GH2017: the honeymoon is over

[Killax]

44 minutes ago, Nico said:

FEC seem the worst of all the subfactions as they cannot get a real command ability (the summoning command abilities are close to useless unless you like failing 9" charges and then getting taken off). The Traits and Artefacts are weak - compare them to Ironjawz.

They need the VLoZD....

I really see this differently in actual use. Yes they need a Monster General (not ****** GKoZD but it is a great choice) but at the same time many more armies do who largely rely on lines that where created for WFB initially. When we look at Slaves to Darkness I wouldn't wander around without a Manticore Lord choice either. When I look at my Khorne Daemons not running a Bloodthirster seems like a bad plan, up until you include enough Mortal units... Likewise every army seems to have it's mandatory Hero inclusions. I really don't mind that and don't think this was any different in GH2016 either.

Not having a massively impactful Command Ability is a non-issue to me. With Command Trait Completely Delusional you can choose what your army will be doing on a turn by turn basis, even when the General dies you will have the option to select the Delusion that is ideal for that specific situation. This toolbox is really something I feel is fantastic. I can't call this weak at all. For sure your opponent 'must' have either Heroes or Monsters to really make use of it but the whole clue of GH2017 seems to be that these unit types are great choices anyway. 

Likewise The Grim Garland, The Flayed Pennant and Blood River Chalice are excellent choices for Monster Generals. Iron Jawz have some excellent options too but it's a bit of a mute comparison when we're going to cross-compair different Allegiances that arn't even within each other's Grand Allegiance. Neither have acces to each other choices. Flesh Eater Courts to me arn't top tier but for an Allegiance work out well enough. Competatively speaking you have something to work with. The thing however remains that if anything GH2017 brought many factions much closer together. Which is a big pro but currently can't be reflected yet with Tournament results because not too many Tournaments have been played with GH2017 yet. 

17 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@Killax
I like the battalion idea, the only issue is some armies have no battalions to speak of. If every army had a handful of battalions, this would work. A minor issue in being that some battalions are a lot more basic than others, but if they evened them out a bit more this could work. I agree that FEC is competitive, but the GH doesn't do much to make them more competitive, other than the fact that it has weakened some of the stronger armies. FEC does not need much, I would say if they released some scroll updates with more relevant command abilities, released a FEC specific spell lore, and released new kits for the ghoul king and Vargulf - the army would be very well established.
 

I absolutely agree on the issue with Battalions and FEC, which is something I hope everyone will have by the time Gh2018 comes into focus. Some of the more recent changes give some good indication that more will change. The thing however with Age of Sigmar still remains is that it will thake years, likely more as a decade, before all of the WFB lines have been changed or updated. All the while Games Workshop's focus isn't even limited to AoS or 40K. 

Great as the Blood Bowl, Shadespire and other game releases are they do thake up the attention that otherwise would be put into GW's "main games". I personally don't mind this but it is something to factor in. It's because of that that I personally never focus on one miniature game alone. Especially not if you finished an army for a particular game system. As in many cases one army is more then enough to have per system  

[Thebiggesthat]

14 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I have very little sympathy for people whose desire to beat others at toy soldiers is so consuming that they are willing to spend hundreds of pounds for that reason alone, hobby and fun be damned.

I have even less sympathy for people who complain and throw their toys out of the pram when this attitude bites them in the ass. If you want to gamble money on the fleeting and ephemeral thrill of victory, you go into it with your eyes open.

Not all tournament players are like this, its a lazy generalization. 

I'm a fluffy player, I prefer narrative and would never buy something with the intention of podium-ing a tournament. But there is a world of difference between tweaking a game set to try and re-balance, and lazy and over reactive changes to force a new meta change (with the lovely bonus of all those sales!) Lots of people aren't throwing toys out of prams, but they are a bit pissed that entire armies are now a bit useless, and I think that's fair. 

I'm all for re-balance, I love the GHB. I'm also happy for GW to fix broken stuff, as we've seen with 40k (all those aircraft you bought to cheat the meta? Enjoy the week you get with them!). But I'm less than enthused about a lurching shift every year, just as I'm less that chuffed that we seem to be getting books on books on books. 

I'd recommend going to one of the more narrative or less competitive tournaments by the way, you might change your views on those that go. Have a look at BOBO for example. 

[Carnelian]

2 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@Auticus
Tournament players are not going to be happy at all, most of them were rushing to make their Kunnin Rukk, Overlords and DoT armies, which just got totally nerfed. The meta will only take a big shift once a year, sure, but it will also shift with every new army that comes out. This also only changed the matched play rules, who knows when they will decide to make a core rule update as well.

I disagree I think most tournament players are ecstatic that games workshop are listening and updating points so that they don't play the same broken lists at tournaments time and time again!

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Not all tournament players are like this, its a lazy generalization. 

I'm a fluffy player, I prefer narrative and would never buy something with the intention of podium-ing a tournament. But there is a world of difference between tweaking a game set to try and re-balance, and lazy and over reactive changes to force a new meta change (with the lovely bonus of all those sales!) Lots of people aren't throwing toys out of prams, but they are a bit pissed that entire armies are now a bit useless, and I think that's fair. 

I'm all for re-balance, I love the GHB. I'm also happy for GW to fix broken stuff, as we've seen with 40k (all those aircraft you bought to cheat the meta? Enjoy the week you get with them!). But I'm less than enthused about a lurching shift every year, just as I'm less that chuffed that we seem to be getting books on books on books. 

I'd recommend going to one of the more narrative or less competitive tournaments by the way, you might change your views on those that go. Have a look at BOBO for example. 

I was referring very specifically to the people mentioned in the portion of text I quoted - people who were 'rushing' to build Kunnin' Ruck armies, etc. I didn't mention tournament players. I didn't mention people who are upset that the army they play is now weaker. I didn't generalise at all. I'm talking about a very specific group of people who no doubt know who they are. If you don't fit the description then there's no need for you to be on the defensive.

[Nico]

The Delusions are extremely weak - rerolling 1s to hit is a bad buff - less than 1/6 extra damage and particularly bad on hit rolls of 4+.  It's not even on all the time - making it even weaker. Furthermore there are other reroll hit buffs in the army - so it's duplicative too.

This forces you to take the reroll saves of 1 delusion - which is meh for an army with a core 5+ save army.

This wouldn't be so bad were Feeding Frenzy not so awful. Things that work on a 6 are not something you can plan on and this particular one is only triggered after a fairly infrequent thing happens (compared to say Unforgettable Destruction for Chaos).

Artefacts are materially worse than Cursed Book and Ring.

Really disappointed by FEC as they needed the biggest boost.

[Thebiggesthat]

1 minute ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I was referring very specifically to the people mentioned in the portion of text I quoted - people who were 'rushing' to build Kunnin' Ruck armies, etc. I didn't mention tournament players. I didn't mention people who are upset that the army they play is now weaker. I didn't generalise at all. I'm talking about a very specific group of people who no doubt know who they are. If you don't fit the description then there's no need for you to be on the defensive.

The quote mentioning tournament players as mostly being chase the meta a-holes?

I can assure you I wasn't being defensive. if you can't debate without resorting to 'you are wound up' type replies then I'd advise against quoting me. 

[Keldaur]

To me its the oppossite. As a magic standard player 1 time a year shake up seems like something totally reasonable and fun for the competitive scene, if that's what you are into. Much better than stagnant or power creep meta. If you want to be really competitive, you have to accept that you will be spending money to chase the meta. You can't blame the game itself or GW (for whom i have very little love) for something that happens on every competitive scene.

[Thebiggesthat]

16 minutes ago, Keldaur said:

To me its the oppossite. As a magic standard player 1 time a year shake up seems like something totally reasonable and fun for the competitive scene, if that's what you are into. Much better than stagnant or power creep meta. If you want to be really competitive, you have to accept that you will be spending money to chase the meta. You can't blame the game itself or GW (for whom i have very little love) for something that happens on every competitive scene.

See MtG is a great analogy. 

The rotation policy is great, as it stops stagnation, and they have (and apologies is this isn't completely accurate, I stopped playing about a year ago) slowed down the release/removal time cycle to make it more friendly for new players. And if in the meantime, a combo that ruins the game, or a card that ends up in 90% of all top decks, it's a candidate for ban. Again, great, as it spoils the game a little. And in addition, changes that make some cards that previously average into good, is good for the game as you get players who previously couldn't afford to get the top level suddenly flush with a valuable commodity that they can employ or sell.

But just as people get tired of this swapping about, lots of players got bored of Standard. Modern is a less changing marketplace, cards are cards, you'll have a better, more stable return on investment (unless you get a in deck ban, and dropped 60 quid on some splinter twin action) and it's designed for older, more competitive players. The stink that was kicked up with WotC decided to make the pro tour standard only (again, correct me if I'm wrong, I only saw the reaction from local players) was massive. 

AoS doesn't benefit from a dual system. You can argue Narrative/Matched, but in reality you could boil that down in normal day to day play as 'don't be a ******/be a ****** with list selection. 

 

The moan some have have is that the swing of GHB2017 has hit some more than others. That's fine, but it's not just hitting the bleeding edge, 'buy all the skyfires', types. It'****** some that want a fun game, because you can be friendly as hell, but lining up models to take them off isn't fun. I'd have preferred some softer changes, it all feels a bit knee-****** and (unfortunately, as I'm a GW fan) designed to be a commercial success. And added to this new strategy of pumping all the vocal fan elements with lots of free toys, there doesn't seem much voice to the slightly miffed. You either love it TM, or you are a GW hater and should go and play 9th with all the other bitter elements. 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

The quote mentioning tournament players as mostly being chase the meta a-holes?

I've re-read the quote and you're right. My mistake. As I've said, my post wasn't intended to apply to tournament players, only to the minority of competitive players that think and behave in the particular way I described.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

The Delusions are extremely weak - rerolling 1s to hit is a bad buff - less than 1/6 extra damage and particularly bad on hit rolls of 4+.  It's not even on all the time - making it even weaker. Furthermore there are other reroll hit buffs in the army - so it's duplicative too.

This forces you to take the reroll saves of 1 delusion - which is meh for an army with a core 5+ save army.

This wouldn't be so bad were Feeding Frenzy not so awful. Things that work on a 6 are not something you can plan on and this particular one is only triggered after a fairly infrequent thing happens (compared to say Unforgettable Destruction for Chaos).

Artefacts are materially worse than Cursed Book and Ring.

Really disappointed by FEC as they needed the biggest boost.

If you can pick what you need as before the weakness stops. Which is possible with Commanf Trait. If you deem that weak Id suggest readjusting your lists. There is nothing forcing you into a Delusion unless you choose to. 

Feeding Frenzy can be a nice bonus but is hardly required. If you deem Delusions useless you can alter the effects of Feeding Frenzy too. I wouldnt suggest doing it but you can.

In context I also think both Book and Ring are more powerful because you dont get Delusions and Feeding Frenzy. You can spread power or focus it, FEC is all about spreading.

[Keldaur]

@Thebiggesthat  Yeah, i understand the gripes of the modern players, but brewing or refining decks should be an important part of competitive magic, same as adapting to new match ups, and you would hardly get that going on modern or legacy formats, atleast compared to how often the pros need to on standard, that's why the pro tour change seems reasonable to me. But i play standard because magic is my game to compete choice, and if i only were to think about playing one deck i would be bored in a few months. A living meta is just more fun and better from a competitive standpoint for me. Yes, it is more expensive, but i don't play games to be calculating my ROI. And let's be honest, modern players never stick to just one deck, same as warhammer players rarely stick to only one army for years and years. It is also true that magic gets expansions which are for the most part "mini rotations" since they can make or break decks in their own very often.

About AoS i completely agree, mostly because i don't really take the game competetively, and being a GW game i expect it to be flawed in that department, just take a glance over 40k competitive lists and you will quickly realize how much of the game is played on battlescribe rather than on the table. I understand people might react badly to the GH, but to be honest, when i was into competitively playing 40k, i would had killed for something like this to spice things up from time to time, and i truly believe that if they got things wrong, it's time for feedback, not to overreact. If something can't be played competetively there isn't a problem with the competitive scene since it is done to cribe and get the best of the best going within its own natural selection method, everyone won't fit, the problem is if it can't be played at all which in my experience is very rarely the truth. It is one of my biggest gripes nowadays if something is a 100% and something falls down to 99% it is quickly spotted as worse and not worth it, or even ****** (i don't mean you do think this way OP, and yes i am hyperbolizing a bit). Specially since as you said, you can tone down the lists yourself. 

I don't disagree that order and chaos get too much love on releases compared to death or perhaps destruction, and i truly believe they should work on that. The GHs are band aids and shake ups, but long term they won't fix factions with little or no support,

[Keldaur]

2 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I've re-read the quote and you're right. My mistake. As I've said, my post wasn't intended to apply to tournament players, only to the minority of competitive players that think and behave in the particular way I described.

The way you described is the way a competitive setting works. Optimizing your selections within the current meta you are playing in order to beat other people with their toy soldiers.

It can be done through refining lists or changing lists/factions, aside the obvious play and practice match ups, battleplans. I don't understand what's so prepostorous about it to do moral judgements about whatever percent of the competitive scene who are willing to accept the realities of the competition arms race.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Keldaur said:

The way you described is the way a competitive setting works. Optimizing your selections within the current meta you are playing in order to beat other people with their toy soldiers.

It can be done through refining lists or changing lists/factions. I don't understand what's so prepostorous about it to do moral judgements about whatever percent of the competitive scene who are willing to accept the realities of the competition arms race.

I think I was pretty clear that I dislike the attitudes of people who don't accept the realities of the competitive arms race. See the phrase 'people who complain and throw their toys out of the pram'.

The competitive people who do accept that their money and time may be wasted in pursuit of the fleeting rush of victory, and who take changes to the 'meta' with good humour and grace - they aren't doing any real harm to themselves or anyone else. I'm not talking about those people.

I'm passing judgement on a bad attitude, not on the competitive mindset. Competition can be friendly, healthy and fun. The pay-to-win, WAAC attitude that I've singled out in my earlier post is none of those things - when it becomes a person's sole focus it leads to anger, resentment and misery. Spending hundreds of pounds and hundreds of hours of your life knowing that there's a strong chance you're going to end up feeling that way - yes, that is preposterous. As I said, I have no sympathy for those people when things like the GHB2017 ruin their cynical plans because they're the architects of their own misery. The only smidgen of sympathy I might have is if we compare these people to gambling addicts who throw money away and waste their lives in pursuit of the elusive thrill of victory - and who really wants to defend that as a healthy attitude?

I'll type it out again in bold for the people who don't read things properly - I am NOT having a go at all tournament players.

[Keldaur]

Okeys, apologies.  I missunderstood you entirely.

[AGPO]

Personally I've really enjoyed the two games under GHB'17 I've played so far. For me the open war cards are the best addition, but I also really appreciate the buffs for some of the factions yet to be updated and those that came out prior to BT: Sylvaneth. They may not go as far as we want but it's worth remembering that five years was the standard wait time for any sort of update during WFB, and if that book sucked you were stuck that way for a whole edition.

As far as the nerfs go, I think some (Skyfires, cunning ruck) were definitely needed. I think that if you play at the cutting edge of the meta then you have to accept that your purchases are going to have a shorter shelf life than others as GW introduces new rules or the community develops new tactics to beat you. This is nothing new, but the good news is that GW is now doing this through annual points adjustment rather than power creep or major rules shifts. Whilst certain combinations may no longer be top tier and dominate the top tables at tournaments, no good army has suddenly become poor at any level beneath that. The one fix I really think could have been better handled is battalions. The extra artifact and one drop were underpriced, but they weren't of equal value to every list and battalion. Many fluffy battalions have now been priced out of the game which is a shame. I think the following one line would have fixed this:
 

Quote

Warscroll Battalions and Matched Play:

In matched play, any units from a battalion deployed at the start of the game are set up like any other, rather than in one go. In addition, players do not receive additional artefacts for fielding a battalion.

As long as there is competitive play, gamers will always try to devise an army that swings the balance as much in their favour as possible. The general health of the game requires not that things always be completely balanced, but that most lists should have a chance against one another once deployment is finished. Hard match ups should exist but impossible ones should not. The GHB has done a good job of removing some of the more egregious tactics in this regard, whilst giving everyone else enough new material to keep us in fun games for the next few months whilst we wait for new campaign supplements and battle tomes to land.

[Guest]

Just now, Keldaur said:

Okeys, apologies.  I missunderstood you entirely.

No worries! There's a lot of that going around today! 

[AGPO]

6 minutes ago, Keldaur said:

Okeys, apologies.  I missunderstood you entirely.

Sorry for the double post but this right here is what I love about TGA. In so many other hobby forums I've been on this thread would have already descended into a slagging match, instead several members at various have looked back at contentious posts they made and either clarified or accepted they misconstrued something. It's really refreshing and makes this place a pleasure to read.

[Killax]

I think the essence also is that AoS isnt completely made for competative play to begin with, which in turn means expecting it to fully work out that way remains a moot point.

40K on the other hand, especially 8th edition, seems much more competatively focused. As costs and designs are replicated througout multiple factions. Creating a balance based more on cost, where in AoS I feel its based more on ability. AoS units are typically less akin as 40k units. 

GH2017 in the end brought us a step closer towards balance but balance and competative play are not the same. In fact competative play usually tries to obtain advantages out of unbalanced pieces. Sometimes this means they are too cheap, sometimes this means abilities need to be rewritten altogether.

To me the 'new game' is also not just Gh2017 for the Erratas and Warscroll redesigns actually have the bigger impact. I think this is a great improvement overall. Really there are but a few things I dissagree with in terms of design:

1. I feel Magic spells are still too restricted in the game for a Fantasy game. Summonning is part of this aswell.

2. I feel Battleline is a redundant rule altogether and dont understand why Leader and Behemoth references arnt simply Hero and Monster Keyword related.

3. I feel Allies in this design is a nice concept but not fleshed out well enough (clear enough).

4. I think Battalions are great but ideally not costed but an option to thake once per 2k. Indeed all Factions should then have at least one Battalion.

However those 4 points do not mean I enjoy the game less. In fact I think Gh2017 is a certain upgrade over Gh2016. Because what has been fixed globally is:

1. Clearity on abilities, including stacking and piling in.

2. Cost increase on Battalion means less influence of Battalions altogether which actually improves the game experience.

3. More Allegiances mean more functional armies that feel good to play albeit often with Monster General.

4. Big units promote 'real armies' which again improves how armies look and thus feel to play against.

5. Epic (Monster) Generals feel incredibly awesome and good generally. The small improvements f Artefacts and cost decreases give competative reasons to run great centerpieces. 

[RuneBrush]

5 minutes ago, Killax said:

I feel Battleline is a redundant rule altogether and dont understand why Leader and Behemoth references arnt simply Hero and Monster Keyword related.

Currently you can have non-monster Behemoth's and non-behemoth monsters.  Khorgorath wouldn't make sense to have as a behemoth and an Ironclad the other way round   I think GW has gone out of their way to keep the Pitched Battle keywords separate from warscroll keywords.

[Solaris]

As a competitive player, I am very excited. The GH17 changes have caused a complete shift in meta and builds, which was 100% needed because the game was going stale. In GH16, the power builds were very well established and hadn't changed for months. Resetting this makes the game fresh and interesting again. The fact that some factions took a hit, and that some others were promoted doesn't bug me at all, despite the fact that both my armies were nerfed to hell and beyond - I will still play them casually, paint them occasionally and focus on a new exciting project in tournaments. Armies and builds will fall in and out of favor over time - this is completely necessary for the game not to stagnate and die.

[Arkiham]

6 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

 @Arkiham
The vortex hasn't been nerfed, it was clarified that you cant do something obnoxious to get a monster on top of it.  It can be utilized on any army to take a 18" spell and make it 36" to be damaging units first turn, or to exploit a melee only army by making a wizard invincible. Personally I have not seen it used to terrible effect, and I own one myself - I was just mentioning all the things that many people were looking for in the new GH that weren't delivered. A lot of people hate the vortex and think it should be banned.


 

it costs 100 points..it used to be free, those 100 points can be alot to some armies, even in ones who leave points for summoning they are often used for summoning a unit to capture the objective instead of the balewind.

exploit a melee only who failed to bring a list to deal with a variety of threats ?  well yes you could.   is that down to poor list design or the warscroll? if i take nothing to deal with ranged threats behind a meatwall should all ranged threats then be banned? 

deal damage on the first turn.. what like catapults, skyfires, most long range shooting things, summoning could do if they make the charge, frost tusks, cannons, sayl, alpha strike lists.... seems like a large part of the game that. 

the balewind is strong in a tzeentch army, as that army is kinda designed around spells.

but spells are once per turn, like shooting, but in your hero phase,. unlike shooting you have to be within range first and cant move forward

So most of the time the enemy army has already positioned themselves how they want to be, if you arent within range turn 1, and get doubled turned that'll be 4 combat phases 4! before that squishy wizard can do anything. which they could fail, have dispelled or only do like 1 mortal wound. at least with shooting you can move then shoot before being doubled turned. and the enemy cant stop that, 

[Solaris]

16 minutes ago, Auticus said:

However if every faction was competitively viable there wouldn't be such a rush to stagnation from seeing only the same four or five builds for an entire year.  

Things get stagnant and stale because in a competitive standpoint, 90-95% of the game is not really viable and you'll rarely see it.

Of course. However, I do think keeping every faction competitively viable at all times is very hard, verging on impossible. In any game, competition will condense into a subset of optimized builds with time. This can be offset by new releases, point adjustments, scenario updates and rule adjustments. Hopefully with GH17, the number of viable builds and units will be higher than with GH16. Either way, this road to discovery is exciting to me, and I couldn't care less that certain units were buffed or nerfed.

[chord]

For me AOS seems to work best when you scrap all allegiance abilities, etc.   You can still play with points (to "balance")  but not abilities or artifacts and seems to put armies on more even ground.   

I'm not a fan of any of the matched play battleplans in GHB2017 ,  they seem to push players into playing a certain way.  

I recommend trying a few games without any allegiance abilities or artifacts, seems to be a lot more fun IMO

 

[wayniac]

I feel almost the same.  In my area AOS was dwindling before (it basically died on the vine the moment 8th edition came out), and GH2017 didn't change anything around here.  It was an interesting book, and I like it, but it didn't really do much for the game in my experience.  People are still salty that they didn't change the spammy shooting meta, people are salty that they "nerfed" all battalions, and I as a FEC player feel it didn't do much for my army beyond giving some mediocre abilities and relics, but didn't address any of the major issues with the army.

I wish I could say I'm still excited for AOS, but right now I'm not

[Solaris]

5 minutes ago, wayniac said:

People are still salty that they didn't change the spammy shooting meta, people are salty that they "nerfed" all battalions, and I as a FEC player feel it didn't do much for my army beyond giving some mediocre abilities and relics, but didn't address any of the major issues with the army.

How did it not change the spammy shooting meta, which op shooty builds weren't nerfed? How is it a bad thing that battalions are no longer an auto include for everyone that has access to them?