GHB17 - massive regiments. Horde armies rejoice.

[sven_victorious!!]

Looks like the skaven arnt getting any new battalions yet,at least with this release of the ghb2. About the stormfiends, they are likely to not lose the battleline keyword but may retain the battleline if* let's see how it plays out

Sent from my Alcatel_7049D using Tapatalk

[Mirage8112]

9 hours ago, Karlbonner said:

There does look to be good objective based reasons for blobs, but my point was that skaven players will have no reason to take clanrats just to fill the battle-line. Formerly if you wanted stormvermin or a verminlord deciever in the same list as a stormfiend you had to go Grand Alliance Chaos. But with 20% for allies now, i can run mono skryre and splash in some stormvermin with no beed for clanrats at all.

 

And it is 20%, not 15%. Look at the tables; 200 is 20% of 1000. And thats actually a fairly significant amount of allied space for play in listbuilding.

I misunderstood you. The discount for hordes at max size is 15%. i thought thats was what you referring to with the "20% splash" comment. However, keep in mind we're not sure exactly how you are able to pull units from your allies matrix. Are we required to take a battleline and a hero? Or just a hero? Or is it really "just take 20% worth of points of whatever units you want". those there option all yield very different results. 

 

9 hours ago, Karlbonner said:

Also they explicitly said they were bringing on more alliegance specific battleline choices, so true, we aren't certain units like stormfiends are still battleline... in principle, they are adding more battleline choices, not taking them away.

In any case this will be a very good thing for skaven players (like me) and will allow a lot more flexibility in lists even if in some areas that more than compensate for the clanrats being bumped to min 20.

Or changing them. I'm very happy to see the increased flexibility, but there are trade-offs. The changing of min unit sized is actually a significant change for those players make take battleline choices as cheap as possible, i.e. slaves to darkness marauders for 60 pts for a unit of 10. If that min goes to 20, then players who were using them for battling effectively just saw their points cost double. Sure they get double models so it's not just a straight points hike, but it does mean you now have 240 pts less to play with. Plus if you want to squeeze another 200 pts for allies your effectively taking 440 points less for the good stuff your main army. While allies will bring a lot to the table, if they are from outside your (main) faction and don't get command abilities (I have no reason to think they will, but I actually have no reason to think they won't either) which also means a little less synergy. That's actually a signifiant change to how armies are built. As I said before, thats actually a clever way of balancing army makeup without jiggering the points too much. As @Auticus said (a bit more clearly than I did): 
 

4 hours ago, Auticus said:

the unit discount is a way to move beyond trying to balance models at the model level and try to balance armies at the army level.

I actually think once AoS shifted gears with the release of the first generals handbook this was their eventual intention. 
 

4 hours ago, Auticus said:

As to arguing about the math, the formula used has around a 90% success rate at picking a winner before the game starts in determining power outputs and defense outputs and scoring them properly.  I'll take the word of a doctorate who specializes in game theory.  When someone else can come up with a way to point models that is superior, I'll be happy to review it.  

You've said this before, but I don't see it. IIRC I went through and looked at the scorings for the top 5 LVO lists and wasn't particulary impressed by their unit scores. There were A's certainly, but those units weren't exactly spammed, and I wouldn't call their lists packed with only the top scoring units. 

Im not faulting the formulas used in determining those scores, (a doctorate in math should know how to add and subtract properly.) What I'm faulting is your assertion that whichever list scores higher according to that particular formula will inevitably win 90% of the time. (the Khorne list that came in 3rd didn't really have anything above a B-, and the top list only had 1 or 2 A's and everything else was just average according to the matrix.) Where are you getting that idea from? From your local club experience? From results of national tournaments? From comparing the results to your own comp system or GWS? 

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to change your mind. So I'm not about to offer up a point system for you to review. I'm just pointing out that you keep saying how accurate Louisville gaming point system is but I haven't seen any concrete evidence of that. It's certainly a good indicator of how much damage something can put out/take but it assumes a lot of variables that can swing combats dramatically. I've seen 2 units of tree-revenants take out a unit of retributors with 2 star soul maces (T-rev's get an F, Retributors get an A, and at 200 pts vs 220 pts) by pinning the models in place between scenery preventing the retributors from piling in. I've done that with remarkable consistency between games. By all accounts according to that spreadsheet things like that shouldn't happen. But they do. Frequently. That's why I say the spreadsheet is accurate but unfortunately it's also incomplete. 
 

4 hours ago, Auticus said:

They see what my skeleton horde can do now.  Knowing i'm going to get an extra skeleton horde because of the gifted free points means that if they don't also horde out, I'm going to be tap dancing on their face with my teabag.  

Or just take something for dealing with hordes. That works too. 

 

5 hours ago, Auticus said:

I may still try to do the path to glory thing we were going to do, but most of my work will be on the VR game design and testing.  Who knows maybe one day you'll see it on steam.

Nice! I'll make sure to do a review of it and criticize it relentlessly for being unbalanced. Maybe I'll make a spreadsheet .

You know I'm just kidding. I have a lot respect for your opinion and your contributions to the game. Especially early on with ayr Comp. Doesn't mean I agree with you though...

 

[J-P]

5 hours ago, Nico said:

I beg to differ:

 

Actually, @Nico, I remember reading your first post about this list, and your list/tricks of making Clanrats a feared unit is the reason I could pull myself through the whole hobby ordeal of cleaning-scraping so many rats. So, a massive thanks to you! 

[Kirjava13]

2 hours ago, tea_wild_owl said:

 a second unit of stormfiends

 

 

2 hours ago, tea_wild_owl said:

friendly games

Pick one 

[J-P]

19 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

All in all, it actually looks like a tactical nerf to players that are cramming elite level troops into what have traditionally been horde armies.

Yes, and if someone would force me to make a guess about the reasoning behind this, I'd say that it has something to do with "mixed" Chaos armies.

[Tidings]

Without reading every long post in this thread, I'll just comment on something I posted in another Hordes-related thread.

One thing I LOVE  about the horde rules is that it will likely shift the meta away from high-armor elites/monster lists. This will reduce the dire need for mortal wound spam and heavy rending, meaning more units in more armies will have a chance to see the table. This shift in meta will hopefully expand what kind of lists we see often, leading to more variety in games, and lists that need to be a bit more well rounded. 

[Lord Cedric]

This makes me wonder now just how much longer games will run and the beginning come back of movement trays.

- Cedric

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Mirage8112]

 

9 minutes ago, Lord Cedric said:

This makes me wonder now just how much longer games will run and the beginning come back of movement trays.

- Cedric

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
 

I dunno, in my experience hordes tend to be units tasked with guarding objectives. Simply because they are so big they take the longest to clear. Sitting on an objective means less moving, unit trays or not.

[Karchev23]

Personally i like it. Sure it makes the blood letter bomb cheaper but thats fine by me. Anything that makes games tactically challenging for opponents is great in my opinion. Might be hard for Overlord players like me but they, variety is awesome.

[Nico]

It would be obscene if Bloodletters (already cheap) get this bonus. I hope it is limited to units that can go up to 40 models. I also hope that Arrer Boyz are capped at 30 models.

[bottle]

3 minutes ago, Nico said:

It would be obscene if Bloodletters (already cheap) get this bonus. I hope it is limited to units that can go up to 40 models. I also hope that Arrer Boyz are capped at 30 models.

In Russ' video on it he mentions Bloodletter specifically as benefitting. Maybe they are getting a points adjustment anyway?

[Nico]

That's grim news.

[shadowgra]

Well at least i am Sure plaguebearers would get this treatment as well. However i am a bit concerned of 120 bloodletters murdering things around while costing like 100 points less alltogether. Is a slaughterpriest basically for free..

Imho they should have done a different  thing: they should have put the massive regiments only on those unit that are meant to be horde: clanrats, vulkites, marauders, grots, regular orruks, some bonesplitter, saurus warriors or skinks, skeletons, zombies and ghouls. Imho bloodletters aren't a unit meant to be horde. For me is pretty strange just to see how much they benefit from their number, now who ever  is gonna take them in unit of 20? No one because as 30 they cost u less and also is way less probable that u pose ur buff in the first turn.

I mean at this point the real question is this: does every unit in the game get this discount? If the answer is yes this'll happen. Forgotten unit will remain forgotten, just play maximum size elite units and have the job done. How are you gonna stop 20 skullreapers that cost even less with tons of buffs ? I really hope that elite units already really good don't get this bonus cause otherwise it will be really tough 

 

[Captain Marius]

I think hordes of daemons is a bit of a warhammer staple, im looking forward to seeing more infantry!

The sheer variety of armies this should open up is gonna be awesome!

[Killax]

1 hour ago, bottle said:

In Russ' video on it he mentions Bloodletter specifically as benefitting. Maybe they are getting a points adjustment anyway?

I think most units that can be fielded in 30-40 will be affected. Now in all honesty Bloodletters are still very good but still require a Bloodsecrator in range to become bonkers/obscene. If players are willing to objectively look at how Bloodletters preform compaired to Judicators, Skyfires and the likes we still however see that these units are still a much larger dominant factor...

--

As for promoting Hordes again... I've got to be honest and say I have mixed feelings here. The promotion of 30/40 man blocks is what spelled the eventual death of WFB. The moment you make these blocks better point for point as alternatives is also the moment you make Age of Sigmar much more expensive for newer players.

If a competitive Khorne army would now include 60/90 Bloodletters and that new standard becomes 90/120 Bloodletters we're talking about changes that newer players might not be able to handle in terms of financial attachment. GW can solve this by combining boxes again but as before I find it odd to see AoS thake that WFB direction again while that was one of the more disliked aspects of WFB. 

Making things too cheap for the game and too expensive for a player is easily done but not a really healthy development for a player base. 

[Captain Marius]

I dont know, theyve made a point of adding skirmish and path to glory to make buy-in relatively inexpensive. Then theres the 3 tiers of points for matched play, so its up to the community if they want to stick with 2k pts.

I think realistically this will only drive tournie meta player cash cows to buy more stuff to keep up, which is kind of the other side of the coin for getting all these rules updated so often.

Casual players will do what they always do, buy whatever takes their fancy, leave it in the box for ages, finally build and spray it then leave it again for a year before getting round to painting. Or is that just me?!

[wayniac]

Yeah, it is kinda disheartening that such a small part of the game dominates (I am seeing the same thing in 40k; everything has to be "competitive" or it's unplayable junk) when the entire appeal of warhammer is that you have a lot of variety to do things beyond matched play with a limited set of scenarios.  I will maintain forever that caving into the whims of the competitive players and adding matched play was the worst thing, not because it was a bad idea (it certainly was not), but because it invalidated all other styles upon arrival.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

I personally like larger games with more infantry, so overall having more infantry in the game I like, its the free points bit thing that I hate and sours me to the whole deal.  

Same here. I know there are only so many ways to go with chaff from a design perspective. But to me just making the max (30/40) cheaper while not just making them cheaper/better is something that leads to these extremes. Which in turn actually can decrease army composition options as we leave one extreme (full shooting) for a possible other (full horde).

@wayniac I don't thnk adding matched play is the worst thing. But I do agree with you if you feel that both narrative and open play do not get the same kind of love as matched play does. As in players seriously rethinking what would make that aspect of the game better.

By all means Im happy with GH2017 to come. The really only true fear I have is that we switch one extreme with another. Something Ive experienced before with WFB and can't say that it was a healthy change to the game. In 6th edition most unit sizes where comfortable for players to play with out of the box. 20 was the most typical in size, 30 was what we'd call a horde. 7th changed this by bringing many additional advantages to units that numbered 40+. The direct issue was that what players had obtained essentially needed to be doubled. In addition Magic got even more coin-flippy in extremes...

All in all I will set my mind to that of another round of just testing and seeing where the game goes. I believe its best not to worry because GW shows us that its not afraid to drastically change things up. This has a pro and con. Pro in the game being a constant better version of itself, con in that it's likely hardcopy products dont age beyond 3 months because another change is required. (This is currently also going on in 40K).

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, Killax said:

The promotion of 30/40 man blocks is what spelled the eventual death of WFB.

Maybe for you, but many of us absolutely loved seeing armies on the table. Big blocks helped create that look.

[Killax]

Just now, Sleboda said:

Maybe for you, but many of us absolutely loved seeing armies on the table. Big blocks helped create that look.

Not so much for me, for everybody eventually. I love seeing armies on the table, everybody does, however there is still a realistic cost involved with that.
From a designers perspective it's often easy to forget the costs involved because they are what you could consider to be a hardcore gamer.

The prime reason that AoS has gained a lot of attention this past half year has a lot to do with the Battleboxes. However if those Battleboxes now essentially promote themselves to be bought 3 times in order to field a functional unit your still not easy up the entry cost for this game. Which in the longer run will cause a dimishing ammount of players. Costs involved have to be realistic. There is a very possible backlash in sight for those armies who dont run hordes very well.

The real question then becomes again, is one extreme traded for another?

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

I will maintain forever that caving into the whims of the competitive players and adding matched play was the worst thing, not because it was a bad idea (it certainly was not), but because it invalidated all other styles upon arrival.

 This forum needs a once-per-day Super Like. I would have used it here. 

If anything eventually derails AoS back to WFB-level poor sales,  it will be Matched Play. Ironically. 

[Sleboda]

13 minutes ago, Killax said:

Not so much for me, for everybody eventually. 
 

Maybe you don't mean "everybody" in the literal sense,  but since you said it ...

No,  not everybody.  Some people.

I, and several folks I know,  want mass battles, not big skirmishes.  AoS is really cool, but without large blocks of troops, it will never be a mass battle game.

Bring on the 80-man skeleton blocks, ranked up shoulder to shoulder, I say!

[daedalus81]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

Yeah, it is kinda disheartening that such a small part of the game dominates (I am seeing the same thing in 40k; everything has to be "competitive" or it's unplayable junk) when the entire appeal of warhammer is that you have a lot of variety to do things beyond matched play with a limited set of scenarios.  I will maintain forever that caving into the whims of the competitive players and adding matched play was the worst thing, not because it was a bad idea (it certainly was not), but because it invalidated all other styles upon arrival.

You're making the assumption that competitive players are a small part.

[PraetorDragoon]

17 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

You're making the assumption that competitive players are a small part.

I reckon there are more non-competitive players than competitive players. Thing is that competitive players go to events, said events get coverage, and are the people discussing stuff on internet forums and like. Non-competitive players tend to stay within their groups and their games have no need to get covered, their idea of fun is a bit different from competitive players after all.

[Killax]

45 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Maybe you don't mean "everybody" in the literal sense,  but since you said it ...

No,  not everybody.  Some people.

I, and several folks I know,  want mass battles, not big skirmishes.  AoS is really cool, but without large blocks of troops, it will never be a mass battle game.

I meant it contributed to the end of WFB as a lot of players like wargames with armies but when armies have to go over 120+ models to be played at a tournament level most players shy away from the idea. Enough to have WFB collapse well below 40K's setting back in 2006.

I don't think what you are saying holds much truth to be honest. Stormcast, Tzeentch, Ogors, Fyreslayers and Khadron Overlords are actually know for their smaller armies. Their armies arn't skirmish armies, they are in line with lore/cost because they are more elite and come in smaller numbers.