having a huge horde of dudes didn't seem like the be-all, end-all.
As an aside Matt, thank you for the constructive discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: IDK man I had a unit of 30 ghouls wiped out by over 50% in one turn from two units of Ogors (one with 3, one was a unit of 6 that got 4 models in range) yesterday in a game. I lost like 12 guys in one combat phase, and then another 4 to battleshock (even with 11 bravery, when you're rolling d6 + 12 stuff is going to run). Having a huge horde of dudes didn't seem like the be-all, end-all.
I don't remember what ghouls get. They seem pretty fecal to me. Skeletons though, I wiped out an ogre army with my skeleton horde. I was throwing over 100 dice each time, and he couldn't keep up.
So this could make crap units like ghouls be "balanced" (good) and then undercost units like skeleton hordes more undercost and rife for powergamers to abuse (very bad).
auticus wrote: As an aside Matt, thank you for the constructive discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: IDK man I had a unit of 30 ghouls wiped out by over 50% in one turn from two units of Ogors (one with 3, one was a unit of 6 that got 4 models in range) yesterday in a game. I lost like 12 guys in one combat phase, and then another 4 to battleshock (even with 11 bravery, when you're rolling d6 + 12 stuff is going to run). Having a huge horde of dudes didn't seem like the be-all, end-all.
I don't remember what ghouls get. They seem pretty fecal to me. Skeletons though, I wiped out an ogre army with my skeleton horde. I was throwing over 100 dice each time, and he couldn't keep up.
I would have had 3 attacks a piece if I hadn't lost the alpha, but I had like only 10 or so guys in combat range (between two terrain pieces). but ghouls base get 2 attacks, +1 if >= 20, +1 if a king on foot puts his spell on them, +1 if a ghast courtier kills something (very unlikely)
Wayniac wrote: IDK man I had a unit of 30 ghouls wiped out by over 50% in one turn from two units of Ogors (one with 3, one was a unit of 6 that got 4 models in range) yesterday in a game. I lost like 12 guys in one combat phase, and then another 4 to battleshock (even with 11 bravery, when you're rolling d6 + 12 stuff is going to run). Having a huge horde of dudes didn't seem like the be-all, end-all.
What kind of ogors? Assuming the cheapest possible ones we are already looking at 360 vs 300 points. If, say, the 3-man unit was maneaters or ironguts then its already 460 vs 300 points. Basic ogor units also get better attacks the turn they charge, making them perform better in that specific instance. Seems like the balance was appropriate here.
Ghouls are also a unit where the size scaling bonus is well balanced; it compansates for the disadvantages of such a large unit without making them actually stronger on a point efficiency basis. Keep in mind that while a 30-man ghoul unit gets 50% more attacks then a 10-man version, a skeleton unit gets 200% more attacks and will be swinging with a 2" melee range. That skeletons pay the same thing as ghouls for that would certainly irritate me were I a FEC player.
Hulksmash wrote: This is a bit OT but curious Auticus because I wasn't around for the initial launch of AoS since without points no one in my area played and I didn't have the time to launch a group. When you spread sheet it out I'm assuming you were doing stats and basic abilities across the board. Were synergies included in your calculations for points?
The main reason I ask is that while I do see hordes of goblins because they work in a specific build for board control but little seen elsewhere. I simply don't see hordes of models outside of giant rats, brims, savage orc arrow boyz (good even without kunnin rukk), and those goblins in lists with beastclaw raider characters. While I never see hordes of skellies, zombies, or ghouls. That leads me to think that even with similar stats they don't serve the same purpose for their points that other horde units do in other allegiances and that even in other allegiances those types of units are used as exceptions and not the rule. I feel like those types of units (for which there is definitely a place) then do need something extra instead of being simple 10-man minimum choices.
This is why I'm good with the horde bonus. As long as it doesn't make them insanely OP, which I doubt will happen, I think it's fine because maybe we'll see at least SOME of these arch types of units that currently don't really exist.
The comp system that I wrote was based on damage output and how much damage they could take plus a misc modifier for synergy.
I always see hordes of skeletons and zombies from our death players. Because they know they are stupid to not min/max all of those extra attacks.
The only hordes I ever see are the units that gain the free bonuses though. You are right in that AOS unsurprisingly so let people take tiny armies and that given a choice between a horde army and a tiny army that both do relatively the same damage and absorption are going to choose the tiny army because its cheaper in $$$, less time to assemble, less time to paint.
I'm perfectly fine with letting horde units gain bonuses. If they pay the proper points for them. I am beyond frustrated with the free point giveaway that has been GW for the past few years.
I think we're aiming for different types of balance here.
There have been threads on this and yes the type of balance most people seem to want has nothing to do with 2000 points being equal to 2000 points. Thats the type of balance that I want. I am fatigued by having 1000 models in the game but only 25 of them are worth taking if you want a good game.
Other games do a much much better job at this, and I know GW can also do a much much better job at this as well.
My main issue is with the tone I've noticed when you comment about GHB2. I have no illusions that AoS will be perfectly balanced after its release, but I'm willing to withhold judgment until I've seen the adjusted points costs. After release, I'll look over any adjustment made and decide then just how good/bad GW did. I'm not going to just assume a spectacular failure before I've even seen the effort.
It is assumption yes. But we're dealing wiht a company with a 20+ year history on point-failure and amateur-hour when it comes to balancing their systems. 20+ years of failed point system after failed point system, and then on top of that the GHB which also had huge glaring issues on day one that most of the community was able to pick out (and to this day continue to exploit) are why I am assuming that this will be another epic fail for those of us that don't want to have to run around with the right handful of models out of the thousands of builds.
Part of the allure of GW games is the models are great. I could go play Kings of War right now but I hate the models even though the game system is a lot tighter (not perfect) in balance.
But the GW experience is not so great if the models you find so great cannot be used without a one-sided beat down because the points costs are jacked.
And jacked points aren't getting fixed for another year. I'm beyond tired of having to see kunnin rukk and skyfire spam and busted stormcast game after game and having to wait a year for that to change to something else.
Again - the community did better so I know GW can do better. Other games do tons better so I know that GW can do better. I want them to stop amateur-hour and dishing out hot garbage for a point structure. Right now the alarm bells are screaming that we're going to be seeing the next always take for the next year.
You do know all thats going to happen whenever anything tries to get "balanced" is you swap out the current "broken" stuff for new stuff. So youll have new armies/units to cry about seeing all the time.
"Git gud" (the problem isn't the game or the army, it's how you are playing them) and "chase the meta" (the problem is you are using an effective army in the current iteration of the game) are effectively opposing arguments, yet I've repeatedly seen you equate the two. If you're going to dismissively oversimplify an argument, make sure you understand what that argument is.
Telling someone to chase the meta = in a time period, the rules will change and your currently OP build will not be OP anymore. Therefore you must accept that this is going to happen, sell your current army and obtain the newest OP build so that you can continue to be competitive.
Git Gud is telling someone that they need to be smart enough to realize that the rules will change and your currently OP build will not be OP anymore and you have to be smart enough to realize that that is going to happen, "git gud" and buy a new army. ie "part of the game is figuring out how to min/max properly and understanding that the game is going to change and adapting with the meta and changing out your army at the right time is part of being a good player"
Git Gud also means that a player that complains about balance is actually a bad player and just needs to learn how to play the game properly, which includes making sure they are maximizing their build because maxing out the build is part of playing the game properly ... or "gittin gud".
You may have a differing definition of what "git gud" means perhaps, but I can't find the gaming dictionary that is the ultimate authority so, I'm going to stick with what I know.
It happens in every game, like 40k video games etc one thing will be op...people B&M..it gets changed now a new thing is "OP" so they switch to B&Ming about the new thing. Point is that isnt ever going to change in a game like aos/40k if it bothers you then you should find a different hobby because youre never going to be not-annoyed in this one (unless your army becomes fotm and is the "OP") thing
Pre-order or release? If it's stating 8/19 release, that would be about in line with my thinking. This weekend was announced as the last two Primaris kits alongside Grey Knights and CSM codices, so I'm thinking next weekend may be the GHB 2017 preorder.
Mesokhornee wrote: It happens in every game, like 40k video games etc one thing will be op...people B&M..it gets changed now a new thing is "OP" so they switch to B&Ming about the new thing. Point is that isnt ever going to change in a game like aos/40k if it bothers you then you should find a different hobby because youre never going to be not-annoyed in this one (unless your army becomes fotm and is the "OP") thing
That's true but also an oversimplification; the degree to which the game is unbalanced matters. Also as has been mentioned several times there is a difference between trying to balance somethig and missing the mark versus making a change that basic math will tell you is a bad idea. It would also be different if the goal of the revised matched play was not ostensibly to improve balance.
At worst it is GW changing things to sell more horde models now that everyone has their monsters and elites, at best it is a complete ignorance as to the balance of block units in their own game.
The Order Grand Alliance is the biggest in Warhammer Age of Sigmar, and in the General’s Handbook 2017, there’s something for every faction.
The new Allies system is a great way to recreate classic alliances from the Age of Sigmar. The forces of the Free Cities are often made up of an eclectic collection of aelves, duardin, humans and Stormcast Eternals, and you’ll be able to build an army like this without losing access to your powerful new allegiance abilities. Each faction has its own allies table – the Wanderers, for example, can fight alongside their ancestral kindred the Sylvaneth, while the Stormcast Eternals can lend their strength to any Order faction.
On the tabletop, this is going to make for some powerful combinations. If your army didn’t have a Wizard before, you’ll most likely have access to one now, and a Wizard of the Collegiate Arcane (or even a Luminark of Hysh or Celestial Hurricanum) provides much-needed coverage from Mystic Shield on your key units as well as helping dispel dangerous enemy magic. Armies without Behemoths like the Dispossessed and the Free People will be able to add an indomitable Steam Tank to their forces, providing them with a durable juggernaut that’s capable of dealing with Monsters or just blitzing enemy infantry with a huge array of ranged weapons.
The Seraphon are one of the most improved armies in the new General’s Handbook, with new allegiance abilities, warlord traits, artefacts and two Warscroll battalions. The most powerful of these is the Lords of Space and Time allegiance ability – which lets you remove a unit and replace it anywhere on the battlefield more than 9” from the enemy. One of the best units to combine this with is a Troglodon, which – with its increased charge range thanks to Drawn to the Screams – should be more than able to make the 9” charge move.
There are loads of other tactical uses for this ability too; you could use it to drop a Massive Regiment of Saurus Warriors on top of a key objective or to reposition a valuable support unit like an Engine of the Gods away from a dangerous group of enemies.
The Wanderers are a fast-moving ranged army, capable of disappearing off of table edges then reappearing – combine this with Melt Away, and you’ll be able to lead powerful melee units on a merry chase around the tabletop while peppering them with deadly ranged fire. The best way to take advantage of this is with Sisters of the Watch – by forcing the enemy to charge you repeatedly, they’re going to have to deal with multiple attacks from Loose to the Last, which allows the Sisters of the Watch to shoot at incoming units.
If you’re a fan of old-school duardin, the Dispossessed are the army for you. Thanks to Stubborn to the End, Dispossessed units are nearly impossible to shift and you’ll be able to safely take huge units of them.
A Massive Regiment of 30 Ironbreakers will make for a great core to build any Dispossessed army around. While this unit might be slow, you can overcome this with the Ancestral Pickaxe Artefact and drop an ironclad duardin speed bump right in front of your opponent’s deadliest units.
If you prefer ur-gold over gromril, now’s a great time to get stuck in with a Fyreslayers army thanks to a host of new rules in the Generals Handbook 2017. During the course of the game, you can activate powerful ur-gold runes to swing events in your favour:
Coupled with two new Warscroll Battalions and a recently-released Start Collecting! boxed set, and a reduction in points for matched play games, there’s never been a better time to get started with Fyreslayers.
Finally,* your Order army is going to be stronger even if it doesn’t have an allegiance ability of its own. Defiant Avengers has been changed so you always get re-rolls to your Battleshock tests, even when you’re not near your general. This is a great defensive ability and one that makes large sized units of elite models more viable than ever. This is great in the Order Serpentis, and you’ll want to field large units of Drakespawn Knights or Drakespawn Chariots (which are now “battleline-if”**) as the core of your armies.
We’ve only scratched the surface of it, and there’s loads more content for Order players to get their teeth into with the new General’s Handbook – let us know what you’re most excited about on our Warhammer Age of Sigmar Facebook page.
* The Darkling Covens and the Free Peoples are also getting some special attention in the Generals Handbook 2017, and we thought they both deserved a closer look, so keep your eyes peeled in the coming weeks for our in-depth preview of these factions.
** If you’re not familiar with Warhammer Age of Sigmar, Battleline units are the units that make up the core of any matched play force – for example, in a 1000 point game, you need two Battleline units. By choosing your units exclusively from one allegiance, you get stronger and more unusual core choices to reward you for focused list-building. For example, ranged Judicators can be chosen as Battleline units IF the force is made only of Stormcast Eternals.
Work blocked from Warhammer Community. Could you please explain these cards? Do they list different scenarios with a battle map on the back? Are they objective cards? Don't have enough information to know whether or not I should be excited for them.
Bottle wrote: Yeah they are so much fun. I recommend just giving each player 3 ruses and adding a twist to any matched play game at a club.
Cool. I was thinking the same thing, or maybe in Matched Play doing something like you could buy Ruses for like 50-100 points or something (I've done absolutely no math to figure any of that out), and definitely the deployments and objectives and twists could be easily used in pretty much any kind of game I think.
I cannot wait to get this book, the waiting is the hardest part. I just hope beyond hope that they have fixed the aelfs a bit (they were just way too fractured and had battleline issues with most of the generic battleline units not being in print anymore :( )
HunterEste wrote: I cannot wait to get this book, the waiting is the hardest part. I just hope beyond hope that they have fixed the aelfs a bit (they were just way too fractured and had battleline issues with most of the generic battleline units not being in print anymore :( )
The new Ally rules should really help factions like the Aelfs that just can't really stand on their own without a good generic battleline.
HunterEste wrote: I cannot wait to get this book, the waiting is the hardest part. I just hope beyond hope that they have fixed the aelfs a bit (they were just way too fractured and had battleline issues with most of the generic battleline units not being in print anymore :( )
The new Ally rules should really help factions like the Aelfs that just can't really stand on their own without a good generic battleline.
It should, I want to keep it fluffy though, so I don't want to have to take stormcast judcators to fill my highelf battleline requirements (I know it's silly, but I have this thing about keeping armies thematic). Right now, for the high elves, the two generic BLs are Silver Helms and Spearmen...and both are no longer being made. Reavers are still listed as a battleline unit in the GHB2016, but I thought I heard whisperings of them becoming Battleline - SwiftHawk Agents in the next edition :(
Anyone going to the NOVA Open? GW just announced a new seminar...
In 2016, the first General’s Handbook revolutionised gaming in the Mortal Realms. With the second annual instalment coming soon, join the Warhammer Community team and Games Workshop Studio to talk about what the new book means for your games of Warhammer Age of Sigmar – and the implications for the top tables of competitive matched play tournaments. They might even give you some hints about what else is on the immediate horizon for Warhammer Age of Sigmar…
Sweet new toys fot destruction! I like what I am seeing.
As for the seminar, meh. They'll only talk about positive impacts on the competitive scene without going into potential problems, the latter being what defines a tournament meta. A preview for future developments would be cool to see though, I'm hoping for new campaign books.
Also it looks like new boxes ideal for allying in, which will be pretty cool if they're a decent deal.
I hope the don't get rid of the Start Collecting Malignants box, as it was a good deal and the Mortis Engine/Coven Throne had lots of good bits.
I doubt the Start Collecting boxes are going anywhere anytime soon. These "Ally" kits, or whatever GW decides to call them, seem to fill a different niche just as Blood and Thunder fills a different niche than the Starter Set.
Also it looks like new boxes ideal for allying in, which will be pretty cool if they're a decent deal.
I hope the don't get rid of the Start Collecting Malignants box, as it was a good deal and the Mortis Engine/Coven Throne had lots of good bits.
I doubt the Start Collecting boxes are going anywhere anytime soon. These "Ally" kits, or whatever GW decides to call them, seem to fill a different niche just as Blood and Thunder fills a different niche than the Starter Set.
I just really, REALLY hope that the Warherds box and the Slaves to Darkness kits are still available once I can afford to get new models again. A chariot and cavalry heavy Chaos Warriors army has been a dream of mine for many years, as has an all-Minotaur army (seriously, if those items were Core choices back in WHF days, I would have been playing them over my Lizardmen army).
Best thing out of these Ally bundles is the "official" GW ruling on which size round bases to use for some of the older models. Woo!
Ouch....points costs have been leaked from the french version and every single army of mine took a hit including one I was going to build. Batallions across the board jump 30-60%. Overlords thunderers got smashed but honestly the KO is the least affected from what I was considering. My fec characters went up, and so did crypt horrors with only a drop for super sized ghoul units. Sylvaneth jumped but it could be close to a wash with what I was running just no batallion now. My mixed destruction with Savage orc and ironjawz got hit due to the batalion jump. My beastmen I'll have to see and I'll have to run the seraph on numbers.
Overall it's definitely going g to create a new meta. Just wish I hadn't gotten hammered across the board. I don't think battalions are going to be seen as much unless they are spectacular as most will run you 10%ishould of your list.
Hulksmash wrote: Ouch....points costs have been leaked from the french version and every single army of mine took a hit including one I was going to build. Batallions across the board jump 30-60%. Overlords thunderers got smashed but honestly the KO is the least affected from what I was considering. My fec characters went up, and so did crypt horrors with only a drop for super sized ghoul units. Sylvaneth jumped but it could be close to a wash with what I was running just no batallion now. My mixed destruction with Savage orc and ironjawz got hit due to the batalion jump. My beastmen I'll have to see and I'll have to run the seraph on numbers.
Overall it's definitely going g to create a new meta. Just wish I hadn't gotten hammered across the board. I don't think battalions are going to be seen as much unless they are spectacular as most will run you 10%ishould of your list.
Well considering players will have been using what's good over what's average/bad, I imagine a lot of them will have nerfs to what they play. Personally I like all of the changes you've mentioned here, all of them sound like they are improving balance.
So you think all fec should have gone up or stayed the same unless you horde up because they were so top tier? Or that beastmen battalion was just shredding the scene? There are definitely some things that needed adjustments. I'm a little shocked it hit across every army I own, even the for fun variants
I mean did the beastclaw raider hunter/sabre battalion need to go up 100pts?
Battalions in general needed to go up IMO, but I will say I'm sure GW went and overcosted at least a third of them. They still don't seem to have a good grip on pointing battalions. Some of them don't have business costing any points at all, even.
FEC did, IMO, need an increase on certain courtiers, battalions, and horrors. But I shouldn't jump to conclusions too much since obviously the degree of change matters. Ghouls didn't need a discount at max size but I've previously gone over why the max size discount is idiotic in my eyes so I didn't feel that particular point needed repeating. Also note that FEC likely got stronger with their allegiance and the point changes almost certainly take their new allegiance into account.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Battalions in general needed to go up IMO, but I will say I'm sure GW went and overcosted at least a third of them. They still don't seem to have a good grip on pointing battalions. Some of them don't have business costing any points at all, even.
The issue of setting points is typical of GW, and wargames in general. If the overall balance is net closer and flatter, then the fact that some are overcosted, and some are undercosted isn't that big of a deal as long as the degree of over/undercost is smaller than it was before.
This is why I was so against an official point system. The community point systems all seemed to do a better job.
To me the batallion points should be multipliers, not flat cost. Kunnin Rukk, for example, is not a big deal unless its on a giant mega blob of archers. You can't really cost the batallion in that case. Multiply the cost of the target.
Yeah, the FEC changes basically means I won't play the army. I was trying my damndest to not go with just 100+ ghouls and roll a bucket of dice, and nothing worked before, only for it to now be even more of that and on top of that no Nighthaunt allies means no Mournghoul, which was really the only thing keeping FEC as even a low-tier competitive army (not that I had any myself). So basically, Death, the weakest grand alliance already, got weaker.
I think what they did is massively over cost most battalions because if they just nerfed the top, then players would've just moved to the next best in line would've stepped up as the default, simply because the one-drop and additional artefact is worth the very small points cost of many battalions. Now you'll have to think really long and hard about even using them. I don't know if it's a good or bad change but it'll certainly move the meta away from one-drop armies and artefact spam.
auticus wrote: I think deathrattle armies are still quite potent, especially with the discount to skeletons and their free bonus attacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It is my intention to do a skeleton army later this year after I finish my nurgle stuff.
A word of recommendation on this, if I may. Get a Necromancer, two Wight Kings (preferably one with Black Axe and one with the standard), and a Magewrath Throne. Make the Necromancer your general and set his ass on the throne. Each Wight King can buff a different unit of skeletons with a bonus attack, and one of them will get to pile in and attack twice.
TBH I think they could have fixed it by just not allowing battalions to be deployed as a single drop, instead of just raising the cost of all battalions.
A lot of battalions weren't worth any points at all (while I get the idea of forcing you to pay for them, I think only some should have required points, a lot should not have, and no more "has to have points for Matched Play" requirement), and are worth even less now with an increase that there's really zero reason to even consider them except maybe if they are still fairly cheap as a filler, and even then most got enough of an increase that you can find another unit to take instead.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, the FEC changes basically means I won't play the army. I was trying my damndest to not go with just 100+ ghouls and roll a bucket of dice, and nothing worked before, only for it to now be even more of that and on top of that no Nighthaunt allies means no Mournghoul, which was really the only thing keeping FEC as even a low-tier competitive army (not that I had any myself). So basically, Death, the weakest grand alliance already, got weaker.
This is an unjustified assumption because we haven't seen the allegiance abilities yet. Also, we know for sure that death got stronger thanks to discount skeleton hordes at the very least.
But feel free to freak out and ruin your own enjoyment
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, the FEC changes basically means I won't play the army. I was trying my damndest to not go with just 100+ ghouls and roll a bucket of dice, and nothing worked before, only for it to now be even more of that and on top of that no Nighthaunt allies means no Mournghoul, which was really the only thing keeping FEC as even a low-tier competitive army (not that I had any myself). So basically, Death, the weakest grand alliance already, got weaker.
This is an unjustified assumption because we haven't seen the allegiance abilities yet. Also, we know for sure that death got stronger thanks to discount skeleton hordes at the very least.
But feel free to freak out and ruin your own enjoyment
It doesn't matter what the allegiance abilities are (also we have seen the delusions which are half, and rumors have stated Feeding Frenzy is if you wipe out a unit, another unit nearby can pile in and attack again on a 6), with costs going up for most of the faction, I have no interest in running blobs of 40 ghouls, even 30 was pushing it for me.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, the FEC changes basically means I won't play the army. I was trying my damndest to not go with just 100+ ghouls and roll a bucket of dice, and nothing worked before, only for it to now be even more of that and on top of that no Nighthaunt allies means no Mournghoul, which was really the only thing keeping FEC as even a low-tier competitive army (not that I had any myself). So basically, Death, the weakest grand alliance already, got weaker.
This is an unjustified assumption because we haven't seen the allegiance abilities yet. Also, we know for sure that death got stronger thanks to discount skeleton hordes at the very least.
But feel free to freak out and ruin your own enjoyment
"I know you're complaining about FEC but Skeletons!!!!"
As a whole though reading through most of the changes, granted without full disclosure on the FEC stuff, FEC basically went monobuild. Ghoul horde. Done. Which is sad as the only death battletome actually out.
I think Wayniac understands this is a total reboot and he'll have to build lists from the ground up but being annoyed about FEC is justified.The only adjustment we got was a horde bonus which even Tzaangor got (and benefit from far more at a 16% discount vs. 10%). Overall it's a complete change to the meta which is fine. But some of us do lament not being able to play something other than monobuild at a tournament. Basically it just pushes me personally to not paint them till maybe next year as I'll have other projects jump them in the que now as I can play narrative games with unpainted stuff with buddies but painting is reserved for tournaments due to my limited time.
Bear in mind Ninth it may be the only way to play FEC. Not the only way to play period. Most of the hordes don't get enough advantage or were things people were running already (looking at skeletons, tzaangor, and moonclan). Ironjawz, Sylvaneth, Overlords, Bonesplittaz, and quite a few others will do fine without hordes. They just screwed the pooch on the FEC. Bumping out character costs and one of our 3 units cost while only discounting ghouls at 40 and increasing our restore battalion essentially forces you into a horde competitively.
Then again FEC wasn't in the greatest place not playing 90+ ghouls already anyway so it's not a massive shift for them. More I, and I think wayniac, were hoping for a change that made non-horde more viable.
Non-horde FEC was perfectly viable; a guy at my flgs has done quite well spamming horrors for instance. Keep in mind that a balanced AoS army will not be tournament viable. I'll have to take a look at the book and the allegiance abilities before I form an opinion, the artifacts and command traits can (and do) make a huge difference to an army's performance.
What I do think, is that you won't see 40 ghouls. 30 suffices just enough and is cheaper; the discount for max size IMHO only matters when the max size is worth taking.
King on Terrorgiest Haunter Courtier Ghast Courtier 6 Horrors 30 Ghouls 30 Ghouls 30 Ghouls Ghoul Patrol
still fits into a 2k list, and is basically the same army as before with extras. or not take Ghoul Patrol and ally in a necromancer. It doesn't really change the army a lot, and does nothing to fix the main issue with the army which is a handful of easy-to-kill characters that are the lynchpin.
All the factions with allegiance get their own lists of command traits and artifacts, FEC will too. Artifacts would be the best place for some survivibility stuff.
So got a look at most of the points... I'm disappointed. Even from GW, I expected better than this. Grundstock thunderers and all of the Kharadron battalions are now so bad as to be borderline unusable while the most OP thing (khemist) stays the same, stormfiends did not get a points increase, heralds of nurgle are still garbage, and plaguebearers got a buff they didnt need. Just to mention a few things from what I play.
I am still very happy with how the implimented allies though, and that they are bringing in so many new allegiance abilities. Hoping my excitement for the latter wont be dampened by poor trait/artifact balancing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So got a look at most of the points... I'm disappointed. Even from GW, I expected better than this. Grundstock thunderers and all of the Kharadron battalions are now so bad as to be borderline unusable while the most OP thing (khemist) stays the same, stormfiends did not get a points increase, heralds of nurgle are still garbage, and plaguebearers got a buff they didnt need. Just to mention a few things from what I play.
This is one of the things that I was worried about with regards to external playtesters.
Sometimes you get good ones who make valuable contributions...sometimes you get stuff that makes no sense at all.
Part of it is that they seem to be listening to the top 1% of competitive tournament players (SCGT people and friends) and making changes based on that for ALL of Matched Play, instead of doing something like dividing Matched Play into a second, stricter set of rules (let's call it "Competitive Matched Play") where that sort of stuff is helpful to reel in the egregious tournament lists without screwing over everyone who uses matched play. They are IMHO listening to the wrong type of people, in part because it seems like they designed matched play specifically for those people and don't seem to get that it affects the majority of the game.
GW seems to think, and this goes for 40k too (substitute "SCGT people and friends" with "ITC people and friends"), that if you're using matched play at all, it's in a competitive tournament-type event, when in fact I'd wager that matched play is the most common playstyle in both games for both casual and competitive games.
So what are you seeing is changes that might be suited for the highest level of tournament play being applied in a large swathe to just affect most of the game. My group is already talking about ignoring GH2017 and playing with the points in the older book.
That doesn't even fit though, because plenty of the changes make even less sense in a competitive environment. The massive unit rule as a whole isn't too bad for casual play where the impracticality of abusing it will put people off, verses the tournament scene where it can be heavily abused. The Kharadron changes don't make sense in the tournament scene either, since khemists are far more abused than thunderers. And so on. I get the distinct sense that, like Kan said, the playtesters simply did not do a very good job at all.
Also fwiw... If you are looking to house rule better points PPC is still being kept current.
Edit: Ran the numbers and Skryrefyre 2017 is a go! Less three warpfire teams and plus a warp lightning cannon, but still a fair ways into the 'broken cheese' category.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So got a look at most of the points... I'm disappointed. Even from GW, I expected better than this. Grundstock thunderers and all of the Kharadron battalions are now so bad as to be borderline unusable while the most OP thing (khemist) stays the same, stormfiends did not get a points increase, heralds of nurgle are still garbage, and plaguebearers got a buff they didnt need. Just to mention a few things from what I play.
I am still very happy with how the implimented allies though, and that they are bringing in so many new allegiance abilities. Hoping my excitement for the latter wont be dampened by poor trait/artifact balancing.
But as 80%-90% of all units got cheaper isn't staying at the same pts the same as point increase in that case? Not that we will have a balanced game now with these pts,..
Overall I actually have a lot more faith in the aos playtesting vs. The 40k US testing. At least they actually the play the game. Only one play test group in the US had a playtesting that was actually actively engaged at a high level for competition 40k and so we got daemons, guard, storm ravens, and others....
I also feel like the more I'm running numbers the more I'm liking my ironjawz /bonesplitter list post changes. My sylvaneth lose just 3 hunters and are still one drop. My prospective KO list feels solid but it wasn't using battalions anyway. I find my new lists splitting between horde and non horde. Lizards & Gor are horde. Ironjawz and sylvaneth are middle road unit size wise.
I think you have a good point that the units of ironjawz and sylvaneth saw good changes, particularly the latter is in a better place now. Bonesplittaz already had the best set of point costs (balance-wise) in the game IMO, kunnin rukk was the only problem they ever had and even then just arrow boyz shooting within it. So I'm glad they didn't do anything significant to the units (afaik, I haven't taken a close look yet).
KO aren't really hurt by the new points beyond thunderers, because all KO cheese revolves around the khemist and he stayed where he was. That said, from a balance perspective the changes are simply incompetent. The battalions that only saw limited use more or less doubled in cost, thunderers got a warscroll change to bring them down to 100 points in effectiveness but then had their points increased to what it should have been with the previous mortar-spam loadout. So all battalions and one of the army's two infantry options are now unusable at anything resembling serious play. On top of all this the clear problem model (that can easily be fixed by an errata to 'this ability doesn't stack') sees no changes at all. It's very poorly done and makes me think the playtesters didn't even test KO for whatever reason. I do have hopes that the khemist will be errata'd to not stack, at least.
Ultimately I too am excited to see how things develop, even knowing for some of that I'll be rolling my eyes.
They are a bit strong for 300 points. While expensive they don't really have a weak spot; they shoot, they fight, they have decent saves, and have good wounds count. But more importantly, the warpfire projector version is just strong. Pick a target within 8" to take 2d3 mortal wounds to the face, for each stormfiend. It's a very consistent, reliable output of ~12 mortals every shooting phase that require no hit roll or analogous roll... they just do it. Since all equipment options cost the same, GW should assume that the best one will be taken when assigning costs.
Stormfiends in Azyr (my Azyr) rate as top of the game in both damage output and defense, but yes their points are expensive. Their offensive capabilities are a bit much for their points but their defensive rating is a bit lower for their points, so to me its fairly even, though a minor raise in points I think would be good ... particularly as GW in their infinite wisdom decided to make them battleline.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think you have a good point that the units of ironjawz and sylvaneth saw good changes, particularly the latter is in a better place now. Bonesplittaz already had the best set of point costs (balance-wise) in the game IMO, kunnin rukk was the only problem they ever had and even then just arrow boyz shooting within it. So I'm glad they didn't do anything significant to the units (afaik, I haven't taken a close look yet).
KO aren't really hurt by the new points beyond thunderers, because all KO cheese revolves around the khemist and he stayed where he was. That said, from a balance perspective the changes are simply incompetent. The battalions that only saw limited use more or less doubled in cost, thunderers got a warscroll change to bring them down to 100 points in effectiveness but then had their points increased to what it should have been with the previous mortar-spam loadout. So all battalions and one of the army's two infantry options are now unusable at anything resembling serious play. On top of all this the clear problem model (that can easily be fixed by an errata to 'this ability doesn't stack') sees no changes at all. It's very poorly done and makes me think the playtesters didn't even test KO for whatever reason. I do have hopes that the khemist will be errata'd to not stack, at least.
Ultimately I too am excited to see how things develop, even knowing for some of that I'll be rolling my eyes.
Well, they did errata it so that it didn't stack, so there's that?
They really only needed to make 2 of the changes they did to thunderers and khemists instead of everything at once. A single mortar at 36 inches would be fine. 5 mortars at 12 inches would have been fine. Single mortar at 12 with 100 point thunderers is cheap enough to still be worth it to use them. Etc etc. Making them 140 points, nerfing the mortar range, making them single weapons only, and then nerfing khemists which were mainly used to buff mortar thunderers..all of that is ridiculous overkill. And now the FAQ has also taken away the solid 3 damage from drill cannons which are hard enough to hit with as is.
So the leaked points there were going around were not the final versions. I have looked through the book and some things are different. For starters, the Khemist went up to 140 instead of Thunderers (whew!).
I looked at FEC and their allegiance, I would definitely say any freaking out was premature since they are in a stronger place now than they were before. They still get deathless minions (though it's been nerfed to 6") AND get their delusions and unique tables (which are pretty good) on top of that. Only Horrors, GK on foot and and GK on Dragon got small increases, and even their battalion increases are more mild than other armies. Meanwhile unridden terrorgheists and dragons went down by a small amount, as did max size ghoul units.
My favorite delusion is the one that gives all non-general heroes re roll hits of 1. Great for having a courtier general unlocking extra battleline while a mounted GK tears up stuff in the front.
mmzero252 wrote: Thunderers being 100 points still doesn't excuse making them all only able to take 1 weapon and then nerfing the range of the mortar.
Yeah it does. They were worth more than 100 points before, now players just need to employ actual skill when using them rather than having cheap 36" artillery sit in the back all game.
mmzero252 wrote: Thunderers being 100 points still doesn't excuse making them all only able to take 1 weapon and then nerfing the range of the mortar.
Yeah it does. They were worth more than 100 points before, now players just need to employ actual skill when using them rather than having cheap 36" artillery sit in the back all game.
I could see that only if they made them battleline units as well. Right now they are just kind of..there. They have a weird synergy thing with the single weapon types, but 12" for the single mortar they get is pretty stupid. Also with single weapon types, how would they be cheap 36" artillery..? You'd get 1-2 shots at 36" at most, and that's if you camped a khemist with them like before. They could have left it at 36" and been fine, but they decided to go for overkill on the nerfs. Single weapons and that FAQ were enough.
Edit: Also..what's wrong with a shooting army having long range artillery? Just like..really curious what your misguided thought process is on that. The whole army is centered around shooting. Thunderers have an actual rule to run from combat to keep shooting. Pretty sure long range shooting fits them perfectly.
The previous warscroll is what allowed 5-mortar units to sit in the back, but a good shot at passing off a willful misinterpretation of what I said. I'm sorry that you aren't skilled enough to get good use out of a fairly pointed unit; maybe Tzeentch would be better for you since disc-Tzaangors are still undercosted.
OK so based on the GHB17 it doesnt appear the grudge thrower is part of dispossessed anymore, its now been moved to dwarf compendium, which means they arent allies so I cant use the dispossessed allegiance which seams TOTALLY blasphemous, however, in the AoS app, they still appear under dispossessed?
The app said I have to buy the GHB17 to update the warscrolls... is this serious? I own the GHB17 but I have to buy the in-app one to get it to update the warscrolls? Is this correct?
NinthMusketeer wrote: The previous warscroll is what allowed 5-mortar units to sit in the back, but a good shot at passing off a willful misinterpretation of what I said. I'm sorry that you aren't skilled enough to get good use out of a fairly pointed unit; maybe Tzeentch would be better for you since disc-Tzaangors are still undercosted.
Are you meaning the Skyfires or Enlightened?
Because honestly 160 is pretty fair for the Enlightened.
I'll give you that 200 for Skyfires is likely still not enough, especially given that Destiny Dice have been FaQ'd to work with random numbers of Mortal Wounds.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The previous warscroll is what allowed 5-mortar units to sit in the back, but a good shot at passing off a willful misinterpretation of what I said. I'm sorry that you aren't skilled enough to get good use out of a fairly pointed unit; maybe Tzeentch would be better for you since disc-Tzaangors are still undercosted.
I'm not sure what part of my post you ignored, but it looks like all of it as per usual. I will break this down for you to make it simple. Kharadron Overlords are a shooting army. Nerfing their range and limiting weapon options of the very limited options of units is really silly considering they were also fixing khemists. Shooting on a shooting army makes sense, you see. Long range shooting on a shooting army ALSO makes sense. Thunderers having one gun now that can shoot 36" does not make them a no skill unit. But nice try just being TFG once again.
My Blades of Khorne 2k list just took a beating. Would now be a 2220 pt list for no advantages. (Gore Pilgrims and Skull Take).
Didn't feel it was especially powerful either. Very reliant on two characters to leverage any of the serious buffs.
Oh well.
Rezyn wrote: OK so based on the GHB17 it doesnt appear the grudge thrower is part of dispossessed anymore, its now been moved to dwarf compendium, which means they arent allies so I cant use the dispossessed allegiance which seams TOTALLY blasphemous, however, in the AoS app, they still appear under dispossessed?
The app said I have to buy the GHB17 to update the warscrolls... is this serious? I own the GHB17 but I have to buy the in-app one to get it to update the warscrolls? Is this correct?
Hmm, my app updated and although it's under dispossessed units it lacks the keyword which is a shame.
Don't know about buying anything to update the app, mine automatically updated and I made no purchases on it.
It could be that annoying bug where you have to keep clicking. (Wish they'd fix that by now)
They might have left the units where they were just to make them easier to find for those that still want to find them. The buying things bug is still there in full force though. Just keep clicking the unit until it opens, like Baron said.
Is there a lore reason why only Nurgle rotbringers and Hosts of slaanesh can ally with each other while Tzeentch and Khorne can't ally with any other mono god factions ?
auticus wrote: Oh... there are quite a few nuggets fairly to severely undercosted in the new. Quite a few indeed.
I noticed bloodthirsters went down for... No reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
plastictrees wrote: My Blades of Khorne 2k list just took a beating. Would now be a 2220 pt list for no advantages. (Gore Pilgrims and Skull Take).
Didn't feel it was especially powerful either. Very reliant on two characters to leverage any of the serious buffs.
Oh well.
GW overcosted the majority of battalions this time. Though classics like Gore Pilgrims, Kunnin' Rukk, and Ghoul Patrol are still OP, ironically enough.
One of the bigger theories on the over costed battalions is that GW was trying to make them less usable in 1000 point games. Obviously nobody but GW can say for certain and it seems like a pretty dumb reason if that's the case. (Although I could see it being true because GW..)
I will say that Clan Skryre's battalion is still pretty amazingly priced for 2000 point games. A bit sad to see the Clawpacks go though. Makes Verminus a lot less appealing.
plastictrees wrote: Blades of Khorne can ally with Rotbringers.
Tzeentch not having any other single God faction as allies doesn't really have any fluff background afaik.
Oh that is weird since Rotbringers can't take blades of khorne, but Blade of khorne can take Rotbringers.
I find it interesting that the pretenders sub faction for slaanesh specifically mentions the ability to re-roll 1s in the shooting phase, when Slaanesh has no access to ranged units, future proofing ?
plastictrees wrote: Blades of Khorne can ally with Rotbringers.
Tzeentch not having any other single God faction as allies doesn't really have any fluff background afaik.
Oh that is weird since Rotbringers can't take blades of khorne, but Blade of khorne can take Rotbringers.
I find it interesting that the pretenders sub faction for slaanesh specifically mentions the ability to re-roll 1s in the shooting phase, when Slaanesh has no access to ranged units, future proofing ?
I think Slaanesh-marked units count...? And I think the Rotbringers/DoN is a bit messed up since they are about to get a combined battletome (presumably).
plastictrees wrote: Blades of Khorne can ally with Rotbringers.
Tzeentch not having any other single God faction as allies doesn't really have any fluff background afaik.
Oh that is weird since Rotbringers can't take blades of khorne, but Blade of khorne can take Rotbringers.
I find it interesting that the pretenders sub faction for slaanesh specifically mentions the ability to re-roll 1s in the shooting phase, when Slaanesh has no access to ranged units, future proofing ?
I think Slaanesh-marked units count...? And I think the Rotbringers/DoN is a bit messed up since they are about to get a combined battletome (presumably).
There are no slaanesh marked ranged units though, slaves to darkness don't have any ranged units and I don't think brayherds have marks (I left my grand alliance book at my friends so I can't check)
That does make sense on the rotbringers, it also explains why daemons of nurgle have no allies at the moment (if they are going to get rolled into a single faction soon)
NinthMusketeer wrote: The previous warscroll is what allowed 5-mortar units to sit in the back, but a good shot at passing off a willful misinterpretation of what I said. I'm sorry that you aren't skilled enough to get good use out of a fairly pointed unit; maybe Tzeentch would be better for you since disc-Tzaangors are still undercosted.
Are you meaning the Skyfires or Enlightened?
Because honestly 160 is pretty fair for the Enlightened.
I'll give you that 200 for Skyfires is likely still not enough, especially given that Destiny Dice have been FaQ'd to work with random numbers of Mortal Wounds.
Destiny dice have been faqd to NOT work with random mortal wounds.
Elves got a bit better with some actual Allegiance Abilities. Darkling Covens, for example, can have their elf warriors (Bleakshwords, Dreadspears, Darkshards) count the models in other elf warrior units within 6" when checking for unit abilities. So if you had 10 man units of each within 6" of each other all 3 count as having 30 models for triggering their special unit abilities.
Wanders had some nice Artifacts from what I remember, they can also retreat and shoot.
The Times of War rules are waaay better then they were in the Scenario books and the rules for the Realms of Shadow and Light are really interesting.
Honestly I felt the Time of War rules were lackluster, they are too imbalanced out of the gate to be used without a lot of extra work to strip away the bad parts and keep the good, and that's a shame because I was most excited for special "realm rules" to actually make battles in AOS feel like they were in a different realm.
BomBomHotdog wrote: Elves got a bit better with some actual Allegiance Abilities. Darkling Covens, for example, can have their elf warriors (Bleakshwords, Dreadspears, Darkshards) count the models in other elf warrior units within 6" when checking for unit abilities. So if you had 10 man units of each within 6" of each other all 3 count as having 30 models for triggering their special unit abilities.
Wanders had some nice Artifacts from what I remember, they can also retreat and shoot.
The Times of War rules are waaay better then they were in the Scenario books and the rules for the Realms of Shadow and Light are really interesting.
Getting the Special Addition was totally worth it
Darkling covens have the new Battle Brew artifact; a weapon that gets +1 attack for the rest of the game if the bearer causes wounds in the combat phase. It stacks.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Marauder Horsemen can take javelins (and work quite well with the Slaanesh playstyle). Obviously the rule was included for them!
After reading it again, it doesn't restrict the ability to slaanesh marked models, so ungor raiders could be useful, is there no restriction on models gaining allegiance abilities ?
Edit: Marauder Horsemen and Ungor raiders already re-roll hit rolls of 1 with there shooting just from there warscroll basic abilities.
Just bought the book through the app. Good to see Varanguard have been reduced to 300 points. Now you can run an Everchosen army of Archaon and 3 Varanguard units and have 400 points left over for allies! Not exactly a good objectives army, but I could see it being fun to run if you have the models.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Marauder Horsemen can take javelins (and work quite well with the Slaanesh playstyle). Obviously the rule was included for them!
After reading it again, it doesn't restrict the ability to slaanesh marked models, so ungor raiders could be useful, is there no restriction on models gaining allegiance abilities ?
Edit: Marauder Horsemen and Ungor raiders already re-roll hit rolls of 1 with there shooting just from there warscroll basic abilities.
Obviously, should the icon bearer of the marauder horsemen be slain they need not worry.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Marauder Horsemen can take javelins (and work quite well with the Slaanesh playstyle). Obviously the rule was included for them!
After reading it again, it doesn't restrict the ability to slaanesh marked models, so ungor raiders could be useful, is there no restriction on models gaining allegiance abilities ?
Edit: Marauder Horsemen and Ungor raiders already re-roll hit rolls of 1 with there shooting just from there warscroll basic abilities.
Obviously, should the icon bearer of the marauder horsemen be slain they need not worry.
You need 10 horsemen alive for the slaanesh ability, so there is a higher chance of losing the re-roll ability from the allegiance than losing it from the banner.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Marauder Horsemen can take javelins (and work quite well with the Slaanesh playstyle). Obviously the rule was included for them!
After reading it again, it doesn't restrict the ability to slaanesh marked models, so ungor raiders could be useful, is there no restriction on models gaining allegiance abilities ?
Edit: Marauder Horsemen and Ungor raiders already re-roll hit rolls of 1 with there shooting just from there warscroll basic abilities.
Obviously, should the icon bearer of the marauder horsemen be slain they need not worry.
You need 10 horsemen alive for the slaanesh ability, so there is a higher chance of losing the re-roll ability from the allegiance than losing it from the banner.
Well if the icon bearer was specifically picked out and slain by an ability that targets individual models, it would matter!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EnTyme wrote: Just bought the book through the app. Good to see Varanguard have been reduced to 300 points. Now you can run an Everchosen army of Archaon and 3 Varanguard units and have 400 points left over for allies! Not exactly a good objectives army, but I could see it being fun to run if you have the models.
If you stick to mortals of one god you can run pretty much whatever you want on Everchosen using plaguebound, fatebound, bloodbound, or pleasurebound. The first three were already strong then got reduced cost in GHB2 even.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: Oh... there are quite a few nuggets fairly to severely undercosted in the new. Quite a few indeed.
Ok... So it wasn't until I started going through the points in detail that I realized what you meant. Things are way worse than I thought.
(I'm not super worried about it, since they look cool regardless.)
