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.

Regarding the terrain stuff I do believe there is a healthy venue for terrain as many Third Party studios can attest to. I think the problem is more that those who buy terrain are a sort of 10% in the hobby. When they buy terrain they buy big, but everyone else leaves to the FLGS to provide. Since I have space to play at my home I have accumulated a lot of terrain(mostly for 40k though), but everyone else I know - except for a few mad like me - tend to only buy faction specific terrain at best.

Balance is always going to be tricky, but it also requires some modifications to truly be an approachable thing. One, as I have mentioned before, there should be Matched Play maps. Having something static to compare against means it is easier to balance. Also, people should be mirroring terrain to some extent. Second, everything in the game needs its own point value. Whether artifact, command trait, spells, prayers, etc. Having them all be 0 cost or somehow calculated in a unit's base cost is incredibly stupid and just encourages min-maxing. As long as GW refuses to take that into account we're always going to see point disparity.

(and the faction that's often considered the most controversial/broken on this forum, not even getting into a top 5).

I was actually surprised by that myself considering how much people have been lambasting the faction.

I back matched play maps too, for sure. Would really help with terrain. Incidentally in nearly game I’ve played in terrain was a big feature of it. No barren wastelands for us. It even decided a couple of games.

Also if you’re talking about what’s an indication of a good, healthy, balanced mix up, I would say it would be something like this;

In the top ten, there’s at least 8 different factions, with only 2 duplicates. With neither duplicate appearing more than once in the top five. And at least one faction from each GA makes it in to the top ten too. So something like this:

1. Flesh Eater Courts
2. Stormcast
3. Skaven
4. Gloomspite Gitz
5. Fyreslayers
6. Gutbusters
7. Blades Of Khorne
8. Flesh Eater Courts
9. Legions Of Nagash
10. Mixed Order

If tournaments all over had tables repeatedly showing similar results then you could say that the game has a healthy balance. Obviously some factions will be more powerful than others and will appear more often but it should only be by a small margin. Basically, it should come down to player skill and a little luck, not inherit over the top power inherent in the faction.

As someone that enjoys Starcraft 2, I'd quite like to see how a map pool would be received on the table top.

"Skaven rush on Fallen Azyrite City! What a cheeser!"

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I back matched play maps too, for sure. Would really help with terrain. Incidentally in nearly game I’ve played in terrain was a big feature of it. No barren wastelands for us. It even decided a couple of games.

Also if you’re talking about what’s an indication of a good, healthy, balanced mix up, I would say it would be something like this;

In the top ten, there’s at least 8 different factions, with only 2 duplicates. With neither duplicate appearing more than once in the top five. And at least one faction from each GA makes it in to the top ten too. So something like this:

1. Flesh Eater Courts
2. Stormcast
3. Skaven
4. Gloomspite Gitz
5. Fyreslayers
6. Gutbusters
7. Blades Of Khorne
8. Flesh Eater Courts
9. Legions Of Nagash
10. Mixed Order

If tournaments all over had tables repeatedly showing similar results then you could say that the game has a healthy balance. Obviously some factions will be more powerful than others and will appear more often but it should only be by a small margin. Basically, it should come down to player skill and a little luck, not inherit over the top power inherent in the faction.

I can see that... more destruction in the top 10 would be a good thing.

I could actually see "standard tables" with a strong symmetry in them as a possible positive thing for matched play. To take it more into an RTS type realm. I guess they first need to get their act together for modular terrain to really make that happen though.

I really hope GW didn't put too much effort into balancing matched play at 1k points and that this is mostly a gimmick to entice more players and give smaller stores a way to get people more involved in the hobby. I really hope they spent the bulk of there efforts in the GHB to re-balancing 2k games and getting their point costs strait. Because the power creep is really getting reminiscent of the worst excesses of 7th and 8th editions of Fantasy. I say this for basically 2 reasons:

1. It is going to be literally impossible to balance 1k and 2k at the same time without essentially having 2 completely different sets of rules, not only in terms of universal rules, but for every single rulebook and unit. This would be extraordinarily impractical and would split their resources and attention when they can barely keep on top of the one tentpole fantasy ruleset they already have. The models just cannot be scaled for both. What is OP at 1k can be just good or even mediocre at 2k. Some things that are out of control at 2k are untakeable at 1k because they need to be massed or supported in ways that are not possible at the lower point leve. That is all to say unless GW is willing to do something they have not ever been willing to do since at least 6th edition warhammer and put hard comps on units and force orgs, even going as far to exclude certain units from 1k play. I find this highly unlikely especially given the financial stupidity at forbidding units to be taken at certain play levels. And again even this I think would overtax their resources trying to keep up with the meta.

2. As nice as it is for smaller shops and players hoping to just get a quick game in to have a smaller point value that is fairly balanced, it is just not something competitive players are going to be attracted to. No one is going to travel for a 1k tournament, the attraction of the game is massed forces and giant monsters none of which is really possible at 1k. This is what warbands and skirmish level games are for and if I had a desire to play a glorified skirmish game in a matched play/tourney environment I would not be looking towards GW... 1k is what you play if you need a quick game while you drink a beer with your pal on a weeknight, or are just starting to learn the rules/buy your army. In neither case am I remotely concerned about balance or strategy. I am throwing dice while I blow off steam for an hour. If I want to actually play the game I want to use all my toys, not just a few of them.

Again if this is just a quick realignment of the 1k pt force org, with some extra restrictions on endless spells, monsters/special characters and summoning that is mostly just there to give small stores and clubs without a lot of space some love, awesome I am all for it. But I really hope no one is under the impression that this is actually going to balance 1k. You can either balance 1k or 2k with a single set of rules, you can't do both. Unless they are prepared to back essentially 2 sets of rules for every army on each release it is just not going to happen.

Heres hoping they spent a lot of time on point re-balancing this year because I can think of 4 armies that desperately need it. As a Deepkin player I am as tired of eels spams being our only viable build as I am sure everyone else is. I am all for making morrsarr 200 + pts a pop, so long as all of the awesome models in the army that are currently unplayable get the desperately needed pt reductions they need to finally see competitive play. And they don't even need pt changes the most, FEC, DoK, Skaven I am looking at you.

Standardized battle maps would be a great idea for balance! I can already hear the complaints about "GW forcing you to buy more terrain!1!!!1" though.

tripchimeras wrote:
I really hope GW didn't put too much effort into balancing matched play at 1k points and that this is mostly a gimmick to entice more players and give smaller stores a way to get people more involved in the hobby.

That seems essential rather than a gimmick to me.

1. It is going to be literally impossible to balance 1k and 2k at the same time without essentially having 2 completely different sets of rules, not only in terms of universal rules, but for every single rulebook and unit. This would be extraordinarily impractical and would split their resources and attention when they can barely keep on top of the one tentpole fantasy ruleset they already have. The models just cannot be scaled for both.

If this is the case, then I guess game size (and game size relative to table size) is yet another variable potentially confounding points as a means to balance the game.

What is OP at 1k can be just good or even mediocre at 2k.

I think I agree. One thing I like about 1k is that lots of the stuff no one would ever claim is good at 2k is perfectly fine at 1k. Other things though suddenly becoming game dominating at 1k. Some times it's obvious though, like taking huge monsters or a combo core of a 2k army at 1k.

2. As nice as it is for smaller shops and players hoping to just get a quick game in to have a smaller point value that is fairly balanced, it is just not something competitive players are going to be attracted to. No one is going to travel for a 1k tournament, the attraction of the game is massed forces and giant monsters none of which is really possible at 1k.

I agree that events should probably stick to larger games. Though I understand why stores and clubs often run smaller games and don't always concentrate on tournaments. The local stores that sell GW have hundreds and hundreds of customers but local tournaments tend to top out at around 100 participants including those who might travel for the event. Neither the GW store nor the handful of independent stores ever have anything other than a smaller minority show up for gaming nights or tournaments, but the gaming nights being smaller allows for more tables to be set up and more games to be gotten in before the shop closes. So I'm actually for 1k as a standard store based matched play pick up game size for those reasons.

You can either balance 1k or 2k with a single set of rules, you can't do both. Unless they are prepared to back essentially 2 sets of rules for every army on each release it is just not going to happen.

If GW is currently relying on what can compete in the tournament meta to produce balance for them, why wouldn't that same approach work for 1k? There will be things that are the best things to put in your list given the 1k game size. It'll take a couple of events, but I'm sure that'll all get shaken out.

 EnTyme wrote:
Standardized battle maps would be a great idea for balance! I can already hear the complaints about "GW forcing you to buy more terrain!1!!!1" though.

I feel the argument that'd had the most weight would be against creativity. Being forced to set the table just as described otherwise it'd be invalid.

On other note, I feel some of you are neglecting mutliplayer games and formats (two on two or free for all), those can have good entertaining value, keeping the armies small allows smooth and fast play.

 Eldarsif wrote:

(and the faction that's often considered the most controversial/broken on this forum, not even getting into a top 5).

I was actually surprised by that myself considering how much people have been lambasting the faction.

As we can see from the tourney stats Flesh Eater Courts really aren't doing well (STRONG sarcasm).

It is pretty lame to use one tournament where they failed to make top 5 to take a jab at those of us who have spoken about them being OP.

tripchimeras wrote:
I really hope GW didn't put too much effort into balancing matched play at 1k points and that this is mostly a gimmick to entice more players and give smaller stores a way to get people more involved in the hobby. I really hope they spent the bulk of there efforts in the GHB to re-balancing 2k games and getting their point costs strait. Because the power creep is really getting reminiscent of the worst excesses of 7th and 8th editions of Fantasy.

2 of the main armies that need to be balanced are Skaven and FEC, but Generals Handbook was most likely done before they came out. They did ask how offen they should balance things in the survey, so hoping we will not have to wait for GH 2020

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

(and the faction that's often considered the most controversial/broken on this forum, not even getting into a top 5).

I was actually surprised by that myself considering how much people have been lambasting the faction.

As we can see from the tourney stats Flesh Eater Courts really aren't doing well (STRONG sarcasm).

It is pretty lame to use one tournament where they failed to make top 5 to take a jab at those of us who have spoken about them being OP.

Just before the release of the latest tome they spiked and kinda ruled for several tourneys before evening out a bit more. Don't get me wrong, they are a very powerful faction which has things that need to be addressed, but at the same time they don't seem to be the alpha and the omega of winning as a lot of the discussions were centered around(probably colored by the shakeup in the meta they brought). People made it sound like that the game was lost the minute a FEC player put an Arch-regent on the table.

Which brings up a point that gets muddled in the hyperbole: as much as FEC need to be addressed(I personally think the Arch-regent should be limited to 1 only as an example) there needs to be great care not to nuke them to the stone age as some people have wishlisted. I have seen some of the suggestions people have been making and if they were all applied(most people tend to want multiple nerfs instead of surgical nerfs) then FEC would most likely be KO/Grey Knights tier, and those factions need to be rewritten and brought up if anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I really hope GW didn't put too much effort into balancing matched play at 1k points and that this is mostly a gimmick to entice more players and give smaller stores a way to get people more involved in the hobby. I really hope they spent the bulk of there efforts in the GHB to re-balancing 2k games and getting their point costs strait. Because the power creep is really getting reminiscent of the worst excesses of 7th and 8th editions of Fantasy.

Balancing for 1000k games can be minimal. Mostly 1k specific missions and maybe certain limits on trait shenanigans(like free terrain and multiple gravesites). Limitations on the overt problems are probably simpler than an antirely new point system for that size.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Balancing for 1000k games can be minimal. Mostly 1k specific missions and maybe certain limits on trait shenanigans(like free terrain and multiple gravesites). Limitations on the overt problems are probably simpler than an antirely new point system for that size.

I agree with you. That would be the road I hope they are taking with this. Something simple and small just to give those who need to play at lower levels a little love. A couple of simple rules changes to cover the worst excesses of the current system at that point spread is perfectly fine and easy to accomplish. But it is a far cry from how they are advertising it. I just hope both GW and fans don't inflate what is possible with 1-2 pages of new rules and a couple of new missions. It is not going to be tournament balanced. GW games are just not built in such a way they can be easily balanced for any point level, and I am fine with that. So long as 2k remains the primary focus, and most balancing efforts remain focused on that point level, I am fine. A couple rules to make summoning less outrageous, put further limits on monsters or whatever will be appreciated, but the second they try to make 1k the new standard or support it equally with 2k that is when they are going to have a problem. For better or worse the game just is not built to scale like that, and without completely re-releasing a new edition and starting from scratch on battletomes there is no way they are going to be able to change the fact that the game is balanced for 2k mid-stream like this.

As for the question I've seen posed as to whether there is time to update point costs for FEC and Skaven? We will see. Considering they are little more then an index of names and pts I would imagine it isn't too difficult to make changes there. It all depends on if/when they realized they had made massive mistakes with those tomes and when printing started/starts on the books. Especially with the prevolense of digital copies these days I think it becomes significantly easier to do that type of thing change on the fly now. Also remember that last year they released it with point changes for Deepkin and immediately retracted those pt changes. I don't see why it can't be done the otherway. alter the digital books and then for print just release a faq, same as deepkin except actually change the points instead of reversing them back. Not saying I am hopeful, but I don't think its a done deal they won't get changes. Timeframe is tight, but I think at least for FEC there was probably enough time to make the changes if they realized it soon enough, which admittedly knowing GW is a big if.

An idea just came to me and I need someone to tell me if it’s stupid or not.

If you’re looking to balance the game at smaller levels, what about a “rule of x” (sorry, crap name I know) were, with the exception of battleline units, each warscroll entry can only be taken once per 1000 points.

That’s a crap idea isn’t it?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
An idea just came to me and I need someone to tell me if it’s stupid or not.

If you’re looking to balance the game at smaller levels, what about a “rule of x” (sorry, crap name I know) were, with the exception of battleline units, each warscroll entry can only be taken once per 1000 points.

That’s a crap idea isn’t it?

I think it would help with balance, though I doubt it would fix everything. I don't think its crap, but I do think a lot of people would hate it and it would be a design philosophy GW has not shown an inclination towards since 6th. I think unit limitations like that would help in general to significantly balance their games, but it isn't a great short term financial decision, and non competitive players pretty much hate anything that even approaches that type of restriction in my experience. Maybe I am wrong though, either way I do think it would be an easy way to help. Though their are plenty of singular units that would still be able to rip through entire armies alone.

It would definitely help because instead of taking, for example, three of the best thing you'd have to take one of each of the best 3 things. An army like that is far more likely to be an even match for someone who didn't spend as much time on figuring out the most efficient things to take.

What it might do though is have people take max sized units of the best things and min sized of everything else, but it's still probably better than just *all* units being the single best unit for that role.

A rule of 1 or highlander ("There can be only one!") format would probably be pretty cool for 1000 points. I'd play it. I'd even take my garbage tier lists against tuned lists in a format like that.

In my FLGS we tend to not allow Endless Spells and Battalions at 1000 or lower. We've also tried limiting Behemoths but BCR make that a bit more tricky.

@tripchimeras

That’s kind of the thing isn’t it? GW are in the game of selling minis, so restrictions like that probably won’t appeal to them. Nor will they appeal to non competitive players who want to build thematic lists. And yes, some units can slaughter their way through the enemy just as a single entity.

@frozenwastes

That was my reasoning. You’d no longer be able to spam the best unit but you could still just max out it’s size and minimise everything else. Although that comes with its own issues; less tactical flexibility, more vulnerability to battleshock and so on.

@Eldarsif

I think endless spells should become an entry on the pitched battle chart, sitting alongside Leaders, Battleline etc. They’re pretty much units in all but name so why not?

I think endless spells should become an entry on the pitched battle chart, sitting alongside Leaders, Battleline etc. They’re pretty much units in all but name so why not?

on principle I agree with you, but experience has taught me that some spells are more problematic than others.

Take for example Everblaze Comet. It has a 10" inch threat radius in a zone that is only 48 by 12 in most cases, sometimes smaller. I have seen fights where in a 1000 point games where one such spell destroyed a good portion of the enemy forces and that before the Stormcast player deepstruck with their knights and charged the enemy. If you know your enemy has that spell you can't really deploy in an strategic manner and have to thin out your forces only to leave them exposed for a deepstrike later on.

It's one of those spells that is average in 2000 point games but can easily snowball in smaller games.

 Eldarsif wrote:

I think endless spells should become an entry on the pitched battle chart, sitting alongside Leaders, Battleline etc. They’re pretty much units in all but name so why not?

on principle I agree with you, but experience has taught me that some spells are more problematic than others.

Take for example Everblaze Comet. It has a 10" inch threat radius in a zone that is only 48 by 12 in most cases, sometimes smaller. I have seen fights where in a 1000 point games where one such spell destroyed a good portion of the enemy forces and that before the Stormcast player deepstruck with their knights and charged the enemy. If you know your enemy has that spell you can't really deploy in an strategic manner and have to thin out your forces only to leave them exposed for a deepstrike later on.

It's one of those spells that is average in 2000 point games but can easily snowball in smaller games.

And this comes full circle back to the base problem. The game is built around 2000pts. There is no easy and quick solution to this. The damage profiles, pt costs, special rules, army synergies all of it make a set of assumptions that make it balanced for a 2000pt game. The further you get from that magic number, the less things work as intended. There is no 1-2 page ruleset that is going to fix all of these issues at 1k. I think some of the things suggested here would certainly help, and I hope GW implements them, and they will help to make casual games at the local shop more enjoyable. But advertising them as a way to hold 1k tourneys seems like a bad direction to go. It is not going to be balanced at all, just better when both participants are participating in good faith play. It makes it less likely that you steamroll accidentally, but even something as simple as wanting to try out that new endless spell, or that new monster you got for the army you still are under 2k points for. You are going to find all sorts of units and abilities having unintended behaviors and affects at the reduced point cost. Without a full rules overhaul its just not going to work. Which is why again, as long as this venture by GW is limited in scope and properly marketed it is fun and will help everyone out. But anyone hoping that this is going to introduce a new age where 1k and 2k can be put on equal footing is going to be disapointed, and imo if GW tries to do this they are just going to end up ruining the balance at both levels rather then having balance at atleast 2k.

I feel the problem of not having a playable 1000 point game is that it makes joining the game an all or nothing experience and I have some vague memory of what that did to the old WHFB.

On the other hand, the problems I have with 1000 point games have little to do with unit costs and more to do with extraneous faction traits and spells, and for the most part my FLGS has found a sweet balance by not allowing Battalions, Endless Spells, and Behemoths(which does pose a problem for BCR players, but they are nearly nonexistent around here). Apart from those three things I think the only problem area is LoN gravesites and if that is addressed 1000 points becomes infinitely more playable.

It's funny that you mention the Everblaze Comet, as I've never had an issue with it once I realized "If I just consider it as dangerous terrain--I'm fine".

The trap in it is Unbinding the spell after it's been cast. Then the Stormcast can just keep dropping it.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

(and the faction that's often considered the most controversial/broken on this forum, not even getting into a top 5).

I was actually surprised by that myself considering how much people have been lambasting the faction.

As we can see from the tourney stats Flesh Eater Courts really aren't doing well (STRONG sarcasm).

It is pretty lame to use one tournament where they failed to make top 5 to take a jab at those of us who have spoken about them being OP.

Just before the release of the latest tome they spiked and kinda ruled for several tourneys before evening out a bit more. Don't get me wrong, they are a very powerful faction which has things that need to be addressed, but at the same time they don't seem to be the alpha and the omega of winning as a lot of the discussions were centered around(probably colored by the shakeup in the meta they brought). People made it sound like that the game was lost the minute a FEC player put an Arch-regent on the table.

Some people may have, but I do not recall anyone here making that assertion. Also, did you look at those stats? FEC are wrecking the tourney scene with Skaven not far behind. They do need multiple nerfs from multiple angles because they have several areas that make the army OP (summoning, MW Output, and Feeding Frenzy).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
An idea just came to me and I need someone to tell me if it’s stupid or not.

If you’re looking to balance the game at smaller levels, what about a “rule of x” (sorry, crap name I know) were, with the exception of battleline units, each warscroll entry can only be taken once per 1000 points.

That’s a crap idea isn’t it?

Limited and uneven impact. For something like the Stormcast ballista it works great, but for Evocators it does not since the person can just take a bigger unit if they wanted more of them. For the most part, only single-model units that are low-costed enough to spam at 1000 points are affected.

There is no single rule that will make 1000 points viable balance wise, though 'no unit that costs more than X points' and endless spell restrictions help. Battalions are rarely worth taking if they can even fit in the list at all, so that is one area where I think it can be left alone. Summoning would be the top thing to address since so many of the armies do not scale, healing mechanics come to mind next, teleportation, character sniping, uberbuff-one-unit mechanics, and who knows how many one-off warscroll/allegiance abilities would also be potential problems.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Some people may have, but I do not recall anyone here making that assertion. Also, did you look at those stats? FEC are wrecking the tourney scene with Skaven not far behind. They do need multiple nerfs from multiple angles because they have several areas that make the army OP (summoning, MW Output, and Feeding Frenzy).

Do I even have to go back three pages to find you and auticus saying tournament results don't matter because tournaments don't represent the majority of players? It's almost like tournaments didn't fit your narrative back then, but they do now. Odd.

At some point, you two are going to have to realize that you're really good at identifying potential imbalances in the game, but horrible at estimating the impact of that imbalance. Yes. DoK, FEC, and Skaven need nerfs to bring them back in line with other recent releases, but I'm seeing a wide variety of factions doing well in both tournament settings and casual setting, provided the casual players are capable of having a conversation about the type of game they're looking to play and setting expectations properly.

 EnTyme wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Some people may have, but I do not recall anyone here making that assertion. Also, did you look at those stats? FEC are wrecking the tourney scene with Skaven not far behind. They do need multiple nerfs from multiple angles because they have several areas that make the army OP (summoning, MW Output, and Feeding Frenzy).

Do I even have to go back three pages to find you and auticus saying tournament results don't matter because tournaments don't represent the majority of players? It's almost like tournaments didn't fit your narrative back then, but they do now. Odd.

At some point, you two are going to have to realize that you're really good at identifying potential imbalances in the game, but horrible at estimating the impact of that imbalance. Yes. DoK, FEC, and Skaven need nerfs to bring them back in line with other recent releases, but I'm seeing a wide variety of factions doing well in both tournament settings and casual setting, provided the casual players are capable of having a conversation about the type of game they're looking to play and setting expectations properly.

Quote me saying that. Find one quote. If you can I'll apologize, admit I was wrong, and drop it. If you can't, you admit I know better than you. Deal?

Went back to page six (so further back than I thought it was. auticus was actually the one arguing that tournament results were irrelevant. You were just arguing that a series of charts showing multiple different allegiances winning tournaments somehow doesn't show a diverse selection of viable factions because more people play certain factions. Sorry. I forgot which goalpost you were moving.

 EnTyme wrote:
Went back to page six (so further back than I thought it was. auticus was actually the one arguing that tournament results were irrelevant. You were just arguing that a series of charts showing multiple different allegiances winning tournaments somehow doesn't show a diverse selection of viable factions because more people play certain factions. Sorry. I forgot which goalpost you were moving.

Edit: Nevermind. You are not worth it. Ignored.

A month or less until GHB 2019! Might be seeing some previews in the near future, hopefully.

I suspect at least one of the current big three will get knocked down a peg(DoK), and maybe if a tweak or change to summoning happens, FEC as well. I think its too late for FEC and Skaven to get points adjustments, so we may be stuck with them for the next year.

I tried to find the AoS facebook post that requested GHB feedback to pull some juicy quotes to bounce off the dakka crowd and to see if any still apply in the face of FEC and Skaven but it looks like its gone. Thats a bummer, though that was back before Christmas I think. Such an innocent time, before FEC were boosted and Skaven finally came together to take over the surface world.

Some people may have, but I do not recall anyone here making that assertion. Also, did you look at those stats? FEC are wrecking the tourney scene with Skaven not far behind. They do need multiple nerfs from multiple angles because they have several areas that make the army OP (summoning, MW Output, and Feeding Frenzy).

And I would begin nerfing so:

A: Summoning isn't free with throne(could also make so that each individual unit type could only be summoned once, so if you've summoned 1 Varghulf Courtier you can't summon another with a different unit)
A1: Maybe make it so only the Arch-Regent can use the freebie. I mean, he is the ARCH-regent after all. Would tie nicely into part C.
B: Remove the Feast day Delusion(It's a third wheel anyway as people are slowly moving over to courts instead).
C: Only one Arch-regent per army

These three changes would mean a player would have to make meaningful choices in regards to their CP use.

Again, I am not saying FEC are not strong and couldn't do with adjustments. I agree on that part. What I am saying, however, is that nerfing is a surgical maneuver and not a napalm run. I've seen too many broken collections because GW did a napalm run like some people wished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nels1031 wrote:
A month or less until GHB 2019! Might be seeing some previews in the near future, hopefully.

I suspect at least one of the current big three will get knocked down a peg(DoK), and maybe if a tweak or change to summoning happens, FEC as well. I think its too late for FEC and Skaven to get points adjustments, so we may be stuck with them for the next year.

I tried to find the AoS facebook post that requested GHB feedback to pull some juicy quotes to bounce off the dakka crowd and to see if any still apply in the face of FEC and Skaven but it looks like its gone. Thats a bummer, though that was back before Christmas I think. Such an innocent time, before FEC were boosted and Skaven finally came together to take over the surface world.

I imagine Hag Queen will be bumped up at least 20 points(safe nerf), maybe 40 points if GW is feeling frisky. Sisters of Slaughters might also see a change as they've become very popular. Strangely enough I could see some stuff get point drops like Khinerai Lifetakers and Doomfire Warlocks.

In regards to FEC, Skaven, and some DoK stuff I think they need to release a FAQ or something that changes/limits certain things.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Again, I am not saying FEC are not strong and couldn't do with adjustments. I agree on that part. What I am saying, however, is that nerfing is a surgical maneuver and not a napalm run. I've seen too many broken collections because GW did a napalm run like some people wished.

I agree--I simply think that the nerfs need to be significant. You mentioned removing feast day, for example, but that leaves Blisterskin and Gristlegore and thus does near-nil to improve the situation overall. Better to cut to the heart of the matter and nerf Feeding Frenzy IMO--that command ability would be overpowered with any army, let alone a high-powered melee one!

If it was that Feeding frenzy could only come from the general, or from arch-regents then it would be less of a problem i feel, but it coming from ANY hero makes every unit dangerous.

Another suggestion would be they would be allowed a second pile in later on. This would work like the DoK and Slaanesh second activation mechanics.