GHB 2017 Points changes

[Dan.Ford]

Death as whole need a look at.

 

[#SteveJames]

So two thing that should definitely go up are Sky fires and Endrinrigger. 

Other thing can be sorted out with a few Warscroll tweaks if the Hurricanum only affected "free guild"  or "humans"  Kurnoth hunters wouldn't as good in mixed order. They are fine in Sythaneth alligience army as Sythaneth don't have many option / elite troops. 

Another rule of one that stopped the same named ability stacking would be a good balance.  I agree that not all ability stacking is broken, but it would be easier to stop them all than rewrite Warscrolls to single certain ones out. 

[#SteveJames]

On 29/06/2017 at 10:15 AM, shadowgra said:

imho things that should go up:

skyfires (obvious)

kurnoth hunters

thunderers

khemist if no rule of 1 hits him

guys with baloon of KO (the op ones)

bloodsecretor

skullreapers (to be in line with other 3w 4+ elite melee units)

lord celestant on dracoth (come on, with staunch he is just too good)

fulminators (only by a few points, to bring them in line with other dracothian)

judicators?

relictor imho should be 100

kunnin rukk to at least 120 (if not changing warscroll)

arrow boyz

stonehorn (huskard and frostlord)

thundertusk (huskard and beastriders)

stormfiends

sayl

neferata

VLOAT

skinks

 

things that should go down

Durthu

treelord (normal)

tree revenants, spite revenants and driads

tzaangor by 20 points

kairic by a lot

frigade

bloodcrushers

vanguard hunters

celestant prime

mournfang cavalry

screaming bell

verminlord warpseer and skreech

mannfred and arkhan

morghast harbingers (the guys with 2 swords)

blood knights and vargheists

glottkin

lord of plagues

orghotts

plagueclaw catapult

verminlord corruptor

everything in the STD range cause it sucks (beside warriors and marauders)

gore gruntaz

maw crushas

monsters of chaos

gutbusters in general beside ogors

temple guards

stegadon

kroak

bastiladon by an inch

rypper (for not having rend they are too expensive)

 

probably forgot a lot but for my experience these are changes that i would really appreciate

 

Agree with most of this however not sure on the Secrator he takes up a hero slot and most games doesn't get to move(unless you are using Goretide). KBB are good but no where near over powered.

[shadowgra]

The problem with the bloodsecretor is, apart from the stacking buff, that it works on daemons too, transforming bloodletters in killing machines. However will be a small increase for me 10 or 20 points, not more and fan eventi stay there if they remove the stacking.

[#SteveJames]

Have a suspicion that there won't be stacking in GHB 2017 as it can be open to abuse. The Warscroll for Blood Secrator in the BOK book and on the App have be reworded so they no longer stack. 

[Aginor]

My personal point cost change list is rather short, only applying to the armies I know halfway well:

 

Point increase:

Kurnoth Hunters to 200 or 220
Saurus guard to 120 but get another wound each and a 5+ save against mortal wounds
one or two Stormcast units, especially the Knight Venator should be up to 140 at least and the Lord Relictor to 100 or 120
a few Khorne Heroes should become more expensive , especially the Bloodsecrator
some Deathrattle stuff should become cheaper.

 

Point decrease:

Tree Revenants 20 points cheaper or so
Saurus Warriors to 80
Saurus Knights to 100
Astrolith Bearer to 120
Kroak to 400 (or better: Give him some useful spells then he can stay at 500)
Bastiladon to 280
Some Greenskinz units should become cheaper, especially chariots. But you could reduce most of them by 20 points to make them viable.
Jungle Swarms WAY chaper because they suck. But they are such a fun unit!

 

Also Ardboyz become Destruction battleline and Gargants don't break any allegiance, becoming Destruction "wildcard".

And PLEASE GW don't drop the compendium units. Let me use the Skink Chief and let the Brettonians and other use their old stuff.
....really. Don't. I would hate to see the "purge all resin" from the skirmish rules continue.

[Tiger]

Venator and Relictor are too cheap? Hmm...

[Aginor]

57 minutes ago, Tiger said:

Venator and Relictor are too cheap? Hmm...

Well, or you could turn it around and say heroes of some armies are extremely too expensive. either way, if you just compare their values it strikes me as odd if you look at it:

- 12" flying move
- 3+ save
- 5 wounds
- three 30" ranged attacks:  2+/3+/-1/1
- another three 30" ranged attacks, 4+/3+/-/1, Rend -3  (minus three!!) on a 6
- and five melee attacks that are 3/4/-/1
- AND a one-time attack that may isntant-snipe almost any hero

is at 120, points actually cheaper than an Orruk Warboss or an Eternity Warden. So maybe those two should be 100 instead of 140, but there's something very wrong there.

EDIT: A bit more perspective: That guy's average damage (again, 30", which is only exceeded by artillery) is nearly on par with a Bastiladon, but he has 10" more range, more than double the move, the same save, and can fly. Ok he has three less wounds and doesn't ignore half of the mortal wounds he receives, but he is less than half the point cost. So what would you take:
A: Two Knight Venators AND a Lord-Relictor,   OR
B: A single Bastiladon which is roughly same price?

 

EDIT: To clarify: I am not a hater, I actually like SCE, but there are very few armies that can compete with them, that either means they should be more expensive or the other ones should finally receive something that makes them better, which may either be cheaper point costs or better values on their warscrolls.
As a Seraphon player I notice we may lack power (very seldom seen winning against SCE, Ironjaws, FEC, Khorne, Tzeentch, Nighthaunt with Mournguls or Sylvaneth), but at least we are versatile enough to be a pain in the behind of a top tier army. Now and then. But others have it far worse.

 

EDIT: As for the Relictor, let's see:

Compared to a Skink Starpriest
- 1 wound more
- 3+ save compared to 5+
- half the move.
- One attack more, also 3+/3+/-1/1 instead of the Skink's  3+/4+/-1/1
- His ability is practically the same as the Skink's spell. It just cannot be unbound and always does the d3 damage, not only against chaos demons. He can also heal if he wishes. Only downside is 12" range instead of 20"

--> he is 20 points cheaper??

[wayniac]

I think at this point we are not looking at any updated warscrolls as unfortunate as it may be, only points changes.

[13on2D6]

22 hours ago, Jamopower said:

(Not related to above.)

 

So, squigs are clearly undercosted then?

 

Them squigs are pure filth! Real filth list that needs adjusted dramatically!

[SuperHappyTime]

I'd like to see GHB come out with the 8th Ed 40K way of doing things, with complex points and power level.

[wayniac]

30 minutes ago, SuperHappyTime said:

I'd like to see GHB come out with the 8th Ed 40K way of doing things, with complex points and power level.

Me too, but will likely never happen (not until at least GHB 2018 or later) as GW seems dead set on having a Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced playstyle with AOS/40k/30k

[shadowgra]

I am fine with point changes for seraphon, but 40 points more for double the wounds and a 5+ against mortale is pure madness. They should cost way much more because with a 2+/5++ 2 w and with battalions and rerolls they would be disgusting

[gummyofallbears]

I'm a bit worried about wyldwoods costing points, they are the basis for the sylvaneth, they provide their durability, mobility, and a good amount of all their mortal wound output, if wyldwoods end up costing points, depending on how many points could absolutely ruin Sylvaneth's viability, I would rather there be a set limit of wyldwoods somebody could place for free, IE: keep the free wyldwood at the start of the game, and maybe like 2 more for free. 

[Gotrek]

On 7/2/2017 at 11:04 AM, Trout said:

It doesn't have to involve any math whatsoever. I described it that way so you would understand the reasoning, but the book wouldn't describe it that way. It would add a column for "Faction cost" to every entry, if it's in your faction you pay the faction cost, if it isn't you pay the regular cost listed right next to it. For determining allegiance you say "if more than half of the total point value of your army shares an allegiance keyword you may choose that allegiance" or something similar.

 

Under the hood all of the systems are pure math. You dont have to present it that way to players.

 

The beauty of this system is that it deals with exactly the problem you're talking about in terms of the hurricanum and other units. It makes them more expensive for anyone who isn't playing that faction. If there are particularly problematic units, now that their points cost for faction members and non faction members are split up, you have a scalpel with which to make finer adjustments to the point cost of a unit without hurting their faction.

It doesnt fix mixed alliances, it makes the problem worse because under your system you can take a hurricanum while maintaining allegiance abilities. Sure the hurricanum might cost 20 or 40 more points but that is a tiny tiny tax to maintain SCE deepstrike or KO code abilities.

[wayniac]

2 hours ago, gummyofallbears said:

I'm a bit worried about wyldwoods costing points, they are the basis for the sylvaneth, they provide their durability, mobility, and a good amount of all their mortal wound output, if wyldwoods end up costing points, depending on how many points could absolutely ruin Sylvaneth's viability, I would rather there be a set limit of wyldwoods somebody could place for free, IE: keep the free wyldwood at the start of the game, and maybe like 2 more for free. 

TBH I think the first one is fine, but being able to summon an infinite (space being the only limiting factor) is a bit OP, especially since they can consist of up to 3 pieces of terrain; that's a lot of area that can be filled with something that's detrimental to your opponent and beneficial to the Sylvaneth player for no cost at all.  Especially since they have ways to do mortal wounds if you cast a spell near them, plus the "die on a 1" for running/charging through them, plus on top of that preventing monsters/large bases from sometimes going into them, plus all the teleporting.

[gummyofallbears]

1 minute ago, wayniac said:

TBH I think the first one is fine, but being able to summon an infinite (space being the only limiting factor) is a bit OP, especially since they can consist of up to 3 pieces of terrain; that's a lot of area that can be filled with something that's detrimental to your opponent and beneficial to the Sylvaneth player for no cost at all.  Especially since they have ways to do mortal wounds if you cast a spell near them, plus the "die on a 1" for running/charging through them, plus on top of that preventing monsters/large bases from sometimes going into them, plus all the teleporting.

Again, the balance depends on the price. Usually you can't get more than two down because of terrain limitations (all off the woods have to be within an inch of each other, and not within an inch of other terrain) if you can get 3 bases down you aren't playing with enough terrain. I usually place two centrally, and then generate one or two more throughout the course of the game. Sylvaneth lists already have low model counts (usually, unless you spam dryads but that's not a good strategy), if I had to pay 20 for a base, I'd be okay with that, one for free and then I'd reserve 40 points to keep my army mobile, but if they were really any bit more and I feel that Sylvaneth would be very difficult to play.

[BURF1]

13 hours ago, Aginor said:

Well, or you could turn it around and say heroes of some armies are extremely too expensive. either way, if you just compare their values it strikes me as odd if you look at it:

- 12" flying move
- 3+ save
- 5 wounds
- three 30" ranged attacks:  2+/3+/-1/1
- another three 30" ranged attacks, 4+/3+/-/1, Rend -3  (minus three!!) on a 6
- and five melee attacks that are 3/4/-/1
- AND a one-time attack that may isntant-snipe almost any hero

is at 120, points actually cheaper than an Orruk Warboss or an Eternity Warden. So maybe those two should be 100 instead of 140, but there's something very wrong there.

EDIT: A bit more perspective: That guy's average damage (again, 30", which is only exceeded by artillery) is nearly on par with a Bastiladon, but he has 10" more range, more than double the move, the same save, and can fly. Ok he has three less wounds and doesn't ignore half of the mortal wounds he receives, but he is less than half the point cost. So what would you take:
A: Two Knight Venators AND a Lord-Relictor,   OR
B: A single Bastiladon which is roughly same price?

 

EDIT: To clarify: I am not a hater, I actually like SCE, but there are very few armies that can compete with them, that either means they should be more expensive or the other ones should finally receive something that makes them better, which may either be cheaper point costs or better values on their warscrolls.
As a Seraphon player I notice we may lack power (very seldom seen winning against SCE, Ironjaws, FEC, Khorne, Tzeentch, Nighthaunt with Mournguls or Sylvaneth), but at least we are versatile enough to be a pain in the behind of a top tier army. Now and then. But others have it far worse.

 

EDIT: As for the Relictor, let's see:

Compared to a Skink Starpriest
- 1 wound more
- 3+ save compared to 5+
- half the move.
- One attack more, also 3+/3+/-1/1 instead of the Skink's  3+/4+/-1/1
- His ability is practically the same as the Skink's spell. It just cannot be unbound and always does the d3 damage, not only against chaos demons. He can also heal if he wishes. Only downside is 12" range instead of 20"

--> he is 20 points cheaper??

Comparing things to Seraphon isn't really fair. They're pretty much the most overcosted army in the game, they get by on the fact that their unit synergies actually work. And most of the competitive armies compete with stormcasts, any army with even moderate mortal wound output will chew through a stormcast army fairly easily.

[someone2040]

12 hours ago, SuperHappyTime said:

I'd like to see GHB come out with the 8th Ed 40K way of doing things, with complex points and power level.

I actually... disagree.

Age of Sigmar's level of customisation is pretty slim compared to 40k's. I mean, most options on a warscroll boil down to - Choose weapon armanent for the entire unit, a few select models can use a special weapon (Of which, there's usually only one choice). Usually the units weapon options are largely meant to be pretty equivalent, although meta may drive things one way or the other.

Additionally, our heroes can very barely be customised compared to 40k where they have pretty large customisation options.

So I don't think complex points are necessary.

 

What I would like to see is finer grained power points. Definitely interested in seeing increments of 10 become more common. Additionally, I would like to see (although I doubt we will) being able to give units additional models at a different increment than the minimum unit size and at a different points.

e.g

Skeleton Warriors. Min Unit 10, Initial Cost 80. May take additional unit increments of 5 models for 50 points up to a maximum of 40 models in the unit.

Moonclan Grots. Min unit 20, Initial cost 120. May take additional unit increments of 10 models for 70 points up to a maximum of 60 models in the unit.

Fulminators. Min unit 2. Initial cost 240. May take additional unit increments of 1 model for 120 points up to a maximum of 12 models in the unit.

I think this would go a long way to balancing out the weirdness that exists in that some units. I mean, why do you need to increment Moonclan Grots in 20's, while Clanrats get to increment in 10's? Why do Grave Guard get to increment in 5's while all the other elite infantry need to do so in 10's? If I buy a box of Dracoth Cavalry and want to build one as a Lord Celestant on Dracoth, I've got a spare Dracoth that can't be used.

The other thing separating increments and min unit size/cost does, is it means you can appropriately cost units that get better as they grow. A min sized unit of Skeleton warriors can be cheaper, but the increments can be more expensive to make up for the fact you'll be getting bonuses with them.

 

So yeah. I don't think I really want to get back down to figuring out whether I want to add 1 model to a unit, or equipt them with a certain special weapon or not to squeeze points. I'd prefer to keep the 'power levels' approach, but perhaps with a bit more granularity (even if it is a slippery slope).

Maybe a better 'first year' approach would be for GW to just fix inconsistencies in minimum unit sizes (Maybe even horde units should start at 10).

[Aginor]

4 hours ago, BURF1 said:

Comparing things to Seraphon isn't really fair. They're pretty much the most overcosted army in the game, they get by on the fact that their unit synergies actually work. And most of the competitive armies compete with stormcasts, any army with even moderate mortal wound output will chew through a stormcast army fairly easily.

Ok I really wanted to make a snarky reply now, but.... I think you are right.

There are others that have it just as bad if not worse though IMO. Deathrattle comes to mind.

We just have to face it, there are about three tiers of armies right now:
"Top tier armies" which are (one or two give or take, it is hard to draw the lines):
Stormcast, Sylvaneth, Ironjawz, Flesh Eater Courts, Beastclaw Raiders, Kharadron Overlords, Khorne and Tzeentch

"Mid-level armies" who can challenge them with some builds but will either require a good player or a very specific build to win (like Darren's Kroak build or the squigs build that won heat3 just now). Those are:
Seraphon, Nighthaunt, Moonclan, Skaven Pestilens, Nurgle, Wanderers and a few others.

"Low-level/complementary armies": All of the rest. There are some that are just weak (dunno which ones are the worst, Brayherd or so maybe), and there are some that have so few units that they can only work in combinations (Collegiate Arcane).

The low ones can beat middle ones the same way middle ones can beat the top ones. A kind of balance exists between armies of the same tier so we should compare those armies with each other and not with some of other tiers.

So my comparison was really a bit unfair I guess. Stormcast are probably fine compared with their peers.

What I would like to have is that more kinds of armies or builds are viable. I know that is a hard task but I think that especially tournaments and communities like this one could help GW with it. I am biased because I play Seraphon, but I am pretty sure there are non-Seraphon-fanboys who will be able to tell you right off the bat what works in that army and what doesn't. In the meantime I hope for GW to change at least the points of some units to help with that.

[Nico]

Ironjawz are plainly a high tier 3/low tier 2 army. They are very predictable and have negligible shooting (notwithstanding that they had a good showing at Heat 3).

Flesh Eater Courts are a tier 3 army. Again the lack of shooting and the lack of rend in the units (e.g. Horrors lacking rend) are big problems.

[shadowgra]

Also flayers only doing 1 damage is so bad.

However we all agree that there are enormous problems right now with balance of the tier 1-S armies opposing to some others that almost never win a game unless they bring the most competitive list they have

[Aginor]

11 minutes ago, Nico said:

Ironjawz are plainly a high tier 3/low tier 2 army. They are very predictable and have negligible shooting (notwithstanding that they had a good showing at Heat 3).

Flesh Eater Courts are a tier 3 army. Again the lack of shooting and the lack of rend in the units (e.g. Horrors lacking rend) are big problems.

 

It is hard for me to really judge the game as a whole (becasue of limited experience, I absolutely admit that), but I have played quite some games against Ironjawz now and from my point of view they indeed have their problems because of their lack of versatility. I have a few builds that beat them pretty reliably. But I think it is more of a stone, paper, scissors effect there. If I play shooting and/or Shadowstrike I win. If I play anything else I most likely lose.

Overall I think those guys are pretty strong. They don't rely too much on synergies, all of them have a good save and many wounds, they get a good move using Rampaging Destroyers and they do tons of damage in melee. Lack of ranged combat is pretty much their only weakness. I am pretty sure they can roll over a lot of armies (and tournaments seem to confirm it, Ironjawz lists are present in the top20 results of most tournaments IIRC). Granted, they are no Stormcasts and no Skyfire Tzeentch, but they can do terrible damage to the lower tier armies. If you are in melee with them you are basically dead.

FEC have a rather new-ish Battletome and have at least some sources of mortal wounds IIRC. I think combined with their regeneration that is what sets them apart from the low tiers. IMO the reason why they aren't winning all the time (additional to the ones you mentioned) is that their regeneration doesn't help against really hard-hitting armies (like Ironjawz or Stormcast), but if you look at other forums (or forums sections) you notice quite a few threads saying "HELP FEC are murdering me" while seldom encountering "Help, Deathrattle and Seraphon are murdering me".

But you are right, top tier might be a stretch. I shall call them tier 2 in the future I guess.

[Nico]

Quote

FEC have a rather new-ish Battletome and have at least some sources of mortal wounds IIRC. I think combined with their regeneration that is what sets them apart from the low tiers. IMO the reason why they aren't winning all the time (additional to the ones you mentioned) is that their regeneration doesn't help against really hard-hitting armies (like Ironjawz or Stormcast), but if you look at other forums (or forums sections) you notice quite a few threads saying "HELP FEC are murdering me" while seldom encountering "Help, Deathrattle and Seraphon are murdering me".

In the current meta, the single drop or low drop pew pew army takes turn one and deletes all the courtiers turn one (subject to line of sight blocking terrain). If FEC get the double turn, then they have a chance, but otherwise not looking good.

[wayniac]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

In the current meta, the single drop or low drop pew pew army takes turn one and deletes all the courtiers turn one (subject to line of sight blocking terrain). If FEC get the double turn, then they have a chance, but otherwise not looking good.

I play pure FEC and this is my experience too.  Anything with shooting takes one turn, kills all the courtiers, then the army is a bunch of paper thin mooks who die to a stiff breeze.  I'd certainly not consider them Tier 1, or even Tier 2 (maybe if you take a Mournghoul or two), but I'm also far from a good player with mine.