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.

Fyreslayers needed some reductions, mostly on Vulkite Bezerkers. At 60 per 5 they are still meh, but at least worth taking now (though the Hearthguard are still better). IMO the magmadroth reductions made them too cheap and putting all the characters at a flat 80 is kind of lazy, especially when the Battlesmith is clearly worth more than that. All in all I think this makes Fyreslayers better balanced with other armies overall but at the cost of making Forge Brethren + Lords of the Lodge lists OP, and making Magmadroth spam an easy way to dominate a casual field.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Huh, interestingly enough they've pointed out that their newer battletomes ARE playtested. Interesting.

We also must updated the rumour thread, maybe? After all it's been confirmed that fyreslayers are getting at least a unique character. Or so it seems, Kraggi doesn't ring any bell.

They talked about this on HeelanHammer actually, they played both of these tomes well in advance and gave a few little teasers about how cool the new book will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Fyreslayers needed some reductions, mostly on Vulkite Bezerkers. At 60 per 5 they are still meh, but at least worth taking now (though the Hearthguard are still better). IMO the magmadroth reductions made them too cheap and putting all the characters at a flat 80 is kind of lazy, especially when the Battlesmith is clearly worth more than that. All in all I think this makes Fyreslayers better balanced with other armies overall but at the cost of making Forge Brethren + Lords of the Lodge lists OP, and making Magmadroth spam an easy way to dominate a casual field.

Idk I thought they were pretty conservative with the points reductions. And I would put money down that almost EVERY behemoth in the game is getting a points drop. Except for things like the mourngul they're all a bit overcosted.

ERJAK wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Fyreslayers needed some reductions, mostly on Vulkite Bezerkers. At 60 per 5 they are still meh, but at least worth taking now (though the Hearthguard are still better). IMO the magmadroth reductions made them too cheap and putting all the characters at a flat 80 is kind of lazy, especially when the Battlesmith is clearly worth more than that. All in all I think this makes Fyreslayers better balanced with other armies overall but at the cost of making Forge Brethren + Lords of the Lodge lists OP, and making Magmadroth spam an easy way to dominate a casual field.

Idk I thought they were pretty conservative with the points reductions. And I would put money down that almost EVERY behemoth in the game is getting a points drop. Except for things like the mourngul they're all a bit overcosted.

By what measure? Behemoths tend to beat the crap out of equal points in infantry or cavalry.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Fyreslayers needed some reductions, mostly on Vulkite Bezerkers. At 60 per 5 they are still meh, but at least worth taking now (though the Hearthguard are still better). IMO the magmadroth reductions made them too cheap and putting all the characters at a flat 80 is kind of lazy, especially when the Battlesmith is clearly worth more than that. All in all I think this makes Fyreslayers better balanced with other armies overall but at the cost of making Forge Brethren + Lords of the Lodge lists OP, and making Magmadroth spam an easy way to dominate a casual field.

Idk I thought they were pretty conservative with the points reductions. And I would put money down that almost EVERY behemoth in the game is getting a points drop. Except for things like the mourngul they're all a bit overcosted.

By what measure? Behemoths tend to beat the crap out of equal points in infantry or cavalry.

Some do, beastclaw raiders, zombie dragon with vampire lords, mourngul, durthu, but plenty don't. Gordrakk isn't worth his points in brutes, the stardrakes eats gak and dies against it's points in retributors, protectors, judicators, or any of the dracoth riders, alarielle isn't as good as her points in kurnoth hunters, the coven throne and mortis engine are overcosted, terrorgeist is hard to justify for how random it is. Nagash is absolutely terrible, most of the aelf behemoths are bad(Frostheart being the obvious exception), most of the seraphon behemoths are terrible, bloodthirsters are the same price as stormfiends, guess who wins that fight, keeper of secrets lose out to a big blob of deamonettes, and the rest all sort of fill in somewhere between 'viable' and 'well it looks really cool...'

Well if Stormfiends and Kurnoths are the standard then I suppose just about everything needs a decrease!

There's always points issues of over- or under-costing, but it's more noticeable and egregious with Behemoths. When it's overcosted, this one expensive model you bring just up and dies or does nothing all game, and you feel like crap. When it's undercosted, your opponent feels bad because there's this one big model that is running around absolutely stomping them and they feel helpless against that "one OP thing". Units of things tend to feel less swing-y other than really broken/worthless ones.

Just the way I feel about it. I don't want to complain about it either - it's hard to keep singular power models like that in the nice even zone where they don't feel unbeatable by the opponent but also don't feel pointless for the player, so we'll see what happens with TGA2.0

Price reductions? YES!

Any idea when can we see the next GHB?

Requizen wrote:
There's always points issues of over- or under-costing, but it's more noticeable and egregious with Behemoths. When it's overcosted, this one expensive model you bring just up and dies or does nothing all game, and you feel like crap. When it's undercosted, your opponent feels bad because there's this one big model that is running around absolutely stomping them and they feel helpless against that "one OP thing". Units of things tend to feel less swing-y other than really broken/worthless ones.

Just the way I feel about it. I don't want to complain about it either - it's hard to keep singular power models like that in the nice even zone where they don't feel unbeatable by the opponent but also don't feel pointless for the player, so we'll see what happens with TGA2.0

Definitely true. And random initiative feeds into it too, since a monster could potentially move up then take two rounds of magic/shooting/charges to the face before it gets to go again or the inverse.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Any idea when can we see the next GHB?

The book is still being written. I would be very surprised if we see it before this autumn.

The teaser drop on fyreslayer points has me very hopeful for a duardin drop as well. I understand warmachines probably wont drop(if not some increase), but I want my troops and gyro's to not suck again!

Yeah, Warriors are a bit high. I think a lot of the basic dwarf troops are a bit much. The ranged troops are decently priced but the troops themselves need a drop.

Completely agree on Dispossessed, they are an infantry army with infantry that simply cost more than they should, further exacerbated by many elite units & monsters from other armies costing less.

The folks who came to the LVO were pretty honest about GH 2 and I think well received. Sylvaneth and Death seemed to make up half of the armies present and all were same build. I didnt play Syl but 4 games v same death list was disappointing.

The new regime at GW arent dumb. I would think a large point reduction for actual underperforming lists is coming.

It brings a little more balance and of course sells more models.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
The new regime at GW arent dumb. I would think a large point reduction for actual underperforming lists is coming.

It brings a little more balance and of course sells more models.

I just hope this doesn't become the way to sell minis. "Oh look they Pyrovore is not selling, we need to decrease the point costs" Yes I know it's a 40K but it's the only example I can think of since I am not still familiar with Age of Sigmar units. So instead of just decreasing points, actually make the points balanced in the first place otherwise in a year or two or three, it will be back to same old "codex creep".

Davor wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
The new regime at GW arent dumb. I would think a large point reduction for actual underperforming lists is coming.

It brings a little more balance and of course sells more models.

I just hope this doesn't become the way to sell minis. "Oh look they Pyrovore is not selling, we need to decrease the point costs" Yes I know it's a 40K but it's the only example I can think of since I am not still familiar with Age of Sigmar units. So instead of just decreasing points, actually make the points balanced in the first place otherwise in a year or two or three, it will be back to same old "codex creep".

The issue with the Pyrovore isn't the cost, but its rules and statline. Most issue with AoS competitive are the points cost for units and the more recent Tomes having some nasty battalions. Sylvaneth will always take a battalion, because not taking one makes them worse.

Balancing points in such a complex system is all a judgement call. With the best will in the world they will never release a handbook that is universally considered balanced.

The best you will get is regularly updated to reflect the Meta - based upon the opinions of people actually regularly engaged in it.

Some people will still pick it up and think X or Y is ridiculous no matter what they do.

Davor wrote:


I just hope this doesn't become the way to sell minis. "Oh look they Pyrovore is not selling, we need to decrease the point costs" Yes I know it's a 40K but it's the only example I can think of since I am not still familiar with Age of Sigmar units. So instead of just decreasing points, actually make the points balanced in the first place otherwise in a year or two or three, it will be back to same old "codex creep".

Well why isn't the Pyrovore selling?

Because it's not good enough for the points.

So surely a points reduction is a good idea.

Saying "just make it balanced in the first place" is a bit like asking a gymnast to just nail every landing perfectly and never wobble. Yes, that's the plan - but do you have any idea how hard it is? In a game with as many moving parts as AoS - let alone 40k - it's impossible to just "get it right in the first place" every time.

An annual points adjustment for over/underperforming units is a great model for how you achieve balance.

Davor wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
The new regime at GW arent dumb. I would think a large point reduction for actual underperforming lists is coming.

It brings a little more balance and of course sells more models.

I just hope this doesn't become the way to sell minis. "Oh look they Pyrovore is not selling, we need to decrease the point costs" Yes I know it's a 40K but it's the only example I can think of since I am not still familiar with Age of Sigmar units. So instead of just decreasing points, actually make the points balanced in the first place otherwise in a year or two or three, it will be back to same old "codex creep".

Nobody is talking about making Archaon 20 points. It's possible to adjust points to make something a better option without making it OP, so there's no reason to worry based off that information alone.

I'm excited for the GHB 2. I think the concept is awesome and I'd like to see more units become viable. Right now my dwarves and aelf's don't really come out an play due to point costs. I realize that armies without battalions and their own battletome are going to suffer but I at least want the units themselves to be mostly viable.

Also a fair bit of the Flesheater Courts needs a look because in competitive most of the characters are paying for abilities they can't really use and the infantry units aren't quite performing at the needed level either.

Stormcast eternals and extremis are unavailable on the app...

Being updated for new units?

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Stormcast eternals and extremis are unavailable on the app...

Being updated for new units?

Well the new battletome is supposed to give them updates across the board so maybe?

Carnikang wrote:The issue with the Pyrovore isn't the cost, but its rules and statline. Most issue with AoS competitive are the points cost for units and the more recent Tomes having some nasty battalions. Sylvaneth will always take a battalion, because not taking one makes them worse.

Presumably the pyrovore's rules and statlines aren't good enough for the cost. And the sylvaneth battalions are too good for the cost.

Nice to know that the points system improved AoS, though.

Silentz wrote:Saying "just make it balanced in the first place" is a bit like asking a gymnast to just nail every landing perfectly and never wobble. Yes, that's the plan - but do you have any idea how hard it is? In a game with as many moving parts as AoS - let alone 40k - it's impossible to just "get it right in the first place" every time.

But gymnasts do these things called 'training' and 'practise', where they go over their moves and routines to see what works and what they need to work on, before they go out in front of the public. Wargames have something similar - playtesting. Sure, it won't catch every little wrinkle, just as a gymnast won't catch every little wobble or misstep, but it makes some kind of difference compared to some slob eyeing up the horse and saying "I reckon I can do that. Someone hold my pint."

'Cos people can go on about GW's two being 'too complex to balance'; but when you've got models that no-one will take because they're plain-as-your-nose not good enough, or battalions that are always taken because they're obviously better than anything else, that's not 'too complex', that's sheer laziness, incompetence, or apathy. And that's just applying Hanlon's razor to the situation.

 Vermis wrote:
'Cos people can go on about GW's two being 'too complex to balance'; but when you've got models that no-one will take because they're plain-as-your-nose not good enough, or battalions that are always taken because they're obviously better than anything else, that's not 'too complex', that's sheer laziness, incompetence, or apathy. And that's just applying Hanlon's razor to the situation.

Moving into an organic rulebook is a pretty major step for GW. It implies some care about the game as a game rather than a near complete indifference to how people use their miniatures which has been the case for at least the last decade.

Ultimately GW will never get it right first time because they do not have the same play testing ability as the wider community. Why they get it so wrong (some units are obviously terrible/really good) is more of a mystery but there you go.

I guess you could say "just hire more people" - but ultimately a small team would take months to play as many games as a well attended tournament.

The only solution is to look at tournament results - which provide you hundreds and thousands of games worth of data - and consider balancing from there.

I'm happy with the direction change. Them actually recognizing and attending the major events gives them huge kudos in my book.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm excited for the GHB 2. I think the concept is awesome and I'd like to see more units become viable. Right now my dwarves and aelf's don't really come out an play due to point costs. I realize that armies without battalions and their own battletome are going to suffer but I at least want the units themselves to be mostly viable.

Agreed on the infantry armies, but I don't feel that battletome armies should be accepted as stronger since battalions have costs too; those should be as balanced as other options. Unfortunately battalions are largely too cheap, and the recent Tzeentch release didn't do anything about that.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/02/09/generals-handbook-ii-behind-the-scenes/


view of how things are done.

They could add a section about playing Battles in the Old World to the Book.

RazorEdge wrote:
They could add a section about playing Battles in the Old World to the Book.

You can do that now. Why does GW need to hold our hands and tell us how to play games? Nothing is stopping anyone from playing in the Old World.

RazorEdge wrote:
They could add a section about playing Battles in the Old World to the Book.

You could get an old edition of almost any of th Warhammer Fantasy boks and use the stories in them with th rules of Sigmar. Its not really something they would add as a separate part, became the setting is available, if just far in the past.

From Twitter - Podcast Eternals and JJ meeting to discuss further the GHB II. Dan Heelan has also stressed this is not a one day collaboration but they have all been working together constantly.