GHB 2017 Points changes

[BunkhouseBuster]

12 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Why do you want 'Ardboyz to be pure battleline? I daresay it's more because you want to take a mostly Ironjawz army with some other pieces on the side, whether those are Gargants, Ogors or Troggoths. But  I bet if Ironjawz had some cool nifty allegiance abilities and magic items, that there wouldn't be such a clamor to make Ardboyz pure battleline because you still would have to make the tough call between Allegiance abilities and making a mixed Destruction list. Something that's not such a tough call at the moment for a lot of factions (Bonesplitterz, Beastclaw) because the Destruction abilities and magic items are just too good.

Yes, I would love for Ardboys to be pure Battleline, because I don't have the budget to get any more models for a while, and am stuck with the collection I have.  I have a few other Destruction models (Gargant and a non-GW Dreadmaw) I can't use in standard Matched Play games because I can't make a non-Ironjawz army in any meaningful way.   So as is, I am stuck playing one army until my financial situation improves or GH2 makes a change in my favor.

Personally, I would rather see a different army composition structure imposed.  Instead of requiring so many Battlelines, how about limiting the number of "other" units?  One of the things I liked about Warhammer Fantasy was the percentages used to determine how much of each unit type (Specials, Rare, Heroes, and Leaders) rather than slots filled.  Sure, it's a bit harder to do than just a numerical slot, but I feel that it better balances out the army.

10 hours ago, Auticus said:

9 out of 10 forgeworld models are either fine or way under powered.  You can't judge the entire FW line based on a couple busted units.  They certianly don't deliberately make busted units for any reason.

This was always my feel, especially for Fantasy/AoS.  40K does/did have some outright broken units though, but that's another matter

[stickybluetoffee]

So what if they introduced more matched play categories and limits. Not sure how, but say skyfires count as "fast" or "cavalry" (I'm sure there's a better generic term) and then limit these to 3 per army or 1 for every 1 battle line to reduce spamming.

No idea if that would work at all, just a thought that leapt into my head.

[shadowgra]

yeah but between skyfires and enlightened for example, there will be no match without a point increase in skyfires. so by itself it is not a solution.

however this seems quite interesting, cause limitations have always been a good way to prevent spam of certain units. but they wont do that, first of all because it limits the player choice. second, it hurts all the msu. third, a lot of units that fall in this category are more effective as a for instance 2*5 instead of 1*10. in the end some armies will be completely unplayable: beastclaw, ogors, deathlords, aelfs dragons (don't remember the allegiance).

they needed to change the rules. they didn't, the game will remain really unbalanced in favour of shooting. 

[wayniac]

I wonder/hope if they will introduce points per model like 40k did.  A lot of things suddenly become viable when you can take 4 or 5 instead of having to take in blocks of 3, for example.  But I agree, the issue is the core rules, not much else.  Without actually changing the base rules and/or warscrolls, not much is going to change.

[Nico]

Quote

Without actually changing the base rules and/or warscrolls, not much is going to change.

This just isn't the case. Wind the clock back before the Kurnoth Hunter and more particularly the Kunning Rukk and pew pew was not an issue. There was devastating shooting, but it had a limited effective range (e.g. Freeguild infantry plus Hurricanum) and limited rend, which made it susceptible to alpha strikes and double turns. Bunkering could work, but many Battleplans force you to come forward to win a major (e.g. Gift from the Heavens).

Between a few cost increases (sharp for Skyfires) and a couple more counters to pew pew, we would have a very well balanced game.

[shadowgra]

 

18 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I wonder/hope if they will introduce points per model like 40k did.  A lot of things suddenly become viable when you can take 4 or 5 instead of having to take in blocks of 3, for example.  But I agree, the issue is the core rules, not much else.  Without actually changing the base rules and/or warscrolls, not much is going to change.

i have to tell that i like a lot purchasing squads, it simplifies the game in  a way that doesn't hurt me. what is really wrong is the squad size some units have to be taken in. VARANGUARD I AM LOOKING AT YOU, MY BELOVED!

also the fact that for limiting certain builds they demolish others is frustrating. aether khemist buffing will fall in rule of 1 for sure, but also will do bloodsecretor, which is far less problematic and spammable. this is the first example that came to my mind but is pretty good i think. 

another 1: no more than 1 lantern of castellants per unit. no putrid blightkings healing (which is a real shame). 

8 minutes ago, Nico said:

This just isn't the case. Wind the clock back before the Kurnoth Hunter and more particularly the Kunning Rukk and pew pew was not an issue. There was devastating shooting, but it had a limited effective range (e.g. Freeguild infantry plus Hurricanum) and limited rend, which made it susceptible to alpha strikes and double turns. Bunkering could work, but many Battleplans force you to come forward to win a major (e.g. Gift from the Heavens).

Between a few cost increases (sharp for Skyfires) and a couple more counters to pew pew, we would have a very well balanced game.

 

overall i think that the balance will be really low. this because a lot of armies lack something vs shooting and/or fast movement. without actually really increasing costs all around there isn't much some armies can do vs shooting. at least not the shooting we have NOW. that is why the game is unbalanced.

shooting units should be fragile units that do moderate damage from afar (because of the range it should be far weaker than melee). the problem raises when unit that combine tankiness, mobility and shooting come around. because it's hard to take them down, they do a lot of damage expecially when buffed, they can hardly be engaged due to threat range and receive no damage from enemy shooting cause of tankyness.

examples are needed:

kurnoth have 5 i believe wounds each, with a rerollable save and can jump through forests, plus their base movement isn't bad. problematic unit.

skyfires: i don't even bother explaining them.

kharadron overlords: what i hate of these guys is the disgusting amount of damage output combined with a 4+ save on almost all units, and fast units, like ships, endriggers, embarking/disembarking rules. all of that plus a good weapon range. problematic army.

stormfiends: 6 wounds a piece, mortal wounds output, sayl gives mobility. problematic unit.

vanguard raptors: 2 a piece, do mortal wounds, incredible range, good mobility with lightning chariot, good battalions to fit into. problematic unit.

judicators is the cheap version of raptors, prosecutors with javelins are just lol, 80 points for them is a joke. problematic unit again.

 

the real problem with the game is this combination. take away one or 2 of these factor and shooting become much more manageable. points i do hardly think are gonna be enough, mainly because some armies will lose too much (KO, i really hate them), others won't be touched (Stormcast and we all know this), some are gonna be nerfed to hell (stormfiends, kurnoth and skyfires). this is what i think, please tell me i am wrong.

 

 

[Sleboda]

5 minutes ago, shadowgra said:

without actually really increasing costs all around there isn't much some armies can do vs shooting. at least not the shooting we have NOW

Sure there is.  Play the scenario instead of Last Man Standing.  Not saying you ignore battleplans,  but I'm learning that lots of ppl do,  and that totally changes the game.

Also... you guessed it ... scenery.

[shadowgra]

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

Sure there is.  Play the scenario instead of Last Man Standing.  Not saying you ignore battleplans,  but I'm learning that lots of ppl do,  and that totally changes the game.

Also... you guessed it ... scenery.

honestly me and my friends play almost only the ghb ones cause we are fairly new to the game. regarding los, we don't really own a lot of scenery right now, i have to start making them (cause they don't enjoy doing it) with my girlfriends as soon as i finish my nurgle army.

but from most videos i see on youtube even los can do really not that much against shooting unless u play with like 12 scenery pieces that blocks los

[wayniac]

Just now, shadowgra said:

honestly me and my friends play almost only the ghb ones cause we are fairly new to the game. regarding los, we don't really own a lot of scenery right now, i have to start making them (cause they don't enjoy doing it) with my girlfriends as soon as i finish my nurgle army.

but from most videos i see on youtube even los can do really not that much against shooting unless u play with like 12 scenery pieces that blocks los

and most non-scratchbuild scenery does not.  IMHO we have to assume a baseline of GW terrain, GW board, etc. as the de facto standard for a game, which is NOT conducive to blocking LOS at all.

[ReynakZhen]

23 minutes ago, shadowgra said:

 

 prosecutors with javelins are just lol, 80 points for them is a joke. problematic unit again.

 

 

 

 

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement, Prosecutors w/ javelins drop like flies if they're even looked at by the enemy, I should know as I take several units of them in my list.

[Sleboda]

26 minutes ago, wayniac said:

and most non-scratchbuild scenery does not.  IMHO we have to assume a baseline of GW terrain, GW board, etc. as the de facto standard for a game, which is NOT conducive to blocking LOS at all.

Not a bad thought, tbh.

That said, I often use the oculum, the archway, a temple of skulls, dreadstone blight, the lair of the astromancer, and some basic GW buildings and really don't have trouble hiding key models.

[wayniac]

TBH I just think they need to make it so you cannot shot THROUGH forests unless you are completely within them (i.e. you can't be outside of a forest and shoot through it to the other side).  That alone would add a lot of LOS blocking, and make a lot of sense as well.  however that has nothing to do with points changes

[Koalaninja]

How much do you guys think a screaming bell should cost? Most iconic skaven unit currently unusable in serious play. 

[Xanax Lot]

I m not sure if stoemfienda should increase, I know their output potential is huge but they are allready costing 300 points and the warpfire projector range is only 8" what really puts thrm over the top is either sayl or the firescorch formation from the skyre battalion

Saurus and kroak I thibk might need to go down a little 

The stonehorn should definatelly go up

Just what I would like to see

[Tidings]

On 6/29/2017 at 6:13 AM, ledha said:

i agree on some of them, but the judicator are actually quite expensive for what they do. 5 shot 3+/3+/-1/1 is averagely good for 160, but for 170/180 pts, it would make them a very terrible ranged unit.

I have a reddit thread going on this, and I don't mean to start a huge debate here, but WHY do SCE need to have archers that are every bit as efficient points-wise as a dedicated shooty army? There is nothing wrong with Army A having better archers for the same points, while Army B has better calvary for the same points. That's what makes armies different, after all. Why do SCE need to do every roll as well or better than armies who are themed around ONE thing?

[BunkhouseBuster]

What about, for Matched Play, making the scary ranged units into Artillery?  There is already a limit on how many units of them you can take, and would not be unprecedented considering they put out a lot of damage at range.

[chord]

1 hour ago, Tidings said:

I have a reddit thread going on this, and I don't mean to start a huge debate here, but WHY do SCE need to have archers that are every bit as efficient points-wise as a dedicated shooty army? There is nothing wrong with Army A having better archers for the same points, while Army B has better calvary for the same points. That's what makes armies different, after all. Why do SCE need to do every roll as well or better than armies who are themed around ONE thing?

It's part of the story...

[Trout]

I think they should raise the point cost of every unit that has a viable faction allegiance by 20% and re-work the way factions work. Faction allegiance would require only that 50%+1 of your army share that allegiance and it would confer a 20% discount on all of that faction's units.

 

Of course, I'm just guessing about the percentages; this would require playtesting and brainstorming about possible broken combos to find the right amount. I'm just proposing a general framework with which to fix the problem caused by mixed lists.

[Soulsmith]

2 hours ago, chord said:

It's part of the story...

If we went off lore there would be buffs galore!

I'm happy with a skyfire increase, if DoT see general decreases. Skyfires are used en masse because the rest of their book is distinctly ok. There are what, 2 viable lists? Tzaangors or horrors.

Just bring on the ironjaw decreases! Would love for ardboyz to be destruction battleline, since if you want pure orruks and not savage heavy, you have to buy plastics older than I have been in the hobby for. I would happily buy another blood bowl team to convert to make a second unit (probably the orcland raiders, since they're heavier armoured and decorated in flames, which I already do).

[ledha]

7 hours ago, Tidings said:

I have a reddit thread going on this, and I don't mean to start a huge debate here, but WHY do SCE need to have archers that are every bit as efficient points-wise as a dedicated shooty army? There is nothing wrong with Army A having better archers for the same points, while Army B has better calvary for the same points. That's what makes armies different, after all. Why do SCE need to do every roll as well or better than armies who are themed around ONE thing?

i don't say that stormcast should have "the best archer", but judicator, actually, are moderatly good, not outsanding. At 160 pts, they are fine. More, they become really, really mediocre. Of course, some units are and should be better than other, but 5 judicators for 170/180 pts would clearly be subpar (like the kairic acolytes at 140). If you have some things to nerf in the stormcast battletome, judicators are clearly not at the top of the list.

[Gotrek]

8 hours ago, Trout said:

I think they should raise the point cost of every unit that has a viable faction allegiance by 20% and re-work the way factions work. Faction allegiance would require only that 50%+1 of your army share that allegiance and it would confer a 20% discount on all of that faction's units.

 

Of course, I'm just guessing about the percentages; this would require playtesting and brainstorming about possible broken combos to find the right amount. I'm just proposing a general framework with which to fix the problem caused by mixed lists.

This is going to sound harsh, and i apologize for that, but this is a stupid idea. Its way too mathy, which will discourage new players (especially in the States where people have developed an allergy to intelligence, math in particular) and will essentially force people who play order/chaos into buying a hurricanum/warshrine because why wouldn't you want +1 to hit/ 6+ ward save. While weakening the 2 grand alliances with already  anemic roster choices (destruction and especially death). 

[Flood]

 

On 6/30/2017 at 8:02 PM, Gotrek said:

This is going to sound harsh, and i apologize for that, but this is a stupid idea. Its way too mathy, which will discourage new players (especially in the States where people have developed an allergy to intelligence, math in particular) and will essentially force people who play order/chaos into buying a hurricanum/warshrine because why wouldn't you want +1 to hit/ 6+ ward save. While weakening the 2 grand alliances with already  anemic roster choices (destruction and especially death). 

Sorry this is completely off topic but I gotta defend my peeps! Lol. Below are world university rankings in mathematics. Most schools in the top rankings are US.

Top 10 Universities for Mathematics in the World   Based on the QS World University Rankings by Subject 2017
Rank	Name of Institution	Location
1	Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)	United States
2	Harvard University	US
3	Stanford University	US
4	University of Oxford	United Kingdom
5	University of Cambridge	UK
6	University of California, Berkeley (UCB)	US
7	Princeton University	US
8	ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology)	Switzerland
9	University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)	US
10	New York University (NYU)	US
See the full math ranking >

 

[Mortarch]

Firstly, comparing countries math ability isn't the point. But on that particular point, if you are going on that basis the US is behind in the top 10. US has 5 times the population of U.K., so should have 5 times the uni at top level. Has 7. Lol the maths are a little off  

That entire line was just for the end pun. And I'm from Ireland, for disclosure, have no vested interests.

 

now... on topic.

 

 

[Trout]

On 6/30/2017 at 11:02 PM, Gotrek said:

This is going to sound harsh, and i apologize for that, but this is a stupid idea. Its way too mathy, which will discourage new players (especially in the States where people have developed an allergy to intelligence, math in particular) and will essentially force people who play order/chaos into buying a hurricanum/warshrine because why wouldn't you want +1 to hit/ 6+ ward save. While weakening the 2 grand alliances with already  anemic roster choices (destruction and especially death). 

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.

[Jamopower]

(Not related to above.)

 

So, squigs are clearly undercosted then?