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.

Lemondish wrote:


My point is, all this freaking out about 300 free points (or whatever inflated arbitrary number one chooses) would not exist if point reductions hit to the same tune. And nobody has ever made the argument that points were dropped just to help the bottom line without looking like a complete fool with an axe to grind.

I don't know that you can say the first with any certainty (if you do have proof, please share it), and as to the second, what are the compelling reasons in favor of points reductions? I'm actually stunned that you've positioned a consideration of how game design decisions affect the bottom line of the company that makes the game as "foolish". Takes a certain kind of bravura.

So the solution to Khadron not having summoning or magic is "take some allies"?

Reminds me of 4th edition when my Dwarf army used my ally points for Teclis, just to be able to stay in the game.

Ashitaka wrote:
So the solution to Khadron not having summoning or magic is "take some allies"?

Or Realm.

It's basically - the underperforming useless units we made are now cheaper, so you have less of an incentive not to take them.

Oh and you want to be competitive and not run just one list...um, just ally some stormcast!

Yep, the answer to making Kharadron Overlords decent is to have less Kharadron Overlords.




(btw I don't think KO are all that terrible, just that gunhaulers are awful and thunderers are not killy enough and frigates are too expensive, one of which they have addressed)

 eohall wrote:

Lemondish wrote:


My point is, all this freaking out about 300 free points (or whatever inflated arbitrary number one chooses) would not exist if point reductions hit to the same tune. And nobody has ever made the argument that points were dropped just to help the bottom line without looking like a complete fool with an axe to grind.

I don't know that you can say the first with any certainty (if you do have proof, please share it), and as to the second, what are the compelling reasons in favor of points reductions? I'm actually stunned that you've positioned a consideration of how game design decisions affect the bottom line of the company that makes the game as "foolish". Takes a certain kind of bravura.

First, I'm not saying that these decisions aren't made with business in mind - I'm sure they are. I'm saying that lambasting them for free summoning as a "cash grab" to sell more models is idiotic. I'm saying that they're not driven by sales only. It's literally no different from reducing points costs for units so that in order to fill 2k points you need more models. They're functionally similar, but folks love points drops but seem to hate summoning. It's ridiculous.

ON top of that, an unbalanced game does not do well for the bottom line, so I reject the idea that all decisions are made to ensure sales above all other considerations. Furthermore, a boring one is also pretty much DOA - that's why WHFB died the death it deserved.

Aren73 wrote:
It's basically - the underperforming useless units we made are now cheaper, so you have less of an incentive not to take them.

Oh and you want to be competitive and not run just one list...um, just ally some stormcast!

Yep, the answer to making Kharadron Overlords decent is to have less Kharadron Overlords.




(btw I don't think KO are all that terrible, just that gunhaulers are awful and thunderers are not killy enough and frigates are too expensive, one of which they have addressed)

Doesn't seem like a problem to me. Then again, I come from 40k where allies for the three biggest factions are required if you want to be competitive. That's the direction they want to go, so it is what it is.

I'm all for the change to FEC if it means units can go above starting size. A point bump for the single use command items on our only non-allied casters will hurt but overall I'd honestly only keep taking the two kings I have now if the bump is reasonable or cut the foot king entirely if it's not. Their spells are good but honestly going above starting strength from courtiers would be far, far more useful. 3 Vargulfs behind a starting unit of 6 Cryptflayers and 10 Ghouls from a ghoul patrol seems solid

I hope they'll preview more. They preview rather little compared to what they're promising to do.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm all for the change to FEC if it means units can go above starting size. A point bump for the single use command items on our only non-allied casters will hurt but overall I'd honestly only keep taking the two kings I have now if the bump is reasonable or cut the foot king entirely if it's not. Their spells are good but honestly going above starting strength from courtiers would be far, far more useful. 3 Vargulfs behind a starting unit of 6 Cryptflayers and 10 Ghouls from a ghoul patrol seems solid

People seem to have little to no understanding of FEC. They aren't a bad army for starters, and getting a free unit from each Ghoul King isn't a big deal. It's all in going beyond starting size. If that works freely FEC will jump from mid-low range to extremely OP, if it doesn't FEC will hinge on point changes. One free unit of 10 ghouls is nothing to the two dozen a courtier could add to existing units over the course of a game.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm all for the change to FEC if it means units can go above starting size. A point bump for the single use command items on our only non-allied casters will hurt but overall I'd honestly only keep taking the two kings I have now if the bump is reasonable or cut the foot king entirely if it's not. Their spells are good but honestly going above starting strength from courtiers would be far, far more useful. 3 Vargulfs behind a starting unit of 6 Cryptflayers and 10 Ghouls from a ghoul patrol seems solid

People seem to have little to no understanding of FEC. They aren't a bad army for starters, and getting a free unit from each Ghoul King isn't a big deal. It's all in going beyond starting size. If that works freely FEC will jump from mid-low range to extremely OP, if it doesn't FEC will hinge on point changes. One free unit of 10 ghouls is nothing to the two dozen a courtier could add to existing units over the course of a game.

Naw. FEC are pretty terrible man. I get you specifically think they aren't but they are point for point in the lowest tier of books released. They are only decent in comparison to non book non ghb enhanced armies.

In regards how it will function if you can blast up units I expect a price hike fore Vargulfs and the other two more specific courtiers. Ghats will likely not bump much if at all. Ghouls for their points are terrible because of almost no army synergy. I'd argue the same is true for their larger brethren. Overall this is a good thing. Especially if you can bounce above the starting limit.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm all for the change to FEC if it means units can go above starting size. A point bump for the single use command items on our only non-allied casters will hurt but overall I'd honestly only keep taking the two kings I have now if the bump is reasonable or cut the foot king entirely if it's not. Their spells are good but honestly going above starting strength from courtiers would be far, far more useful. 3 Vargulfs behind a starting unit of 6 Cryptflayers and 10 Ghouls from a ghoul patrol seems solid

People seem to have little to no understanding of FEC. They aren't a bad army for starters, and getting a free unit from each Ghoul King isn't a big deal. It's all in going beyond starting size. If that works freely FEC will jump from mid-low range to extremely OP, if it doesn't FEC will hinge on point changes. One free unit of 10 ghouls is nothing to the two dozen a courtier could add to existing units over the course of a game.

Naw. FEC are pretty terrible man. I get you specifically think they aren't but they are point for point in the lowest tier of books released. They are only decent in comparison to non book non ghb enhanced armies.

In regards how it will function if you can blast up units I expect a price hike fore Vargulfs and the other two more specific courtiers. Ghats will likely not bump much if at all. Ghouls for their points are terrible because of almost no army synergy. I'd argue the same is true for their larger brethren. Overall this is a good thing. Especially if you can bounce above the starting limit.

Oh sure they are bad among battletome armies, I'm only commenting on performance overall. Most WHFB is stuck in the non-battletome department, there are huge swaths of the game that perform so poorly as armies they are rarely if ever seen.

But none of that changes that 'free unit per ghoul king' means next to nothing compared to if going above starting size is free or not.

Aren73 wrote:
It's basically - the underperforming useless units we made are now cheaper, so you have less of an incentive not to take them.

Oh and you want to be competitive and not run just one list...um, just ally some stormcast!

Yep, the answer to making Kharadron Overlords decent is to have less Kharadron Overlords.




(btw I don't think KO are all that terrible, just that gunhaulers are awful and thunderers are not killy enough and frigates are too expensive, one of which they have addressed)

The 'success' of Detachments in 40k has made it apparent GW love the concept of allies because it encourages you, on some level, to dip into other model lines. Whether it be from a tournament perspective for soup or "hm I could bring this new Ymodel and still keep my army as X". Going forward, we're probably going to see "BUY MORE ALLIES NERDS!" pushed harder than armies having massive glaring flaws that are somehow accounted for, such as improving the Navigator's anti-magic potential beyond what it already was.

I think the point of mentioning the possibility of using allies is that, prior to Stormcasts having wizards, there was literally no way to ally one in and still retain KO allegiance. None of the factions they can have as allies have any wizards - now Stormcast do (or will). Yeah, you could just go straight Order and throw what you liked in, but since this is a faction focus article, the assumption is that it's addressed to KO players specifically.

So it's actually a significant change to the options available, even if it feels a little weird to mention it on first blush.

Thommy H wrote:
I think the point of mentioning the possibility of using allies is that, prior to Stormcasts having wizards, there was literally no way to ally one in and still retain KO allegiance. None of the factions they can have as allies have any wizards - now Stormcast do (or will). Yeah, you could just go straight Order and throw what you liked in, but since this is a faction focus article, the assumption is that it's addressed to KO players specifically.

So it's actually a significant change to the options available, even if it feels a little weird to mention it on first blush.

Yeah, wizard access is something that's a big deal for Kharadrons, as a Kharadron player it didn't seem to me like they were pushing it as mandatory. They are in a good place as an army but lack internal balance. Thunders are a big example here because even though the point cost is appropriate for the ideal loadout the unit meant to use special weapons has terrible special weapons after the update. Its pretty much 4 rifles/1 fumigator as auto take and ignore the other three (or go for a ten man unit that isn't really ideal). The massive point reduction to gunhaulers is justified IMO, they were bad before and needed extra help with the shooting change. Frigates needed a reduction too, but I think Ironclads didn't. No mention of new battleline choices is unfortunate but I still have hope.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Thommy H wrote:
I think the point of mentioning the possibility of using allies is that, prior to Stormcasts having wizards, there was literally no way to ally one in and still retain KO allegiance. None of the factions they can have as allies have any wizards - now Stormcast do (or will). Yeah, you could just go straight Order and throw what you liked in, but since this is a faction focus article, the assumption is that it's addressed to KO players specifically.

So it's actually a significant change to the options available, even if it feels a little weird to mention it on first blush.

Yeah, wizard access is something that's a big deal for Kharadrons, as a Kharadron player it didn't seem to me like they were pushing it as mandatory. They are in a good place as an army but lack internal balance. Thunders are a big example here because even though the point cost is appropriate for the ideal loadout the unit meant to use special weapons has terrible special weapons after the update. Its pretty much 4 rifles/1 fumigator as auto take and ignore the other three (or go for a ten man unit that isn't really ideal). The massive point reduction to gunhaulers is justified IMO, they were bad before and needed extra help with the shooting change. Frigates needed a reduction too, but I think Ironclads didn't. No mention of new battleline choices is unfortunate but I still have hope.

It was nice that in addition to mentioning the Stormcast angle, they also threw another Realm Artefact out there as a solution.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Thommy H wrote:
I think the point of mentioning the possibility of using allies is that, prior to Stormcasts having wizards, there was literally no way to ally one in and still retain KO allegiance. None of the factions they can have as allies have any wizards - now Stormcast do (or will). Yeah, you could just go straight Order and throw what you liked in, but since this is a faction focus article, the assumption is that it's addressed to KO players specifically.

So it's actually a significant change to the options available, even if it feels a little weird to mention it on first blush.

Yeah, wizard access is something that's a big deal for Kharadrons, as a Kharadron player it didn't seem to me like they were pushing it as mandatory. They are in a good place as an army but lack internal balance. Thunders are a big example here because even though the point cost is appropriate for the ideal loadout the unit meant to use special weapons has terrible special weapons after the update. Its pretty much 4 rifles/1 fumigator as auto take and ignore the other three (or go for a ten man unit that isn't really ideal). The massive point reduction to gunhaulers is justified IMO, they were bad before and needed extra help with the shooting change. Frigates needed a reduction too, but I think Ironclads didn't. No mention of new battleline choices is unfortunate but I still have hope.

It was nice that in addition to mentioning the Stormcast angle, they also threw another Realm Artefact out there as a solution.

Which is funny since they have an artifact in their battletome that does exactly that already, and a hero that does that already, and a sky port that is one of the best anti-magic builds in the game. That artifact is entirely unnecessary to Kharadrons.

Lemondish wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
*snip*

Thanks for agreeing.

Your argument boiled down to trying to present it as different, when all you managed to do in that novel was dance around how it's the same result, just different levels of impact.

Everybody is so focused on "free points" in a 2k point game when the same exact thing could be achieved by reducing the points costs of those units by an amount that allows you to field more of them. That type of balancing happens all the time and nobody has an issue with that method. The difference here being that those units start on the board.

What if instead of major cost reductions they do a minor or zero point cost reduction and hand out free summoning in a limited manner? The result is the same - more models in the game, but one of those is boring because you just start with more and they do nothing different or serve no different purpose while the other adds tactical flexibility and a compelling decision for both players, changing up the game for everyone.

My point is, all this freaking out about 300 free points (or whatever inflated arbitrary number one chooses) would not exist if point reductions hit to the same tune. And nobody has ever made the argument that points were dropped just to help the bottom line without looking like a complete fool with an axe to grind.

My argument boiled down to you having 0 imagination(or just not being able to connect the dots well enough) not agreeing with you, good try though. I love how you follow that up with doubling down on not getting the point, and manage to still be wrong in the same simplistic thinking that you were using before.

And your point is actually 'I am very naive' if you were curious. GW dropping points to help the bottom line was exactly what everyone thought happened with the 7th edition Eldar codex and guess what? THEY WERE RIGHT! An AMA came out from one of the guys on the rules team at that time and he stated that he was expressly told not to raise the points on wraithknights, scatbikes and other units made more powerful by the codex because they would sell more. Your child-like innocence is cute, but it's not a fair representation of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

 eohall wrote:

Lemondish wrote:


My point is, all this freaking out about 300 free points (or whatever inflated arbitrary number one chooses) would not exist if point reductions hit to the same tune. And nobody has ever made the argument that points were dropped just to help the bottom line without looking like a complete fool with an axe to grind.

I don't know that you can say the first with any certainty (if you do have proof, please share it), and as to the second, what are the compelling reasons in favor of points reductions? I'm actually stunned that you've positioned a consideration of how game design decisions affect the bottom line of the company that makes the game as "foolish". Takes a certain kind of bravura.

First, I'm not saying that these decisions aren't made with business in mind - I'm sure they are. I'm saying that lambasting them for free summoning as a "cash grab" to sell more models is idiotic. I'm saying that they're not driven by sales only. It's literally no different from reducing points costs for units so that in order to fill 2k points you need more models. They're functionally similar, but folks love points drops but seem to hate summoning. It's ridiculous.

ON top of that, an unbalanced game does not do well for the bottom line, so I reject the idea that all decisions are made to ensure sales above all other considerations. Furthermore, a boring one is also pretty much DOA - that's why WHFB died the death it deserved.

And I think it's idiotic to say 'what, a change that makes you buy more models to field the same army...MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE TO MAKE YOU BUY MORE MODELS?!' isn't a totally fair logical conclusion. You even say 'they're making these changes with business in mind'...like, what do you think that means? Because if it doesn't mean 'sell more models' then what does that mean to you? That they think the word 'business' over and over again while writing new rules?

Unbalanced games are all GW sells, and they seem to be doing pretty okay. And you can reject the idea that all decisions are made to ensure sales, that's probably correct even. Rejecting out of hand that increasing army sizes and adding models that every army will want to expand their lists with wasn't made with sales in mind is childish.

ERJAK wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
*snip*

Thanks for agreeing.

Your argument boiled down to trying to present it as different, when all you managed to do in that novel was dance around how it's the same result, just different levels of impact.

Everybody is so focused on "free points" in a 2k point game when the same exact thing could be achieved by reducing the points costs of those units by an amount that allows you to field more of them. That type of balancing happens all the time and nobody has an issue with that method. The difference here being that those units start on the board.

What if instead of major cost reductions they do a minor or zero point cost reduction and hand out free summoning in a limited manner? The result is the same - more models in the game, but one of those is boring because you just start with more and they do nothing different or serve no different purpose while the other adds tactical flexibility and a compelling decision for both players, changing up the game for everyone.

My point is, all this freaking out about 300 free points (or whatever inflated arbitrary number one chooses) would not exist if point reductions hit to the same tune. And nobody has ever made the argument that points were dropped just to help the bottom line without looking like a complete fool with an axe to grind.

My argument boiled down to you having 0 imagination(or just not being able to connect the dots well enough) not agreeing with you, good try though. I love how you follow that up with doubling down on not getting the point, and manage to still be wrong in the same simplistic thinking that you were using before.

And your point is actually 'I am very naive' if you were curious. GW dropping points to help the bottom line was exactly what everyone thought happened with the 7th edition Eldar codex and guess what? THEY WERE RIGHT! An AMA came out from one of the guys on the rules team at that time and he stated that he was expressly told not to raise the points on wraithknights, scatbikes and other units made more powerful by the codex because they would sell more. Your child-like innocence is cute, but it's not a fair representation of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

 eohall wrote:

Lemondish wrote:


My point is, all this freaking out about 300 free points (or whatever inflated arbitrary number one chooses) would not exist if point reductions hit to the same tune. And nobody has ever made the argument that points were dropped just to help the bottom line without looking like a complete fool with an axe to grind.

I don't know that you can say the first with any certainty (if you do have proof, please share it), and as to the second, what are the compelling reasons in favor of points reductions? I'm actually stunned that you've positioned a consideration of how game design decisions affect the bottom line of the company that makes the game as "foolish". Takes a certain kind of bravura.

First, I'm not saying that these decisions aren't made with business in mind - I'm sure they are. I'm saying that lambasting them for free summoning as a "cash grab" to sell more models is idiotic. I'm saying that they're not driven by sales only. It's literally no different from reducing points costs for units so that in order to fill 2k points you need more models. They're functionally similar, but folks love points drops but seem to hate summoning. It's ridiculous.

ON top of that, an unbalanced game does not do well for the bottom line, so I reject the idea that all decisions are made to ensure sales above all other considerations. Furthermore, a boring one is also pretty much DOA - that's why WHFB died the death it deserved.

And I think it's idiotic to say 'what, a change that makes you buy more models to field the same army...MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE TO MAKE YOU BUY MORE MODELS?!' isn't a totally fair logical conclusion. You even say 'they're making these changes with business in mind'...like, what do you think that means? Because if it doesn't mean 'sell more models' then what does that mean to you? That they think the word 'business' over and over again while writing new rules?

Unbalanced games are all GW sells, and they seem to be doing pretty okay. And you can reject the idea that all decisions are made to ensure sales, that's probably correct even. Rejecting out of hand that increasing army sizes and adding models that every army will want to expand their lists with wasn't made with sales in mind is childish.

Good chat. Agree to disagree.

Could you please, pretty please, with a kiss from Slaanesh on top; spoiler long quotes so that we don't all have to scroll past the same argument over and over again. We've all seen it already.

We'll leave that tangent there.

Thanks.

So GW are doing little promotional podcasts three times a week for AoS. Today's podcast revealed a couple of things.
There will be a big box for malign sorcery which will contain models for 13 endless spells.
The spells will cost points in matched play; 20- 40 for the weaker ones and rather more for the more powerful ones.

So...a spell costs points but summonable units don't?

I guess you're upgrading your wizard to know the spell, paying for his tuition....and his maintenance ….and for the ambulance when he binges on a night out. You probably have to bail him out of jail after those bar fights...and his huge bill of takeway pizza. Oh and you probably have to pay for that laptop that you're sure he doesn't need but he insists he does....sending your wizard off to wizarding uni isn't easy I guess!

Would be cool to see you dont need a wizard to summon the endless spells or something. Like they have some other mechanic to bring them into play if you need to pay points for them. I mean how else will they sell sweet spell models to Armies that dont pack alot of wizards!

Easy. You make the spells broken, then you force competitive armies to have to take wizard allies. That way they buy more models they don't need as well as the spells.



Note: I actually think these will be fun and balanced, it's just fun to laugh at how ridiculous GW could be

Chopxsticks wrote:
Would be cool to see you dont need a wizard to summon the endless spells or something. Like they have some other mechanic to bring them into play if you need to pay points for them. I mean how else will they sell sweet spell models to Armies that dont pack alot of wizards!

From what they've said, you don't need wizards to move them. They did also say that the reason for Stormcast Wizards is because basically everyone Order who doesn't have Wizards natively can bring Stormcast but can't necessarily bring things like Battlemages, Eldritch Council, or Darkling Covens.

Seraphons

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/05/29/29th-may-faction-focus-seraphongw-homepage-post-3/

Agreed! I like all these changes so far.

I love that they bring up the idea of casting Endless Spells via the disposable Skink Priests.

Aren73 wrote:
So...a spell costs points but summonable units don't?

I guess you're upgrading your wizard to know the spell, paying for his tuition....and his maintenance ….and for the ambulance when he binges on a night out. You probably have to bail him out of jail after those bar fights...and his huge bill of takeway pizza. Oh and you probably have to pay for that laptop that you're sure he doesn't need but he insists he does....sending your wizard off to wizarding uni isn't easy I guess!

I think you forgot insurance there. Yep, the cost keeps piling high. Better have a good job to pay for it all or no wizardry for you!

Honestly I think if this plays out as mentioned it's a step in the right direction. Paying points to get an ability isn't unreasonable, and having different costs for different potency isn't unreasonable either.

zamerion wrote:
Seraphons

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/05/29/29th-may-faction-focus-seraphongw-homepage-post-3/

Awesome, our preview rule needs clarification....Because as it reads now you could actually do this 3 times with a Slaan since they cast 3 times. Meaning 10+d3 points per turn. Granted a lot depends on the list and costs on their but that feels like it could build up quickly.

That said it's a sneak peek and doesn't show all the rules or point changes so I'll sit tight. As a lover of the Seraphon I hope it's not terribly abusive because I don't want my army sitting on a shelf while I bring out other stuff

 Geifer wrote:

Aren73 wrote:
So...a spell costs points but summonable units don't?

I guess you're upgrading your wizard to know the spell, paying for his tuition....and his maintenance ….and for the ambulance when he binges on a night out. You probably have to bail him out of jail after those bar fights...and his huge bill of takeway pizza. Oh and you probably have to pay for that laptop that you're sure he doesn't need but he insists he does....sending your wizard off to wizarding uni isn't easy I guess!

I think you forgot insurance there. Yep, the cost keeps piling high. Better have a good job to pay for it all or no wizardry for you!

Honestly I think if this plays out as mentioned it's a step in the right direction. Paying points to get an ability isn't unreasonable, and having different costs for different potency isn't unreasonable either.

It's also worth mentioning that as it stands, the impression is that you pay the points to cast the endless spell. Meaning any of your Wizards can cast it for that points cost.

Compare that to summoning, which we're seeing require separate mechanics aside from points.