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.

Woods don't really block LOS very well, they only block if the line you draw from base to base passes over the wood for more than 3", and only if both the target and the shooting unit has less than 10 wounds. Basically they only block when you're shooting pretty much straight through them to something directly on the other side. Which when you combine with movement beforehand, means that it's a pretty rare situation where the shooting unit can't find a way to draw an angle to what it wants to shoot at. Maybe a single small hero positioned exactly in the ideal spot, that's about it.

AOS 3.0 is still a game where terrain has a very limited impact. It's one of the biggest differences between 40k and AOS.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Cities of Sigmar are your base humans, they just haven't had a release or any real focus for a long while save for a few special character models released through Cursed City (or not since it seemed to go belly up on launch and they got individual release)

And they'll probably be replaced by this Dawnthingo Crusade armies, as GW shuffle off the last of the legacy Warhammer minis that haven't found a home in a 'proper' faction.

So I'll spend more time going back and forth on whether I really need a unit of Phoenix Guard. I mean, I never even played Fantasy, and yet I want those minis...

And Lumineth makes me want to try AoS...

Basically what I'm saying is that I like High Elves and I wish there were more of their kits still around.

I've got a box for sale

Wrong thread.

I do not care what the formula (and/or any mechanism) they use for points calculations is because the results continue to be so poor. Put differently; if the result is gak I don't really care how it got made.

@Aelves discussion; there are a lot of baseline aelves. All the ones from CoS and non-mutant ones from DoK are just normal. Like in WHFB there are significant differences in culture, but the species is the same.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not care what the formula (and/or any mechanism) they use for points calculations is because the results continue to be so poor. Put differently; if the result is gak I don't really care how it got made.

It may be premature to say the outcome is bad. I don't know. I left AoS behind years ago.

The method is relatively sound. So the question becomes what is GW experiencing that is deviating their results from our perceptions?

Well there is one part that matters at the end; the adjustments via playtesting & subjective evaluation. Any formula serves only to produce a baseline to expedite the process. I am relatively confident the formula isn't the main issue.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not care what the formula (and/or any mechanism) they use for points calculations is because the results continue to be so poor. Put differently; if the result is gak I don't really care how it got made.

It may be premature to say the outcome is bad. I don't know. I left AoS behind years ago.

The method is relatively sound. So the question becomes what is GW experiencing that is deviating their results from our perceptions?

It's quite strange that the AoS team seems to have been, for the past year and a half at least, been having a VERY different gameplay experience than the playerbase. In 40k it makes sense that they would think a Castigator is worth 160pts or that an Exorcist should cost 180pts at T7 and cost 2CP to shoot because they're fluff players who ban any weapon above T6 when they play internally to help 'build the narrative'.

Last I knew though, most of the team involved in writing the Sigmar Battletomes are accomplished tournament players so I don't get how they can look at Lumineth Sentinels and go 'yeah, these guys are on the same level as Avatars of Khaine (a model that no one has ever taken in the history of sigmar) and should get about the same points bump.'

ERJAK wrote:
Last I knew though, most of the team involved in writing the Sigmar Battletomes are accomplished tournament players so I don't get how they can look at Lumineth Sentinels and go 'yeah, these guys are on the same level as Avatars of Khaine (a model that no one has ever taken in the history of sigmar) and should get about the same points bump.'

You're making the assumption that the person who changed the Sentinels even remembered that the Avatar was in the game.

As I've found with a lot of their FAQs, and how you can have points costs revert back to the cost listed in not the previous update, but the one before that, I'm not certain that the people doing these sorts of updates even have copies of the previous changes before they start working. Or even check.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It may be premature to say the outcome is bad.

Premature? How? They've done this many many times, and we know from the start of 9th that they get this wrong. Constantly.

There comes a time where 'wait and see' has to give way to pattern recognition.

Can anyone explain the meaning of this?

GW Article wrote:
More Granularity
The second thing to highlight is that points values can now be in factors of five, allowing for more granularity between units.

Factors of five are 1 and 5.
Does this mean points go up in 1's or 5's? Seems redundant stating you can go up in 5's if you can count up in 1's.
Unless of course GW meant multiples rather than factors. Or that points values have to be factors of 5.

Cronch wrote:

But there's nothing in the lumineth about how they are different from the standard elf

I mean,the whole topic is that there is no standard elf. If lumineth are standard elves, I want to know why. Why shouldn't Idoneth, the first to be made, be the standard and everything afterwards an improvement? If the "natural" elves that were not made by Elven gods (So CoS elves pretty much) are to be the standard, then why, they are the least numerous, by default they can't be the standard elf if they're the minority.
Elves don't need a "standard elf", just like orcs don't need a "standard orc" to understand that ironjaws are massive orcs with heavy armor. That is self-evident.

Cause elves are defined on cultural characteristics and orcs of racial or genetic characteristics.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Can anyone explain the meaning of this?

GW Article wrote:
More Granularity
The second thing to highlight is that points values can now be in factors of five, allowing for more granularity between units.

Factors of five are 1 and 5.
Does this mean points go up in 1's or 5's? Seems redundant stating you can go up in 5's if you can count up in 1's.
Unless of course GW meant multiples rather than factors. Or that points values have to be factors of 5.

The quote literally says points values can be in factors of 5s.

MaxT wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Can anyone explain the meaning of this?

GW Article wrote:
More Granularity
The second thing to highlight is that points values can now be in factors of five, allowing for more granularity between units.

Factors of five are 1 and 5.
Does this mean points go up in 1's or 5's? Seems redundant stating you can go up in 5's if you can count up in 1's.
Unless of course GW meant multiples rather than factors. Or that points values have to be factors of 5.

The quote literally says points values can be in factors of 5s.

I'm pretty sure they mean multiples of 5.

If granularity was their goal I'm not sure why they had to use multiples of 5 instead of just using any integer / natural number.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

MaxT wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Can anyone explain the meaning of this?

GW Article wrote:
More Granularity
The second thing to highlight is that points values can now be in factors of five, allowing for more granularity between units.

Factors of five are 1 and 5.
Does this mean points go up in 1's or 5's? Seems redundant stating you can go up in 5's if you can count up in 1's.
Unless of course GW meant multiples rather than factors. Or that points values have to be factors of 5.

The quote literally says points values can be in factors of 5s.

I'm pretty sure they mean multiples of 5.

If granularity was their goal I'm not sure why they had to use multiples of 5 instead of just using any integer / natural number.

Laziness?

Thing is this isn't like mark 2 warmahordes. We weren't having balance issues because a unit was underpowered at 90 but overpowered at 80. We weren't even close to a place where units were well-balanced enough for such a distinction to matter. We could round every cost to the nearest 5 and there wouldn't be a noticable difference because units being off by 5 points is not an issue AoS had.

Yeah but that's never stopped GW before in talking about improving the quality of points in their pre-release info.

the best boxed set that GW ever made for the best balanced game GW ever made

marketing is a thing but if they mess it up in the beginning calling it the best ever can backfire

specially if the best balanced points they have ever done get changed with the first faction books

Everything is the number one thing these days. Customers have rewarded hyperbolic advertising so long that it has naturally progressed to the end state where every product or release is 'the best evar!!!1'

Personally I think less of something when that or an analogous claim is made because it is both overused and doesn't mean anything. Compared to advertising points like 'heroes more heroic using hero actions, monsters more powerful with monster actions' which actually give me something of substance.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Everything is the number one thing these days. Customers have rewarded hyperbolic advertising so long that it has naturally progressed to the end state where every product or release is 'the best evar!!!1'

Personally I think less of something when that or an analogous claim is made because it is both overused and doesn't mean anything. Compared to advertising points like 'heroes more heroic using hero actions, monsters more powerful with monster actions' which actually give me something of substance.

Don't you mean "THE BEST HEROIC ACTIONS AND MONSTER ACTIONS, MAKING THIS THE MOST BESTERS AMAZING GAME EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND!"

You say that but honestly I can't remember a time when marketing has never said "best ever". Perhaps not using those specific words; but every new edition is always better, improved, different in the right ways, a reimagining, a breath of fresh air. It's always shown as being better because in the end GW wants you and needs you to move with them.

There is nothing stopping people saying "no I think 2.0 was good, we'll stick with that." Even events can run 2.0.


GW honestly has exceptionally little direct influence over the tournament scene and what they have is almost built up over the last few years not decades of long relationships.

the last time GW used "the best ever" in advertising we got Finecast, it this was not something that turned out very well

and while a new Edtion being an improvement is normal outside GW, it was more often the opposite for GW (with as soon the fresh air was gone it turned out worse than the previous one)

and with the history of AoS I would not be suprised if some big events start using their own point system again and/or their own core rule variaten

Fantasy was always dominated by Houserules and Community versions of the game, AoS 2 is more or less the exception of to the rule since 5th Edtion Warhammer

 kodos wrote:
the last time GW used "the best ever" in advertising we got Finecast, it this was not something that turned out very well

Then what do you call 'Space Marines, Necrons and the Best Codexes EVER' posted on Warhammer Community in October of last year?

I really missed that one

but it was only on the Community Page or also an official advertising slogan?

(as also 3rd party shops need to list Dominion as the best box ever)

Best ever cheesy sales pitch only works if the cycles are larger than what we see.
Its ok I guess but by the time you hear it again in a few months time people will just be more annoyed than anything else.

Also depends on what you choose to believe... I think 40k and AoS is nothing more than a beer and pretzels game, Warhammer lore is convoluted and messy so I dont see much point in getting worked up with them nuking worlds or even reading much of it and the minis are plastic mass produced tokens that aspire to be art pieces on a display but they are not.

So they can say these are the best rules in the universe and most engaging lore and beacons of art miniatures... not in my opinion.

In for the fun times not in for the best ever rules, lore etc drama because I believe they are just marketing gimmick stunts to sell minis. We love this hobby but even in love we should see the flaws.

MaxT wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Can anyone explain the meaning of this?

GW Article wrote:
More Granularity
The second thing to highlight is that points values can now be in factors of five, allowing for more granularity between units.

Factors of five are 1 and 5.
Does this mean points go up in 1's or 5's? Seems redundant stating you can go up in 5's if you can count up in 1's.
Unless of course GW meant multiples rather than factors. Or that points values have to be factors of 5.

The quote literally says points values can be in factors of 5s.

And the point was; A firm dealing with the mathematics of points values in a game worth millions of dollars doesn't know the difference between a factor and a multiple.

 kodos wrote:
the best boxed set that GW ever made for the best balanced game GW ever made

marketing is a thing but if they mess it up in the beginning calling it the best ever can backfire

specially if the best balanced points they have ever done get changed with the first faction books

Uuuhhh...changing points when rules change is logical...

"yeah let's give near army wide +1 to saves and what not and keep old points". Yeah THAT makes sense...NOT!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
the last time GW used "the best ever" in advertising we got Finecast, it this was not something that turned out very well

And 40k 9, 8, 7, 6 etc

Aos 2, aos 1, fb 8, 7,6...

Seeing a pattern?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Everything is the number one thing these days. Customers have rewarded hyperbolic advertising so long that it has naturally progressed to the end state where every product or release is 'the best evar!!!1'

Personally I think less of something when that or an analogous claim is made because it is both overused and doesn't mean anything. Compared to advertising points like 'heroes more heroic using hero actions, monsters more powerful with monster actions' which actually give me something of substance.

I mean, it works in politics too, so why not go all the way?

tneva82 wrote:

Uuuhhh...changing points when rules change is logical...

might look that way at first

but if you make balance adjustments you either change rules or points, not both

with changing both you start of with a reset and a fresh game, were all previous gained data is useless

so if the rule changes were made to adjust balance there is no need to adjust points in that way
and with a major point reset big rule changes are nearly impossible to adjust

"perfect balance is impossible and there are too many options to balance everything"
but changing everything at once to achieve balance is fine.....

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Uuuhhh...changing points when rules change is logical...

might look that way at first

but if you make balance adjustments you either change rules or points, not both

with changing both you start of with a reset and a fresh game, were all previous gained data is useless

so if the rule changes were made to adjust balance there is no need to adjust points in that way
and with a major point reset big rule changes are nearly impossible to adjust

"perfect balance is impossible and there are too many options to balance everything"
but changing everything at once to achieve balance is fine.....

Uuuh...so you really think gw should just give big improvements to stormcast and not change points?

Seriously?

So let's say lord castellan gets 2+ save, 4+ ward, 6 attacks 2/2/-3/4 and you think point cost should stay sameas last battletome???

Wtf? Seriously? Regardless of changes to battletome points can't be changed???

Good thing you aren't game designer. Gw guys aren't good but at least they aren't that bad.

either those changes are for the sake of balance

or those are just throwing random rules and numbers around and we don't need to talk about balance at all

either your lord castellan is too weak now and need that better profiu
or he does not need it and you make changes for the sake of change

tneva82 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Uuuhhh...changing points when rules change is logical...

might look that way at first

but if you make balance adjustments you either change rules or points, not both

with changing both you start of with a reset and a fresh game, were all previous gained data is useless

so if the rule changes were made to adjust balance there is no need to adjust points in that way
and with a major point reset big rule changes are nearly impossible to adjust

"perfect balance is impossible and there are too many options to balance everything"
but changing everything at once to achieve balance is fine.....

Uuuh...so you really think gw should just give big improvements to stormcast and not change points?

Seriously?

So let's say lord castellan gets 2+ save, 4+ ward, 6 attacks 2/2/-3/4 and you think point cost should stay sameas last battletome???

Wtf? Seriously? Regardless of changes to battletome points can't be changed???

Good thing you aren't game designer. Gw guys aren't good but at least they aren't that bad.

Stormcast rules were abysmally weak. Like, joke tier army aside from one accidentally broken build.
You make them better and raise cost, good job, now they're ok units with too-high cost.You better hope they did the same mistake with everyone else.
Except we know they raised LRL costs by only a tiny bit, so the really strong army stayed at similar point cost as before, so Stormcast are still overcosted in relation to the strongest army. You achieved nothing.