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.
SilchasRuin wrote: KO seem to be one of the groups having issues, no question. But did you see the KO player on table 1 game 6 of a 196 player turnament at Cancon?
Seem to be 2-3 Legions of Nagash / Daughters of Khaine in top 5 of any turnament. Which is to strong, but on the other hand half the top 10 varies a lot. Which kinda says there is some amount of balance.
The Top 20 at CanCon:
4 Stormcast Eternals
2 Grand Hosts of Nagash
1 Daughters of Khaine
1 Kharadron Overlords
1 Legion of Azgorh
1 Legion of Blood
1 Legion of Night
1 Blades of Khorne
1 Beasts of Chaos
1 Destruction
1 Gloomspite Gitz
1 Chaos
1 Nighthaunt
1 Sylvaneth
1 Maggotkin of Nurgle
1 Idoneth Deepkin
So not like there are only 3-4 allegiances who can do well. Way more options than people like to pretend on the internet. Watched a little of TheHonestWargamers Twitch channel during CanCon and was fun to see stuff like Swifthawk Agent list going 3-0 day 1.
Not saying there are not problems. Some armies can't compete at all, others good players might build a single list that can do ok, but in regular local play you are fethed.
1 of my regular opponents bitches about his Sylvaneth a lot. Looking at the overall meta Sylvaneth probably stronger than most of his normal opponents, but not the kind of lists he choses to play. So he complains. That kind of stuff makes it very hard to balance stuff. You need both a overall balance and internal balance in each battletome. Can have a Battletome do good in turnaments at the same time people lose with different lists in regular games.It will never be perfect.
Maybe that KO player is genuinely one of the best there is. Maybe it was a fluke. Maybe they had to ditch all the ships and go with a gunline/endrinrigger force. Either way,that result is not typical. I've won maybe a tenth of all my games with KO. My friends who have KO have had similar results, and they've all but shelved them. They are in a pretty bad place. Worst of all? The ships, which are supposed to be the whole appeal of them in the first place, are piss poor point sinks. I can't even be bothered to finish painting mine, because I know that until they're fixed, they're useless.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/04 20:42:33
Balance is better than the last GHB, and much better than the first GHB.
Sylvaneth are kind of like Kharadron in that they need reform to the fundamentals of the army so they work more as intended. Right now they either have good wyldwood placement and are OP (or, at a tournament, competent) or don't get good wyldwood placement and are sub-par to merely OK. The army is too dependent on where it happens to be able to fit wyldwoods on the board. They need to be made such that they are stronger without wyldwood-based benefits but said benefits are smaller.
For example; a Spirit of Durthu gets d3 extra attacks if he is near a Wyldwood. With those attacks he is really strong, but without them his offense is poor compared to his point cost. He should probably get his base attacks raised by 1, but reduce the bonus to just +1 attack. That way the woods still give a notable bonus, but he is not completely dependent on that bonus to perform.
SilchasRuin wrote: KO seem to be one of the groups having issues, no question. But did you see the KO player on table 1 game 6 of a 196 player turnament at Cancon?
Seem to be 2-3 Legions of Nagash / Daughters of Khaine in top 5 of any turnament. Which is to strong, but on the other hand half the top 10 varies a lot. Which kinda says there is some amount of balance.
The Top 20 at CanCon:
4 Stormcast Eternals
2 Grand Hosts of Nagash
1 Daughters of Khaine
1 Kharadron Overlords
1 Legion of Azgorh
1 Legion of Blood
1 Legion of Night
1 Blades of Khorne
1 Beasts of Chaos
1 Destruction
1 Gloomspite Gitz
1 Chaos
1 Nighthaunt
1 Sylvaneth
1 Maggotkin of Nurgle
1 Idoneth Deepkin
So not like there are only 3-4 allegiances who can do well. Way more options than people like to pretend on the internet. Watched a little of TheHonestWargamers Twitch channel during CanCon and was fun to see stuff like Swifthawk Agent list going 3-0 day 1.
Not saying there are not problems. Some armies can't compete at all, others good players might build a single list that can do ok, but in regular local play you are fethed.
1 of my regular opponents bitches about his Sylvaneth a lot. Looking at the overall meta Sylvaneth probably stronger than most of his normal opponents, but not the kind of lists he choses to play. So he complains. That kind of stuff makes it very hard to balance stuff. You need both a overall balance and internal balance in each battletome. Can have a Battletome do good in turnaments at the same time people lose with different lists in regular games.It will never be perfect.
Maybe that KO player is genuinely one of the best there is. Maybe it was a fluke. Maybe they had to ditch all the ships and go with a gunline/endrinrigger force. Either way,that result is not typical. I've won maybe a tenth of all my games with KO. My friends who have KO have had similar results, and they've all but shelved them. They are in a pretty bad place. Worst of all? The ships, which are supposed to be the whole appeal of them in the first place, are piss poor point sinks. I can't even be bothered to finish painting mine, because I know that until they're fixed, they're useless.
I think there has been a lot of proposals to make ships work like garrisons, which would instantly fix a huge chunk of Kharadron's problems. Hopefully GW will hear that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/04 21:56:05
SilchasRuin wrote: KO seem to be one of the groups having issues, no question. But did you see the KO player on table 1 game 6 of a 196 player turnament at Cancon?
Seem to be 2-3 Legions of Nagash / Daughters of Khaine in top 5 of any turnament. Which is to strong, but on the other hand half the top 10 varies a lot. Which kinda says there is some amount of balance.
The Top 20 at CanCon:
4 Stormcast Eternals
2 Grand Hosts of Nagash
1 Daughters of Khaine
1 Kharadron Overlords
1 Legion of Azgorh
1 Legion of Blood
1 Legion of Night
1 Blades of Khorne
1 Beasts of Chaos
1 Destruction
1 Gloomspite Gitz
1 Chaos
1 Nighthaunt
1 Sylvaneth
1 Maggotkin of Nurgle
1 Idoneth Deepkin
So not like there are only 3-4 allegiances who can do well. Way more options than people like to pretend on the internet. Watched a little of TheHonestWargamers Twitch channel during CanCon and was fun to see stuff like Swifthawk Agent list going 3-0 day 1.
Not saying there are not problems. Some armies can't compete at all, others good players might build a single list that can do ok, but in regular local play you are fethed.
1 of my regular opponents bitches about his Sylvaneth a lot. Looking at the overall meta Sylvaneth probably stronger than most of his normal opponents, but not the kind of lists he choses to play. So he complains. That kind of stuff makes it very hard to balance stuff. You need both a overall balance and internal balance in each battletome. Can have a Battletome do good in turnaments at the same time people lose with different lists in regular games.It will never be perfect.
Maybe that KO player is genuinely one of the best there is. Maybe it was a fluke. Maybe they had to ditch all the ships and go with a gunline/endrinrigger force. Either way,that result is not typical. I've won maybe a tenth of all my games with KO. My friends who have KO have had similar results, and they've all but shelved them. They are in a pretty bad place. Worst of all? The ships, which are supposed to be the whole appeal of them in the first place, are piss poor point sinks. I can't even be bothered to finish painting mine, because I know that until they're fixed, they're useless.
I feels you.
Exact same results at my local. We've taken to calling the frigates the "ship of shame".
The garisson mechanic would be decent, but I'm not so sure the current 2ndEd garisson rules are quite so portable to the ships as-is.
But then there's a good few guys that have fiddled with them. (I believe you did a fair chime on it a while ago, FWC?)
Buddingsquaw wrote: I feels you.
Exact same results at my local. We've taken to calling the frigates the "ship of shame".
The garisson mechanic would be decent, but I'm not so sure the current 2ndEd garisson rules are quite so portable to the ships as-is.
But then there's a good few guys that have fiddled with them. (I believe you did a fair chime on it a while ago, FWC?)
That is correct! I wasn’t sure if anyone remembered or even noticed that!
I played a game using the rules against ironjawz. Now baring in mind that the ‘jawz aren’t exactly top tier themselves, they normally prove too much for my overlords to take on. I’ve only ever won one game against them out of a dozen plus. If I had a good round of shooting, I could last until turn 3-4. Bad shooting due to los and crap dice rolls (which is the norm for me), it could be over by turn 1. The most embarrassing moment ever? My whole army being destroyed single handedly by a lone mawcrusher mega boss in 2 turns. I still get ribbed over that.
So we tried a demo game with the garrison rules for ships. I took an ironclad, 2 frigates, 3 units of 10 arkanauts, 2 units of 3 endrinriggers and all 4 overlord characters, with Barak-Mhornar rules. Everyone began the game embarked on a ship; endrinriggers on the frigates, characters on the ironclad etc.
And the difference was phenomenal! Thanks in part to the now visible navigator, the previously lumbering ships now sped across the board in tight formation. With their code amendment, they could all run and shoot, and with rerolls too, thanks to the admiral actually being able to use his Mhornar command trait to full effect. And when I say they could all shoot, I mean that they could all shoot! One turn of shooting killed the crusher boss and wrecked up a big unit of ard boyz. And when the brutes and other ard boy unit charged in, I could actually fight back, and they suffered accordingly. Also, the navigator successfully dispelled an arcane bolt while embarked, making him even more usual than before.
Now here’s the kicker...I still lost the game, but just barely. If I had a line of sight to those gore gruntas holding the objective, or sent one Frigate off to get them, I would have scored an overwhelming victory. But the fact that I lost helped me decide that this was a completely fair way to do things going forward.
We had some issues; the procedure for disembarking after the ship is destroyed needed work. Plus retreating...should the passengers still be unable to shoot? But these are small issues. The main idea is sound. I’m hoping one day to try out a game using my adjusted warscrolls (4+ save ships, -1 rend guns etc) too to see how they work with the garrison rules. Test them out against the DoK or stormcast or something else way beyond the ‘official’ overlords.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/02/05 00:39:09
There is a kid in my Dungeons and Dragons group who is interested in getting into GW wargames. KO were one of his choices for coolest miniatures that he wanted to collect.
This sort of imbalance is really bad from that POV - a kid like that just buys what he thinks looks cool, and then proceeds to lose all his games because the game designers failed in their job.
AoS seems to be improving, but it really looked slapped together as a game at the start and there seems to be a long hangover because of that. The worry is that the unprofessional and incompetent design studio changes direction before they have actually fixed all the problems, resulting in a new crop of problems for whatever new version they make. They are a remarkably unprofessional and feckless lot.
We are getting two new battletomes that replace existing ones in two weeks time ;those will show the quality and balance that we can expect going forward as GW update others. Plus if they keep to small releases (terrain, Tome and endless spells) they could potentially push out most of them this year. That would be a big update to a lot of the earlier factions and every so often we'd get a bigger release as they revamp or release a bigger army block.
2019 is going to be AoS year for Tomes I think and I'd wager that come Christmas AoS will be in a vastly stronger position.
I would agree. GW games have always been this way save for a brief period between 2000 and 2002 when 6th edition dropped with Ravening Hordes.
The difference there was that all of the armies were put in the ravening hordes book and done for 6th so everyone was on an even footing. That was broken once the staggered release schedule resumed with newer books trumping older books.
The irony of course is that as lopsided as the game has usually been, it is still the #1 fantasy tournament game in the world despite not being suited for it whereas more balanced games are largely ignored.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/05 13:30:07
I do find the general crapshoot style of design to be interesting and ridiculous. Like, their design seems to be without any foresight, even from the AOS team which seems to be more competent at rules than the 40k team (largely in part due to a lot of the AOS team being competitive players so they want good rules).
I think it's a result of sales/models still dictating the pace. According to something the 40k Facebook page mentioned, Codexes are in development for only 6 weeks. If Battletomes are similar, then how on earth do you properly consider rules, give them to playtesters, get feedback and adjust them when you have to be finished in such a short amount of time?
As long as the models are designed with little or no input from the rules guys and just sort of thrown to them with "Oi you lot! We're producing this model in 2 months, make up some rules and lore for it!" there will be these sort of issues where you have a virtually new army like Kharadron Overlords become complete garbage due to poor design choices and poor interaction.
40k is already so bloated with codexes that it's almost impossible to consider how something interacts with the rest of the game (which IMHO is a clear indicator that you have too many factions if you constantly forget things you did; like for example the GSC codex has a stratagem that costs 3 CP and does the same thing as a Dark Eldar stratagem that was FAQ'd to cost 4 CP; GW seemingly forgot they FAQ'd it to 4 and only looked at the Codex which showed 3). AOS seems to be going that way as well; too many battletomes that want to have unique gimmicks and rules, but the studio doesn't seem to have enough time to make sure these rules interact properly with everything else.
6 Weeks would be a insane Turn around. If true, it would account for a lot. If that includes everything, with rules story and writing as well as layout art and other things. That is quite the pace, It also would lead to missing out on really good and thematic units as no model could be made.
I would at least hope the team writing all the story and lore gets some input into what models are considered.
Is there a link to the post, or something to see the full wording? Insight into there design would at least help with thoughts on that design
lord_blackfang wrote: Agreed with the last few posts. It's remarkable how GW can't ever stick to the same design principles for even half an edition.
I think it's good that they tend to start off with a basic idea and refine it as they go. The problem is that they then only apply it to the ones after they decide it, when they should figure out there's a design change and then make sure they spend time applying it to everyone before they continue on.
Again I think that's part of the models driving rules approach. If you're being told constantly to keep making rules for new models coming up, you can't often say hold on we changed our design principles and have 5 books that need to be updated to reflect that.
Since they cannot do that, they shouldn't be doing these mid-edition design 180s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: 6 Weeks would be a insane Turn around. If true, it would account for a lot. If that includes everything, with rules story and writing as well as layout art and other things. That is quite the pace, It also would lead to missing out on really good and thematic units as no model could be made. I would at least hope the team writing all the story and lore gets some input into what models are considered.
Is there a link to the post, or something to see the full wording? Insight into there design would at least help with thoughts on that design
I'd have to hunt for it, it was a comment from their Facebook page to someone that mentioned a 6 week turnaround. I suspect it would be difficult to find again since it was a comment to a comment.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/05 13:53:31
On some podcast (can't remember which, maybe the GW's own) it sounded like they are doing a document for the AoS rules writers with things like wording, so stuff like "within" or "fully within" is always the same. But that effort seems new, so great they are trying, but how are you only starting to do that now.
SilchasRuin wrote: On some podcast (can't remember which, maybe the GW's own) it sounded like they are doing a document for the AoS rules writers with things like wording, so stuff like "within" or "fully within" is always the same. But that effort seems new, so great they are trying, but how are you only starting to do that now.
It's outright bizarre that Malign Sorcery still uses the old notation.
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
It was on their new podcast and the guy being interviewed mentioned it as being part of the AOS 2.0. tough they mentioned using it for consistency: use the same phrase for the same thing every time . Within and fully within are 2 different things.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/05 14:40:28
Overall I like the flavor and abilities. THey all seem inline with skaven.
What I don't like is their continued ability letting you pick any model you want to kill, forcing half the unit out of coherency which also kills them since they are out of coherency now.
From what I'm seeing and talking with some diehard Skaven players, they are seeming incredibly strong on paper. Getting a -1 to hit in melee as well for non-Monster heroes is going to be pretty good as IIRC there are still abilities that have not been changed to unmodified 6.
They seem pretty good. Skaven deserves this type of love.
I like most of their rules. It ultimately comes down to how much they cost of course. Great rules are awesome provided you pay the appropriate cost for them.
auticus wrote: Skaven summary is up on the community site.
Overall I like the flavor and abilities. THey all seem inline with skaven.
What I don't like is their continued ability letting you pick any model you want to kill, forcing half the unit out of coherency which also kills them since they are out of coherency now.
"tactical".
It is tactical, because the opposing player needs to make sure losing one model won't pull others out of coherency. And it isn't difficult to make sure every model in a unit is within an inch of at least two other models. What matters more is the ability to snipe standard bearers and the like. Or netters! *Shakes fist*
You are still choosing to cast it instead of another spell, pick it off the list instead of another spell, and needing to get your caster within 6" of the target model. There's also picking a target model, which can mean evaluating the impact of different command group models on the unit's performance given the context. It's much more tactical than the average spell.
I'm not really referring to the spell per say as I am with the rule that states if you can force a model out of coherency that the models out of coherency magically and biblically vanish.
Oh that. It's basically a rule saying "you can't pull a unit out of coherency using casualties" combined with "if a unit is put out of coherency by some means, remove the smaller portion".
Yeah. But every other game says "if you're out of coherency you must spend your movement getting back into coherency."
AOS says "jesus comes down and turns your guys into pillars of salt and they die when the big nasty giant puts one of your dudes in his bag"
Its just one of those nonsensical rules that will forever irk me, kind of like dragon fire and bombs and napalm dropping onto a melee but only hurting one side does.
Its just one of those nonsensical rules that will forever irk me, kind of like dragon fire and bombs and napalm dropping onto a melee but only hurting one side does.
Hey if Witch Aelves can go to war with no armour because they can basically dodge every strike at them save then surely your bombers can hit only one side of a combat. Actually in full fairness I've done that lots in Total War Warhammer. Once two blobs are engaged its a great time to throw bombs and such on the rear of the enemy formation whilst well out of range of your own warriors and the enemy unable to flee.
~1001~
