GHB 2017 Points changes

[Sleboda]

Re: spreadsheet power levels.

Nor do they factor in key things like holding objectives, getting into a specific zone on the board, or other ways to win other than killing.

Damage output ("power") is important, but not all.

[Sleboda]

2 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Thats pretty much competitive play-101.   I did it for ten years and had great success.

Like I said, you have evidence.  It is just sad (as in not-happy as opposed to pathetic) to think of the amount of joy that has to be systematically drained away from the game for that mentallity to become a norm.

[Sleboda]

Auticus, come to Butthead. Get a hug.

[BunkhouseBuster]

50 minutes ago, Terry Pike said:

You don't need Sayl to make them good, he just makes anything with low movement strong in mixed chaos. They are strong on there own, throw a couple of buffs on them and they become one of the strongest combat units in the game. High bravery, rend, mortal wounds, good hit/wound roll, models can come back, synergies VERY well with chaos buffing

And those buffs are what (IMHO) are the ones to be modified in points costs, because sometimes those buffing units and models can work on other types of models and multiple units, like a Bloodsecrator.  In any case, it is dagerous ground to tread, and needs to be handled with care.

Or just play without points and figure your games out with your opponents.  I'm starting to lean in that direction anymore.

 

[wayniac]

47 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

Or just play without points and figure your games out with your opponents.  I'm starting to lean in that direction anymore.

WAY easier said than done, unfortunately.  There are woefully few people who will try to eyeball balance.

[BunkhouseBuster]

2 minutes ago, wayniac said:

WAY easier said than done, unfortunately.  There are woefully few people who will try to eyeball balance.

Because effort is hard, I know.  Sigh....

How do historical wargamers do it?  Trick question!  With not near as many people playing historical games, obviously the need for perceived "balance" is necessary for most people.

[Sleboda]

46 minutes ago, wayniac said:

WAY easier said than done, unfortunately.  There are woefully few people who will try to eyeball balance.

Actually, as I've said here and there,  our group had zero difficulty with it.  Not one single bad game just eyeballing it.

[Mirage8112]

8 hours ago, KnightFire said:

That isn't true at all, there are some armies that only do one thing (and may or may not do it well). For example you can't really build a shooting ironjawz army. The game is designed to have that rock paper scisors aspect to it (as discussed by Jervis in some of his podcast and WHTV appearances). 

But the concept of rock-paper-scisors isn't actually so much about being all of one thing, its about the concept that A beats B, B beats C, C beads D, and D beats A. In this case, a combined arms (bit of everything) army is still in the rock paper scisors equiation, it will beat some things and not others.

You're confusing the forest with the trees. Units are designed with a rock-scissors-paper system in mind; Cavalry beats infantry, infantry beats monsters, monsters beat cavalry (an overgeneralization, but the basic idea is there.)  Armies are a collection of units designed to operate on the table as a cohesive force. Often within a codex you'll have units that have designated roles. Monster killers, anti-infantry, ranged magic users ect ect. Every unit in the game has a counter. But since armies are a collection of units, there's only a "rock-paper-scissors army" if you pull all your troops from one particular side of that triangle.    

Furthermore, most units in the game have primary and secondary roles. Some units can be good at clearing low-mid level troops, but can also tank damage moderately well (not as well as a unit designed to operate as an anvil, but well enough that they can hold something up for a turn or two.) That means even when you have an army focused primary on one thing, you can sometimes shuffle things around if you find yourself up against a hard counter. 

But on the flip side, you don't have to. I often write diverse army lists with units that are capable of taking on multiple roles. That way I have a little rock, a little paper and little scissors. In terms of army design I haven't really run across a hard counter in most of my games (I play Sylvaneth, DioT, Slaves to darkness, and wanderers. Though my Sylvaneth army is really the only one that is tourney ready.)       

 

5 hours ago, Auticus said:

The vast majority of lists that I see on the regular are rock/paper/scissors lists.  I can count on one hand the number of lists that have all elements in them since 2010 that I've encountered.  

that is how players game the game.  They max out on the element that they figure hard counters what they should expect to see.

That is how some players play the game, certainly. I don't have much of a problem with them myself. So it doesn't bother me. Reading your posts, it sounds like your style of play is getting you consistently rolled. Rather than changing your approach it sounds you've just determined that the game is broken. That's what I meant by non-sequiter. Just because you have a trouble with a particular play style does not mean that the game is inherently broken. Kunnin' Rukk' is beatable. Very much so. It's a tough match-up certainly but it's not invincible by any means. I appreciate your not willing to change how you approach the game, and on some level I think it's a principled stand. But lets not pretend that the entire problem is with the game design and that you're the unwilling victim in this scenario. 

 

5 hours ago, Auticus said:

How can it be that there were a number of fan comps that got the game to pretty close but the ghb version cannot?  I'm not even discussing mine.  

The points costs are about 80% fine.  And 20% garbage.  The hot garbage is what ruins the remaining 80%.  

I was never really impressed with any of the comps before, nor really do I have too many feelings about the points costs in the GHB. I really enjoyed open play when things were balanced by model count. I really only had one game where I got rolled and it was very early on when I was still getting used to the mechanics. 

For the most part I think things are pointed just fine. I certainly think there are a few units that could use a reduction, and few armies that could use some support (Grand Alliance death really springs to mind. As do the battletomes that were released pre-sylvaneth).  I have a pretty good idea of what's across from me and am usually able to field something that can compete. Even my default "good to go" Sylvaneth list is perfectly able to stand toe to toe with just about anything in the game right now (and it's not even a hunter spam list). 

 

5 hours ago, Auticus said:

And then you have kunnin rukk and skyfires which have 200% synergy because they are operating at a point level much higher than their actual cost.  Those elements being busted have nothing to do with synergy or learning how to synergize and everythign to do with "lol wut?  240 shots a turn for how much? "

The thing is - for list building to be a thing, you cannot have balance, because if you had the level of balance that I want there would be no point in spreadsheeting.  Spreadsheeting is all about finding the bad balance and taking advantage of it.  

What some consider "being a good player".  

Goodness. Salty much? 

All of that I just see as hyperbole. Either that or it reflects you experience as player, which I certainly don't share. Kunnin' Rukk is largely a one-trick pony that largely falls apart if the boss dies. It sounds from the content of your other posts that you play in meta that ranks raw damage output as the only criteria for selecting units.

I've just got to say, (and I'm not trying to be snarky). If your lists are badly designed, you're gonna have a bad time. You seem to think that spreadsheeting for damage is the only way to win against these lists (since its apparently how the lists are designed), but I can tell you from experience that sacrificing damage for a little movement and utility go a long way in countering some of the harder builds.

 

4 hours ago, Auticus said:

www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx

HA! this guy? I remember when he was putting this list together on the AoS Facebook page. We had a long discussion about his ranking system. Personally, I think it's bollocks. (I can't take any scoring method seriously that gives the Celestial Hurricanum an F for efficiency.) I've had C and D class units take out A- and A units just by careful positioning to limit ranges, pile-in's taking advantage of terrain ect. And all of that before buffs. Raw damage output is not the only stat that matters in this game. It's important, but it's probably the easiest variable to account for and mitigate. 

While I appreciate your frustration, and totally get where your coming from, I think there is a strong disconnect between our experiences of the game.
 

I think 3/4 of it has to do with the way we build our armies. We're both legacy players who've spent some time in competitive environments, but min-maxing in WHFB was drastically different than AoS, and army selection in general is worlds away. In fact it's been my experience that Min-maxing in AoS is almost pointless, since troops are bought in blocks, weapon options aren't costed, and for the most part you have access to a wide variety of units. Certainly I spreadsheet to see what weapons are good at what, but it's really only to figure out how things can be expected to work on the tabletop (you wouldn't just buy a random tool at home depot without knowing what it's for or what it's best at doing).  

The other 1/4 is that you're playing with players who don't respect your view of the game (As thoughtful as I am about constructing lists, I'm also keenly aware if my opponent is having fun. Unless it's tournament. Then I don't care lol) So for that, I'm sorry. 

But I might re-state a point I made earlier, that whatever the reasons for your position, a repointing won't make too much of a difference in your experience. Even if skyfires went up as high as 250, you'd still see groups of 9 on the tabletop. Because they are good at what they do, and since what they do isn't changing you will likely still have difficulty with them. Even if Kunnin Rukk doubled in points, you'd still see the same 40 model blocks in games and you'll still have to deal with those 240 shots on the table. It would take an unthinkably drastic change to the game to prevent those two builds from hitting the tables anytime soon. 

As @swarmofseals pointed out there are definitely some things that could use a buff and/or some design love. I'm not saying that everything is perfect. but personally I think the problems your experiencing are a product of something other than unit point costs. As such, even with the upcoming point changes I'm afraid your problems will remain just that: yours. 


 

[Gotrek]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

As I've asked the other twenty or so people that said Kunnin Rukk is easily beatable, please post a report of how that is done, that way it can be put to bed and no one has to discuss it any longer since there will be a visible way to counter it...<snip>

From my understanding,  killing the boss will shut down that entire formation. So the easy answer is use artillery (available to every GA. Though death's is a legacy scroll and relatively weak with rend 1). If you want something more concrete for your specific alliance would you mind telling me what army youre playing? 

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

Historical wargamers are in my neck of the woods tiny in size and none of them care so much about who won (they aren't competitive gamers), so imbalances are tolerated a lot more than in the mainstream wargaming community.

This jogged a memory.

When I was in the sales dept at GW USA, our boss once told us that we would one day produce historical games, but "not until all the beardies had died off."  The idea was that GW at the time didn't want old, crusty, stuck in the mud, curmudgeons in the hobby.

Funny enough, years later, GW actively tried to kill off the beardie segment of their customer base (Warhammer players) by killing the world, the game, and points.  AoS came out and felt like how historical games were (open/narrative) without the beardies.

Now they have actively drawn back in the customers they hated by neutering was a effectively their historical game concept.

Just strikes me as ironically humorous.

BTW, I was a beardie.  I wanted total balance. Points that were universal.  One way to play.  To heck with scenarios.  All that.  I was part of the problem.

 

Also, @Mirage8112 - personal peeve - We don't have codexes in AoS.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

The easy answer to any powergaming list is simply "git gud".  I know.  I used to use it on people all the time when I was running git gud lists.  

The only times trying to get better as a player (a less judgmental/loaded way to put it) failed me were with old Tomb Kings against Chaos Dwarfs, Ogres with the Hellheart, or Dark Elves with Warlocks.  Especially the Chaos Dwarfs.  Dozens of games, and the only improvement was to die to the man in three turns instead of one turn.

 

In every other instance, I have managed to get to at least a 50/50 record.  It's not something you just "use on people." It's something that is true for folks willing to look inward.

[Mirage8112]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Right.

Git Gud.

Gotcha.

Not at all what I said. But if that's how you want to read it; be my guest. 

 

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

As I've asked the other twenty or so people that said Kunnin Rukk is easily beatable, please post a report of how that is done, that way it can be put to bed and no one has to discuss it any longer since there will be a visible way to counter it.

You should check out the "Let's chat Disciples of Tzneetch thread". I had a 6 page discussion with another poster about this very same subject. And before you ask: no. The strategy I was proposing wasn't "bring moar skyfyres." We've had numerous long discussions about Kunnin Rukk (and triple husk tusks) in the Let's chat Sylvaneth thread. We've been having these discussions for nearly a year now. The info is there and as such I'm not inclined to repeat myself. 

But, the basic strategy for dealing with kunnin rukk is fairly straight forward: kill the boss and then worry about the rest of the army. If he hides, you need something to counter that. There are plenty of options. I can't speak from experience for Death or Destruction, since I don't own an army from either grand alliance. But order and chaos have plenty of tools capable of surgically removing the lynchpin of that list. 
 

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

The easy answer to any powergaming list is simply "git gud".  I know.  I used to use it on people all the time when I was running git gud lists.

No it's not. Pointing out that your list is garbage doesn't mean you have to bring the new hotness, or the list that won the most recent tournament. It means your list is just garbage. Bringing 2k points of nothing but night goblins might be super fun and fluffy, but when the list gets rolled by a list with diversity the response is not "I should have brought a netlist" the response is "maybe I need something other than night goblins."
 

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

While Skyfires at 250 points for 3 wouldn't stop people running 9 of them, it would certainly make the rest of their army smaller and thus overall it would be a lot more in line with other armies.  Things are a bit different when you are fighting two or three units as opposed to six or seven units when one of those is fighting well above what you pay for it in points cost.

That's what you hope will happen. But speaking from experience, if your opponents are tabling you before the last turn, and the battles are as one-sided as you say, an extra 90 pts per 3 probably won't make a difference. Especially considering units like karic acolytes will likely get a reduction (if the math hammerers are right about their cost to usefulness ratio) and units across the entire range will be repointed. That means while the Skyfire cost is noticeably higher, the army cost will be roughly the same. Your fluffy army may see point increases too, which means the tabletop will look mostly the same by turn 5.

10 guys trying to move a rock one at a time (an unoptimized list) will never ever move a rock faster than 10 guys working together for a single purpose (an optimized list). Sorry. That's just physics.

 

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Min/maxing in WHFB, where I consistently did well at, was about exploiting both undercost units AND bad rules such as fear/autobreak.  

AOS is more a dice game than WHFB was.  Min/Maxing AOS is about finding the units that over perform for their points cost and maxing them out.

Or to boil it down... if I have 10 models that kill you on a 3+, and you have 10 models that kill me on a 5+, I'm going to likely win that game.  Gittin Gud with AOS is about finding those 10 models that kill your opponent on a 3+ or a 2+.  The game is only close and good when your opponent is also using those same type of models.  

Again with the damage being the only stat that counts. "Gitten Gud" as you call it is about trying to bring the units that put out the most damage with the least cost. Generalship is knowing how to create situations where your opponent's supposed strengths aren't a help to him. Learning how to do that rather than relying on mathhammer is how you make units that "aren't as good" really, really good. Usefulness and effectiveness are all about context. 

Maybe you play your games on planet bowing ball and have a gentleman's agreement that units should all fight out in the open one unit on one unit. If that were the case I would see why you're having trouble. But is doubt that's the case. It really sounds like you've just come across something you can't beat using the tools you have and rather than adjust or improve just enough to make the game playable you're just throwing your hands up in the air, declaring the game "broken", and throwing shade at anybody who suggests that the problem might not be 100% GW's. I like you. I think your a smart guy. But your starting to sound more and more like the kid who can't pass Calculus and just refuses to study. 

 

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Thats not because I fail to grasp how to git gud at AOS, that is because I want to have a fun game where I don't have to collect models I have no interest in just so I can have a good game because a large swathe of the game is unplayable when you pit up against a git gud list.

I like oreos. I like them a lot. They're great pretty much any time of day. But I'm not going to try to build a house out of them. If I did, I would do it for a lark and not something that was intended to be a permanent domicile. Moreover, if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't complain that Nabisco should add more concrete to them so they can be used for building houses.

You want to collect what you want to collect and play what you want to play. Good on you. Sometimes I use the butt of screwdriver to hammer in a small nail, but I'm not going to pretend its going to do as good a job as a hammer. If you build your army without consideration for how it plays on the tabletop; your going to have a bad time. And you are having bad time by the sound of it. I'm having difficulty acceptation your logic, because the more you explain, the more evident it becomes that this is partly a problem of your own making.

When the Byzantine Empire destroyed the Ottoman fleet with "greek fire" at the wall of Byzantium in the late 600's, the ottoman empire didn't respond by getting whatever the new hotness was. The Muslim navies eventually adapted themselves to it by staying out of its effective range and devising methods of protection such as felt or hides soaked in vinegar. That was generalship. 

 

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

I'm going to assume and guess that one of your typical lists would definitely rank pretty high in score on that "garbage bollocks site" compared to mine, because I'm going to assume and guess that you do spreadsheet the game as you said you do, and you will tend toward the more efficient and optimal models, which would be ... again my assumption... why you have little problem fighting tournament lists (because you yourself are rocking a tournament list).

Actually no. 

The core of the list I've played most frequently has the following:

Dryads: C
Tree-Revs: F
Branchwytch: F
Branchwraith: F
Treelord Ancient: B+
3 hunters: A

Then depending on how I'm feeling I'll take a few of these units:

Sisters of the thorn: D
Celestial Hurricanum: C
Spite-Revenants: F
Drycha: A
Treekin: (they aren't on there, but I can't imagine them being higher than C. Maybe a B- if I'm being generous.)

If I brought home a report card like that when I was a kid I'd be grounded for weeks.

And while I've definitely had games where it's been a challenge, but to date (since the GHB came out) I haven't lost a game with this army. In fact, I rarely lose more than 2-3 units (and usually it's an intentional sacrifice). Granted I'd need to make a few changes when facing a Rukk list, and possibly for a skyfire spam list as well, but I'd actually be temped to give it a good go with just what I've listed above. But if it didn't go well, my first thought wouldn't be to "git gud"  and fill a list with all hunters and nothing else. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. 
 

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

That even though the stated assertion is the garbage bollocks site is garbage because damage output isn't everything, that coincidentally the armies that are doing super well right now all share the fact that they have astronomical damage output.

Correlation does not imply causation. 

All in all, this isn't really an argument we can settle here. There's just too many variables we can't account for. I'm only guessing that your difficulty comes from your lists, but I don't know that for sure, because you haven't posted any of your lists. Then there's always terrain, deployment, scenario objectives and of course, dice rolls. You keep seeming to suggest that "accurate points" will fix things, but I'm not so sure. I have no reason to believe that you won't still have trouble because of your stubborn approach to army building and there isn't a way to resolve it unless we actually played a game. So I'll just end my involvement in this part of the discussion by saying that I hope you find a group of players who wants the same things out of games that you do. That in itself would go a long way to getting you back to having enjoyable games. 

As for me, I enjoy a difficult, highly challenging games. I actually like getting beaten. I like being forced to rethink my approach to list building. It's been my experience that losing has made me a better general and through trial and error I've found the insight to use under-fielded units in surprisingly creative and effective ways (Toward the end of 8th edition I played a WoC fast cav list. It was hilarious.). That's what draws me to the game; beating a "stronger" enemy through something other than raw damage output. 

Anyway @Auticus. I hope it works out for you, either via a shift in your local meta or through the upcoming changes to the GHB. Let's hope the future holds a game we can all enjoy. 

 

[Mirage8112]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Also, @Mirage8112 - personal peeve - We don't have codexes in AoS.

Noted.

Although to be fair I wasn't referring to AoS specifically but war games in general. 40k still has codexes (well.. indexes... and possibly codexes down the line) as does a number of other war-games. But still: point taken.

[Gotrek]

37 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I have access to pretty much every army.  When I face off against Rukk the boss is typically always behind a hill or out of line of sight.  Now artillery that does not require line of sight is definitely something useful here.  However... if my opponent goes first those artillery pieces usually die first.

However - artillery is a valid option if you can keep it alive and the dice are going your way to drop the boss.

How is the artillery dying first? Bows have an 18" range and most artillery is at least double that. Even with a max destruction move and deploying on the line the orruks will have to use the rukk's bonus to move to shoot anything at all if you deploy even an inch short of your max deployment in turn 1. 

For alternatives to artillery:

Chameleon skinks/skaven gutter runners/flesh eater courts to bring units onto the board near the hero and snipe the boss off that way.

Stormcast with staunch defender and shields to give a 2+ rerollable save (240 shots will average out to 1 damage dealt through that). Alternatively,  protectors and fulminators to give penalties to the archers. Can also lightning chariot/lightning strike in units to kill the boss. Or outrange the rukk with palladors (or outshoot them with judicators. Less shots but better stats and you have a 4+, or 3+ with defender, save to the rukk's 6+)

Skeleton hordes can just tank it. 240 shots @ 5/4s = 40 wounds w/5+/6++ save = 22 damage. Which hurts but means the rukk will have to shoot each unit 3 times to kill it (hero, shooting,  hero phases)

The arrow boys themselves are vulnerable to combat and bravery tests. 2 wounds each but only a 6+ save. Sayl (or walk) some plaguebringers (penalty for ranged attacks against them) into combat with them and win through attrition.

A murder host should be able to close the distance quickly as well and put a hurting on the rukk. Just make sure you protect the herald by keeping him out of range of the arrows (18" remember). Brass stampede could work as well, they move fast and only get faster when something dies. Coupled with the blood stoker...

 

If the boss cant be sniped then you'll have to figure out a way to close the distance and deal with it in combat, just like dealing with thundertusks as death. Take that big nasty monster,  give it a cloak of mist and shadows and launch it on a suicide run. Hell, vampire lord on zombie dragon with red fury and the cloak could probably mess up the rukk pretty bad. 

 

[Earthtremor]

Wraith mongers and blood warriors both wreck the savages... You'll need to close the gap quickly but it is certainly do-able. 

You are also citing a specifically melee focused army against one that excels at range. So of course it is going to be difficult, but it can be done. I've seen khorne and chaos and regular dispossessed all beat the rukk and sky fires through creative list writing and clever generalship 

Oh, and what would be a bit more pleasant all round would be not para phrasing really long, well thought out and constructive posts as 'git gud' which certainly wasn't the overall intention or content of the post. If you don't want people to suggest ways you could adapt and improve I'm not sure why you are belabouring the point so much. 

[Iradekhorne]

I dont have problems with rukk and skyfires. I go with khorne bloodbound (pure bloodbound) and my method is simple, I give to my enemy too many targets and units to handle. Who cares if 5 of 10 bloodwarrior dies, or my 30 bloodreavers or some of my heroes, or 3 juggernauts.

Usually they kill me a lot, but I have triple wound count than him, and my bloodsecrator is always away from shots (I use gore pilgrims and the range of bloodsecrator is so big :))

When they kill me, if they do, usually is too late to remount the point count of the game. 

I played like 30 games doing this with blades of khorne and I only lost one vs sniper stormcast (with 9 raptors with longbows and vexillios with retris). They just wiped me 5 of my 6 heroes on first turn xd, but that was my fault cause I deployed very bad, I killed a kunnin rukk just killing his other units with hig count model and diying on the marquers, and same for skyfires spam, I played 3 games vs him. That guys have much less firepower to kill hordes, as the other games I killed some.of.them and died on the marquers and win for far away.

[chord]

16 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

If you build your army without consideration for how it plays on the tabletop; your going to have a bad time. And you are having bad time by the sound of it.

The problem is that people are taking AoS way too seriously and thinking of it as a competitive game.  It isn't.  Go play chess or poker or a sport.  GW should have stuck with the original intent on AoS,  fun.

Or to make it truly competitive, just have both players take the exact same army, then it comes down to tactics on the tabletop, not list building. 

[Lincoln Hawk]

15 minutes ago, chord said:

The problem is that people are taking AoS way too seriously and thinking of it as a competitive game.  It isn't.  Go play chess or poker or a sport.  GW should have stuck with the original intent on AoS,  fun.

Or to make it truly competitive, just have both players take the exact same army, then it comes down to tactics on the tabletop, not list building. 

 

Anything where there is a winner and a loser naturally becomes competitive. Regardless if their is perfect balance or not, that how alot of people are, switching their passion for glory. 

[Mirage8112]

The problem is that people are taking AoS way too seriously and thinking of it as a competitive game.  It isn't.  Go play chess or poker or a sport.  GW should have stuck with the original intent on AoS,  fun.
Or to make it truly competitive, just have both players take the exact same army, then it comes down to tactics on the tabletop, not list building. 

That's funny actually. It's like saying running shouldn't be competitive because running is for escaping tigers.

People want different kinds of games. Some really care about what models they take and others don't. Units just flat out work better in certain combinations and if you ignore those combinations on principle it doesn't matter what kind of game you want. The game you get will be lopsided because the two parties have different priorities.

Truthfully, in a blowout game where the lists clearly weren't capable of competing, I'd feel disappointed. It wouldn't matter if I won or lost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[meet.the.doctor]

For kunnin rukk to be effectively increased, they need to treat the formation as a multiplier.  Kunnin Rukk doubles damage output.  To me that means any unit using it should double their points cost.

The Kunnin Rukk discussion always gets to much theoretical. Do you guys see any other strong sides in Bonesplitterz allegiance? If you make it higher how competitive the Bonesplitterz will be? And really... How do you see it double output in the first turn? Did you consider someone playing Bonesplitterz allegiance without rampaging destroyers movement? They are THEORETICALLY doing those 240 shots! What about range of all models beeing on 32mm bases? If the problem is like this -kill the boss- he is the unit that you need to act in hero phase. And what about those who play kunnin rukk WHITHOUT arrer boyz! Kunnin Rukk doesn't have to include Arrer Boyz - it CAN. Be reasonable. How is Kunnin Rukk competitive against Skyfires rangewise. Where are the mortal wounds in Bonesplitterz Allegiance. Rend? SAVE? If you want to get the "ward" save on 5+ from savage Warclan Battalion you have to play 2200+ points- meaning never in the competitive games. I would say - find the way to counter it instead of saying it needs double points, because that will mean banning the "ward" save for example-because it wouldn't fit even in 2500 list.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mordeus]

I'm not sure if they had any comp at the SCGT but weren't the two top lists mixed chaos? Seems like the cookie cutter lists just don't make it at the top top level. I'm only guessing though.

What I would like to see with AOS and the new GHB is a more complex sets of objectives for games akin to the maelstrom in 40k. Maybe not as complex but at least a bit more than what we have now. I play both the GHB battleplans and those from the big campaign books and the first tend to be a bit repetitive and the latter tend to be kind of one sided which implies some more narrative play styles which sadly no one does in my gaming community.

Points wise I'm mostly quite content. Some need price decrease but really not that many. Every units has a counter and a smart player with scenarios can defeat most forces. Their are units that could really use a price decrease. As mentioned above, the Elite 1W 4+ 3+ 3+ -1 rend units really need something changed. Too weak in the current meta. Same as some of the large monsters. Too expensive for how easily they can die.