Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sarouan wrote:
There are already quite a few restrictions/mecanisms shown on Warhammer Community that make it different from the usual optimization, so I'm not too concerned about these so called massive balance issues.

You can't take more than two units of the same warscroll, unless they're part of a battalion - given the price of those at such a small scale game, it's likely to be a double edged sword. Also, you can only take minimum size units, or double the minimum size for battleline, reducing a lot of potential for warscrolls having advantage with a higher number of models.

Also, the way you build the list (separation of your army in three bodies - spearhead, main body and rearguard) definitely plays a role in battleplans, since it determines which units start on the board and which turn the others come.

So it plays differently. Interesting tactics and strategies coming up with that new format.

Of course, the usual people will keep saying it's a bad idea/badly written, but I don't see why we should keep listening to them anyway. They clearly don't know what they're talking about at this point.

What is your opinion on Seraphon being able to summon in 500 points a game even using these rules, just for bringing a Slaan? How would you deal with a list that brings Nagash or Archaon?

Since you are not concerned about such issues you must have an answer for them, which I would very much like to hear if you do.

In a larger sense, what is your response to the people who make predictions about content having balance issues who turn out to be entirely correct? Why do you feel they are not worth listening to?

 kodos wrote:
problem is that is not really balanced by default and will favour different armies as those who need to spam their good units will suffer

And it will rein in those armies that are overpowered due to one or two units that get spammed because they're that much better than anything else available to the player.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

What is your opinion on Seraphon being able to summon in 500 points a game even using these rules, just for bringing a Slaan? How would you deal with a list that brings Nagash or Archaon?

Nagash and Archaon are so expensive that they will be certainly automatically in the main body. So I'd say I'll play objectives and take advantage of the fact he will certainly not start the game on the board at the beginning of the game - see Deployment and Battleplans. Looks like you need to think a bit further than that before jumping on the gun.

About the Seraphon, I doubt they would be able to do all their tricks with summoning when only a small part of their armies are on the table turn 1.

Flesh Eaters Courts are a different matter, sure, but I'll wait for the full rules before giving a definitive judgment like you often do on this forum.

Since you are not concerned about such issues you must have an answer for them, which I would very much like to hear if you do.

It's only a concern if you convince yourself it is actually one. You're clearly not taking the games themselves into your hypothesis here and just talk about what you can bring fully optimized without even knowing what purpose will play the different bodies of your army. And that is your mistake here.

Why do you feel they are not worth listening to?

See above, this is exactly why. You're looking at a part, call it bad while completely forgetting the rest. A game in AoS doesn't stop to list building. Battleplans play a big part too. And here, the way you will divide your units into the different bodies will clearly play another role other than just "putting you whole army on the table and steamrolls the opponent with all of it". If you play with only one part at a time, the different parts play differently.

 Sarouan wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

What is your opinion on Seraphon being able to summon in 500 points a game even using these rules, just for bringing a Slaan? How would you deal with a list that brings Nagash or Archaon?

Nagash and Archaon are so expensive that they will be certainly automatically in the main body. So I'd say I'll play objectives and take advantage of the fact he will certainly not start the game on the board at the beginning of the game - see Deployment and Battleplans. Looks like you need to think a bit further than that before jumping on the gun.

About the Seraphon, I doubt they would be able to do all their tricks with summoning when only a small part of their armies are on the table turn 1.

Flesh Eaters Courts are a different matter, sure, but I'll wait for the full rules before giving a definitive judgment like you often do on this forum.

Since you are not concerned about such issues you must have an answer for them, which I would very much like to hear if you do.

It's only a concern if you convince yourself it is actually one. You're clearly not taking the games themselves into your hypothesis here and just talk about what you can bring fully optimized without even knowing what purpose will play the different bodies of your army. And that is your mistake here.

Why do you feel they are not worth listening to?

See above, this is exactly why. You're looking at a part, call it bad while completely forgetting the rest. A game in AoS doesn't stop to list building. Battleplans play a big part too. And here, the way you will divide your units into the different bodies will clearly play another role other than just "putting you whole army on the table and steamrolls the opponent with all of it". If you play with only one part at a time, the different parts play differently.

So you feel that Nagash/Archaeon arriving at the end of round 1 is a sufficient disadvantage. That makes sense.

A slaan can start on the board and immediately begin summoning at full capacity, it sounds like you do not know the rules.

You also did not address predictions being correct, avoiding it in favor of straw men and incorrect statements.

You are demonstrating a lack of expertise on the subject and are making baseless insults at those who disagree with you, on top of flat-out lies.

My post history is littered with dozens of times I've shown I'm happy to admit when I am wrong, but it gets extremely frustrating when someone tries to discredit me based on statements or arguments I never made.

It take a bit for the slaan to get the summoning points built up. Without things like astrolith bearers, even if the slaan goes full summoning points with its spells, it's probably not going to be too bad on turn 1. I recently played a 1250 point game against a slann and it was fine-- and I bring casual crap lists with underworlds units and a knight questor.

Also, if there is some obviously best build for this format, then you can just agree not to do that. Games are played by people and if the sheer variety of point sizes, missions, synergy, terrain layout, etc., means that some combinations break the game, you can always just not intentionally break things.

My thinking is that the structure added in terms of breaking the army into three parts, the restrictions on unit sizes and all the rest actually reduces the number of viable combos, so it's probably going to turn out more balanced than 2000 point anything goes pitched battles.

By default every format will have OP lists. Maybe theyll be similar to the ones for 2000 or theyll be different, but theres always optimization.

Balance comes when the difference between the better lists and weaker ones isnt as great as to make a game not worth playing (That should be more based on player skill on the table) and when most of the tools and units in one book have use in some kind of lists or situation.

This format will probably change what lists or even factions are op but I doubt it will help with balance.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Also, if there is some obviously best build for this format, then you can just agree not to do that. Games are played by people and if the sheer variety of point sizes, missions, synergy, terrain layout, etc., means that some combinations break the game, you can always just not intentionally break things.

This is my view in that context as well, and even without any additional balancing I think it will work great along these lines; I seriously doubt any restrictions we haven't seen will make things worse on this front. The problem comes when they are pushing this as a tournament format. The dynamic is completely different as min-maxxing needs to be assumed as the baseline, because that is what tournaments are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frozenwastes wrote:
It take a bit for the slaan to get the summoning points built up. Without things like astrolith bearers, even if the slaan goes full summoning points with its spells, it's probably not going to be too bad on turn 1.

The point being it already begins to store up those summons round one; it is not summoning less than it would at 2000 points. Lack of an astrolith bearer (until round two) only deprives the army of d3 summon points, compared to the slaan which is already banking 10. Round two he can pull an 18-point summon guaranteed with some leftover, so by the time both armies have gotten their whole force on the field the seraphon are already rocking ~1200 points, a 20% advantage that will only get worse in subsequent rounds. In a casual game it is entirely reasonable to expect/demand people not to cheese out like that, but in a tourney setting it that level of power will be the standard, locking out the overwhelming majority of armies and potential builds that cannot compete at such a level from doing well. And to be clear, that is just one example.

Which is why I am hoping there will be additional restrictions we have not yet seen, because as it stands what we have seen does not produce a tourney setup that is viable for most armies. It is worth noting GW does not even push 2000 point matched play as a tournament setup (as far as I have seen, maybe someone can correct me). But, and I want to emphasize this*, I am not passing judgement on the system yet because we have not seen all of it; just explaining problems that are in play should what we have seen be the end of it.

*Not as a response to you specifically; as seen above I have had issues with people putting words in my mouth.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. You're right about the slann eventually getting the same amount of summoning as in a larger game. And if the models arriving in waves (possibly in different places on the table) this format could result in longer games so the slann will have lots of opportunity to summon.

My take on competitive AoS is that the lists are just going to always be in their own category compared to lists built based on other factors (which models are cool, background fiction, what starter boxes happen to come with, etc.,). I think we'll just see more of that here.

It's entirely possible that this is the format Seraphon are waiting for. Their teleportion of models combined with amazing summoning might mean they suffer none of the drawbacks of splitting the army up. Oh? My double sized units arrive in my last wave? Well, let's teleport them to the other side of the table.

I play 1.000 games exclusively and so far these rules don't address anything problematic in the format. And I would call it outright schtizophrenic that GW thinks max size units should be restricted and simultaneously that they need a points discount. That should be a big clue about how much thought is behind their design process.

Well in one of the formats you’re not restricted on how much of something you can take. Taking giant units means you’re taking less units means you’re taking less Warscroll Battalions. In the other they’re trying to force more diversity inside your list. Putting smaller unit caps when you’re restricted to taking fewer duplicate units means less of that model overall.

Also, if there is some obviously best build for this format, then you can just agree not to do that.

This is the central pillar of all my frustrations. Getting people to not always bring the best build. Its why I went my own way and do campaigns with a codified way of playing with the sudden death rules.

If a casual list shows up against a powergamer list, instead of not bothering to play, the casual list has at least a chance to pull something out via sudden death and the game doesn't hinge so hard on listbuilding.

It is also my opinion that the 1000 point format they've provided has obvious builds that are going to do well. I think casually the format is fine. I think if you have a group that won't powergame it to the ends of the earth it'll be fine, but otherwise if your group is going to be adopting 1000 point games, there is a specific set of lists that will do well and dominate in that environment, same as GW 2000 points, for similar issues.

Bad points values, over powered abilities (FEC) and obvious takes.

But thats nothing new. I am doubtful that 1000 points takes off though enough to really be worried.

I think 1000 points is already really popular among non event attending players. I bet loads of people play it as their normal game size already. I know in a local Facebook group the posts looking for 2k games only outnumber the posts looking for 1k games when people want to get in practice games for an event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If it does take off as a regular event size, people will figure out the best lists quite rapidly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've been looking through some different factions that have a very small list of units to choose from and I don't think any of them really get screwed by the 2 units of a given warscroll limit.

Even Ironjaws and Fireslayers can make a variety of 1k lists with the restrictions of the format. A double sized unit and a character or two and you just won't fit every unit option in the army. Much like at 2k, those types of armies are never going to be as variable as armies that have 20+ options for units though. As always, Beastclaw Raiders have the biggest issue with variety, but the ability to have two different battle line units depending on the general still means lists won't have to be identical.

The advantage of this Meeting Engagement format for me is that I finally have a legal Matched Play force. No matter which of the ex-High Elves factions I pick, I've only got one Battleline unit.

A preview of some new narrative rules up today. Definitely excited for more resources I can work into my path to glory leagues.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
It take a bit for the slaan to get the summoning points built up. Without things like astrolith bearers, even if the slaan goes full summoning points with its spells, it's probably not going to be too bad on turn 1.

The point being it already begins to store up those summons round one; it is not summoning less than it would at 2000 points. Lack of an astrolith bearer (until round two) only deprives the army of d3 summon points, compared to the slaan which is already banking 10. Round two he can pull an 18-point summon guaranteed with some leftover, so by the time both armies have gotten their whole force on the field the seraphon are already rocking ~1200 points, a 20% advantage that will only get worse in subsequent rounds. In a casual game it is entirely reasonable to expect/demand people not to cheese out like that, but in a tourney setting it that level of power will be the standard, locking out the overwhelming majority of armies and potential builds that cannot compete at such a level from doing well. And to be clear, that is just one example.

Yes, and like I said before, you don't take the battleplans into account.

The army body where the slann will be actually plays a big part for that. If you want to begin summoning at turn one, with the example shown on Warhammer Community with Meeting Engagements deployments, that means he must be in the Spearhead. Because spearheads begin the game on the board turn 1, and thus will have a hero phase (mind you, the Seraphon gather summoning points during their hero phase). But by doing so, your slann will also be more exposed, because the spearhead doesn't have the same defensive capacities as the others talking about number of units starting on the board and their size. Main body only comes on the table at the end of turn 1, thus after the hero phase has passed and without the possibility for a slann in the main body to summon anything. I don't think I need to tell you that putting a slann in the rearguard is a bad idea for summoning for the simple fact it will come on the board end of turn 2 (thus only gathering points in turn 3 hero phase).

So, when you're saying their summoning will be the same problem in that format, that's not true - it depends of the deployment and where you will actually put your summoning characters. The opponent can also try different tactics to alpha strike an exposed important character in Spearhead - or, if those characters are in others bodies, to deal with what is on the board and maybe take advantage of that to gather victory points before the main cheese is coming.

I have won enough games in AoS by playing objectives even against very cheesy lists to know that it's still possible. You seem to dismiss this too easily, IMHO.

Which is why I am hoping there will be additional restrictions we have not yet seen, because as it stands what we have seen does not produce a tourney setup that is viable for most armies..

More than restrictions, I think that's the battleplans and deployments that may be different and thus completely changing the strategy of your own list, shifting the balance from one scenario to another while having the same list. I know, it's an alien concept for people only focusing on list building, but it's not a hazard if in tournaments, the battleplans played are very important to take into account while building your list. Remember, restrictions don't only come from the number of units/min or max size.

Which is why I am doubting people only talking about one part of the game while claiming the whole system is completely bonkers. Most of the time, I found they're just looking at the small picture, not the big one.

Edit: Nevermind. Not worth it.

One thing to remember is that for all the times the game breaks down and people have a total blow out or a given combination of units dominates the game, lots of people are indeed enjoying the game with like minded individuals.

These meeting engagement rules will probably make those enjoyable games more likely to occur rather than less simply because the format reduce the variables. There are restrictions on unit sizes, multiples of the same unit taken and so on that simply reduce the possible army builds where people build a single max sized unit combo or spam the most points efficient options.

I have no doubt that there will be obviously best builds of given armies that will be more clear once we know the scenarios. Knowing the scenarios is more likely to cause anyone with list building talent and experience the ability to make things less balanced rather than more as they'll be able to identify what they need in their list, in what section of the list it needs to go and why.

That said, the maximum power of a given list simply has to be less than one with no restrictions.

1000 points is already what a lot of people play when they are doing their first "full sized" games of AoS. Many people stick to 1000 points and play it as their normal game size. It's in the pitched battle section of the general's handbook as one of the normal game sizes.

These additional army building restrictions and interesting scenarios where you have to actually do stuff with three different groups surely isn't going to make things worse in terms of balance. Considering the comparison is to just anything goes armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Both players will simply have more information about how the game will be set up, when different sections will deploy and what they need to accomplish when they build their part of what makes up the game. The odds of a mismatch will surely go down if both players have this increased structure and restrictions.

A lot of talk about list building and summoning but I think one important factor is being left out. Board size will have a big impact. With the smaller size that GW recommends if you can get one model into the middle of each quarter of the board, you can completely shut down summoning as there won't be anywhere on the board that is more than 9 inches from one of your models.

that's a very good point, and even if you can't do it in all the quarters you will be able to severely limit where they can come in

The Twitch show the other day mentioned that the various Meeting Engagement Battleplans are more varied than the one we saw on the website. The arrival times and locations for the three sections of your army will vary (for example, starting with your Main Body, then having the Vanguard turn up later, or even beginning with the Rear Guard). The different sections might turn up on entirely different table edges, behind the enemy, etc.

Did they show anything interesting in the licensing preview?

 nels1031 wrote:

gilljoy wrote:
Anyone know if the book will contain any updates for the FW lists? In particular the chaos dwarfs

I believe FW comes out with their own downloadable points list, independent of GHB.

Disregard! Looks like Legion, Tamurkhan and all the FW monsters are in the GHB this year.

Monstrous Arcanum
This year’s General’s Handbook includes points for nearly all of Forge World’s Warhammer Age of Sigmar range! Tamurkhan’s Horde and the Legion of Azgorh remain unchanged, but there are some gems to look out for in Monstrous Arcanum. At only 540 points, and with a new Battletome to play with, the Exalted Greater Daemon of Khorne could well make for a deadly centrepiece for your army. Meanwhile, Nighthaunt forces may want to check out the Mourngul, which now costs 20 points less.

And HOLY gak!

And More!
We’re committed to keeping Warhammer Age of Sigmar as awesome as possible, and so, with this year’s General’s Handbook, we’ve gone the extra mile. Usually, books published in the immediate lead-up to the General’s Handbook would not see points changes. However, to make sure your Pitched Battles are as balanced as possible, we’ll be releasing an early (and free) points update to the most recent battletomes – for reference, that’s Skaven, Blades of Khorne, Fyreslayers, Hedonites of Slaanesh, and Flesh-eater Courts. Keep an eye out for this – and the General’s Handbook 2019 FAQ – in early July.

In the meantime, you’ll be able to pre-order your copy of the General’s Handbook tomorrow!

And, look at me eating crow. They ARE changing points in HoS. That’s...wow. I’m shocked, honestly (and cautiously wary about changes this early). If anything short of heralds go down in price, it’ll be broken, and if KoSs go up too much, they could become worthless (although they’d probably have to go above 400pts for that). I’m definitely wary.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
. That’s...wow. I’m shocked, honestly (and cautiously wary about changes this early).

Indeed. I expect late July tourney results will be very interesting.

July tourney results won't mean as much because people are still going to be trying to figure out whats busted so they can spam it.

Its the late Aug rolling into the fall tourney results that will set us up for the next power trio into 2020.

Skaven and FEC were definitely on the OP side and from what I've heard Fyreslayers and Hedonites were leaning that way as well. Should probably see minor increases in the most popular units to match the hits to LoN and DoK.

Fyreslayers elite battleline could definitely go up in points. Hedonites probably need to see the keeper go up in points, its too efficient to spam two of them for the depravity you get.

KoS up to 400 I can stomach. After that...pretty paperweights and the army falls apart. It’ll also make it the most expensive of all the GDs if they hit 400+ (excluding Skarbrand). If we only go to 380, I’ll breathe a sigh of relief. I agree though, 360 is stupid good. And this IS my chosen army. So if I think it’s too low...it’s too damn low.

I can see 400. 400 is reasonable

Hedonites are not mentioned now, it appears that was a typo as they've been replaced by gloomspite. Thats not to say they wont get changes but.......its gw.