KO Thunderer GHB2017 Changes Information Gathering Poll

[Thomas Lyons]

I'm hoping to gather some initial data that I want to pass on to GW to get an idea of how the forthcoming changes to Thunderers are both felt and perceived by the community.  If you are not a KO player but want to participate in the poll, please select the appropriate options in the poll that indicate as much.

If you are unaware of these changes, please see the attached Warscroll.  The primary change I am focusing on is the alteration for the weapon load outs allowed (previously any mix of weapons; now a max of 1 of each weapon per 5 models), although the range of the Mortar changed pretty dramatically as well.  Nothing else about the matched play profile for this unit has changed: points are still 100 for 5, same max size, still not a conditional battleline unit.  

+++ Mod Edit +++

I've removed the picture of the updated Warscroll due to it being leaked from the Generals Handbook. I know this will probably make this discussion a lot more difficult now, but we are having a bit of a clamp down on the leaks. This can be updated as soon as the updates become official on the GW site.

Cheers

[Chikout]

I an just starting a Ko army so I have not yet purchased any thunderers and I do think the changes to the warscroll are good as it prevents the need to buy multiple boxes  and gives players some interesting choices about how to equip the models.

The problem is that some people already bought these models and built them whether by buying many boxes or by paying rediculous prices for bits on eBay. So the changes are fine but the communication of said changes is not. 

I am not sure what the best option is. Maybe they should have kept the nerf and the synergies for using different weapons but still allowed the single build options. I suppose the intention was to also nerf the effect of aether chemists.

There are probably a relative small number of players affected by this but they are probably all tournament players and therefore good GW customers. I would like to see some kind of make good from GW, whether it is refunds or credit or something. 

In the future it is very important to think not just about balance but on the money players may have spent. 

There was a similar case in 40k with players angry about the flyer nerf but at least in that case, the flyers were still usable. 

I think that is the line for me. Making a unit worse in the name of balance is fine but making it illegal is unfair to those who bought it.

 

[Thomas Lyons]

7 minutes ago, Chikout said:

I an just starting a Ko army so I have not yet purchased any thunderers and I do think the changes to the warscroll are good as it prevents the need to buy multiple boxes  and gives players some interesting choices about how to equip the models.

The problem is that some people already bought these models and built them whether by buying many boxes or by paying rediculous prices for bits on eBay. So the changes are fine but the communication of said changes is not. 

I am not sure what the best option is. Maybe they should have kept the nerf and the synergies for using different weapons but still allowed the single build options. I suppose the intention was to also nerf the effect of aether chemists.

There are probably a relative small number of players affected by this but they are probably all tournament players and therefore good GW customers. I would like to see some kind of make good from GW, whether it is refunds or credit or something. 

In the future it is very important to think not just about balance but on the money players may have spent. 

There was a similar case in 40k with players angry about the flyer nerf but at least in that case, the flyers were still usable. 

I think that is the line for me. Making a unit worse in the name of balance is fine but making it illegal is unfair to those who bought it.

 

I fully agree.  I think the nerf is good for future players, terrible for early adopters who purchased GW product on good faith and have now been punished for trusting GW.  This is obviously especially fresh for myself since I just finished my unit of 10 Aethercannon Thunderers yesterday and now have 10 boxes each missing at least a bit or two that can no longer be returned since all of them are "opened."  I have $400 of models that will never see play and that I would have never bought if these rules had been this way from the beginning.  I could have at least returned them last week before I started them if I had known that this change was coming.  

[Malakithe]

Well damn...now I really want to see what other warscrolls have been updated 

[Dez]

100% on board, Tom. I see why GW did it, but it's super harsh for those of us that went all in. I hope the ships are better....

[scrubyandwells]

FWIW here's my initial impression, based on the (known) information at hand:

The main issue isn't whether one agrees or disagrees with the warscroll update – it's whether the update was communicated as appropriately and thoughtfully as possible.

In that regard, choosing GHB2017 as the place to communicate this substantial update, for the very first time, seems to leave a lot to be desired, especially since it negatively affects KO players who've bought multiple Grundstok Thunderers boxes, in order to give all of them – usually – Aethercannons or Mortars.

Given the lead time required to finalize/print GHB2017, it would seem the warscroll update could've been shared maybe as early as two months ago on the Warhammer Community website, similar to how 40K matched play changes were handled recently, with the latter widely praised as a great approach.

On the secondary issue, the warscroll update itself, I think it's a positive sign they're open to refining warscrolls. 

Update: Definitely agree it makes sense to include the warscroll update in an official print doc...just seems it could've also been shared with customers/community as early as possible via Warhammer Community, which would've reduced negatively impacting folks.  

[Rhellion]

I can see why they would want it in an official print document coming from GW, rather than a pdf online that, honestly, only a portion of players really pay attention to (FAQs).

[Chikout]

1 minute ago, Rhellion said:

I can see why they would want it in an official print document coming from GW, rather than a pdf online that, honestly, only a portion of players really pay attention to (FAQs).

There is no reason they could not do both.

[Thomas Lyons]

6 minutes ago, Chikout said:

There is no reason they could not do both.

Agreed, especially if it was acknowledged as something "in playtesting," ala the Fyreslayer points.  That way we have a lead on the potential changes and expectations (and purchasing decisions) can be made accordingly.  

The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that this is an adjustment to the war scroll itself; "This warscroll replaces the one in Battletome: Kharadron Overlords."  There is no way to opt out of this warscroll change.  It isn't just for matched play; it is for all play.

That said, my KO stat cards are deficient.  I wonder if they've considered providing cards for all the KO players who bought the unit cards and now do not have one for their Thunderer unit.  This probably warrants replacing the complete card since multiple abilities have been added, values have been adjusted, and unit composition has been altered.   

[Kyriakin]

They should probably respond to these cases with a refund, as the material cost of the miniatures themselves is rather low (that's not a knock on GW pricing, as a lot is tied into up-front costs) and the company has, in fact, historically been pretty generous with such matters - even during the darkest days of the Kirby era.

Not sure how each case would be provable - especially as players are likely to want to keep hold of their carefully-painted, albeit unusable, minis - so maybe they could send the player some kind of code/password that could be displayed behind the unit in a photograph. The incomplete boxes could then be returned, where they might still be usable for display, gaming and/or battle report purposes in a store or HQ.

In short, avoiding a negligible monetary hit would not be worth any bad PR during a period when GW's public image is about as good as its ever been. It's a good idea to keep your customers happy - especially those who are willing to spend $400 on a ten-man unit that's slightly better than the default $40 unit 

[Liam Cook]

The poll is a bit flawed because if you built your thunderers with all rifles, there is no effect. You will happily use the unit like you have done before the update. But the results of this would be lumped in with units equipped with spammed special weapons (most likely cannons).

Honestly as an Overlords player this was pretty much expected in one way or another and shows gw are willing to realign a few errors on their part with the unit guide not matching the product! Happy and impressed they have addressed it.

[Nevvermore]

Thomas Lyons, I suggest you contact GW CS, show a pic of your unit, explain your situation calmly amd reasonably like you have done in this thread. Their response will determine the appropriate response to this change IMO.

[Kramer]

2 hours ago, Chikout said:

In the future it is very important to think not just about balance but on the money players may have spent. 

 

it's a great point and weird policy. I agree that it should be a factor.

But I can also kind of understand it if GW would decide it shouldn't be a factor. The percentage of KO players must be quite small, add to that that not every KO player has build their thunderers in such a way they need to rebuild a unit.... I do understand that they wouldn't want that to influence the overal balance. But a gesture towards players with a now illigally build unit would be a nice touch. 

maybe show us a picture of your thunderers squad and get a limited upgrade sprue or something. 

[someone2040]

I really dislike it and it sets a poor precedent for what could happen in future.

While I have no issues with changing warscrolls (in fact, I think there are a fair few I would change!), I think this is a fundamental change that invalidates units people have put together.

This isn't a change like giving Dragon Ogors +1 damage (here's hoping!) or changing the Thundertusk snowball ability or even the fact Mortars are 12" from what they used to be. Those changes may change how the unit operates, or even how good or bad they are, but doesn't invalidate your units.

 

So yeah, don't play Kharadrons at all, but this is an extremely poor move I feel. If they've got OP combos, then change their points or change how the weapon operates (Or don't allow stacking), but don't invalidate peoples existing collections. 

 

What I dislike even more is the extent of the changes. They changed how you can loadout the unit, and basically what each weapon does. The unit isn't really anything like it was before, and this unit only came out like 4 months ago. Because of the extent of the changes, it means they didn't errata it, they published a page in the General's Handbook about it. So they can't even easily roll it back (or roll in some other form of update) because they've pushed it into print.

[Bryan C]

I don't really get the issue here - it has always been a risk for as long as there has been any form of competitive play that if you build something super strong it will get hit with the nerf bat.

Previously it would have been tournament organisers that would have done this sort of thing - now GW are playing a more active part in the community / maintenance of the game they are solving the problem instead.

I have built lists like this before and realised that they had a potentially very short (some times one tournament) effective life span - you pays your money and you make sure your choice.

Anyone surprised by this is surely eithe very naive or very new to the scene and also is focussed on competitive play because no hobby gamer I know would ever consider min-maxing to such an extent.

Next people that brought 27 sky fires will be asking GW for a refund when they invariably go up in price - it's not going to happen people - live with the consequence of your choices, learn from them and move on.

 

[The Golem]

@Bryan C The issue here is not the power level of the Grundstok Thunderers but the fact that, all of a sudden, units which were built in a specific way are now made illegal (especially per the rule of WYSIWYG).

[Bryan C]

@The Golem but people only built them that way to gain maximum gaming advantage  - it's no different to in days of old buying 4 hydras because they are awesome but then global comp imposing a limit of max 1 of them. 

Same net effect - you purchased a clearly optimal (some would say overpowered for its cost) choice and then a rules change made it unusable - this has been happening for ever - it's not news - and no one has sympathy for the people affected buy it 

[The Golem]

3 minutes ago, Bryan C said:

@The Golem but people only built them that way to gain maximum gaming advantage  - it's no different to in days of old buying 4 hydras because they are awesome but then global comp imposing a limit of max 1 of them. 

Same net effect - you purchased a clearly optimal (some would say overpowered for its cost) choice and then a rules change made it unusable - this has been happening for ever - it's not news - and no one has sympathy for the people affected buy it 

I understand your point. Nonetheless I feel sorry for players like Thomas Lyon who bought 10 boxes of Thunderers to build 1 unit of 10 models equipped with the same weapon. It's a lot of money and hobby efforts gone to waste.

@Thomas Lyons I don't know how your thunderers are assembled (I haven't bought any) but couldn't you use an X-acto knife and carefully separate the mortar from 9 of your models then put other weapons instead?

[Mohojoe]

Hello! Just bought a load of KO this week. You can all see it in the market thread so you know I'm not blowing hot air when I say I just bought KO products.

I couldn't care less about models needing to be changed. We had to go from squares to round bases and that also didn't make my minis useless.

Changes to warscrolls are nice to see, would be nice to see all the pdf warscrolls be updated and in the app so new players just see the revised version ( this may already be happening)

Slightly annoying that the KO battletome and war scroll cards are already slightly outdated. When I first read the thunderers scroll it seemed ridiculous so is it a case of GW needing a wider array of playtesting so these things get caught before going to print?

As for the actual nerf. I agree it's needed and I think that's how it should have been from the start, taking 5 was insane!





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aezeal]

4 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

I fully agree.  I think the nerf is good for future players, terrible for early adopters who purchased GW product on good faith and have now been punished for trusting GW.  This is obviously especially fresh for myself since I just finished my unit of 10 Aethercannon Thunderers yesterday and now have 10 boxes each missing at least a bit or two that can no longer be returned since all of them are "opened."  I have $400 of models that will never see play and that I would have never bought if these rules had been this way from the beginning.  I could have at least returned them last week before I started them if I had known that this change was coming.  

Wow you actually bought 10 boxes.... must really love wysiwyg.. Didn't expect people to be really that.... stu.. I mean dedicated.

Having seen the unit I must say it looks great..Not 400 dollar great but certainly 100+

[Kramer]

52 minutes ago, Bryan C said:

Same net effect - you purchased a clearly optimal (some would say overpowered for its cost) choice and then a rules change made it unusable - this has been happening for ever - it's not news - and no one has sympathy for the people affected buy it 

One mistake you are making is the assumption that the whole hobby revolves around tournament play. That's just shortsighted. There is a big big difference between something being less effective and suddenly not being to be able to field a unit. 

 

52 minutes ago, Bryan C said:

@The Golem but people only built them that way to gain maximum gaming advantage  - it's no different to in days of old buying 4 hydras because they are awesome but then global comp imposing a limit of max 1 of them. 

 

In this example if I bought 3 hydra's because I think it's a fluffy and cool looking unit and army and gw invalidates 2 out of 3 €60,- models.... Those happen and GW doesn't need to guarantee it but it affects players even outside of the tournament scene. And yes those people exist  

1 hour ago, Bryan C said:

Anyone surprised by this is surely eithe very naive or very new to the scene and also is focussed on competitive play because no hobby gamer I know would ever consider min-maxing to such an extent.

 

And hello, now you do know of one. I haven't played a tournament in over 15 years. But I could have easily made a full unit with just mortars of fulmigators for that matter because I think it's a cool options. That's not being naive, that's simply playing around with the options available. 

 

[Aezeal]

You know I really think gw playtests just with the unit as they are out of the box. I genuinely playtested quite a lot with a few pretty prdoction models or something with a common load out as in the box... But not with the pov of power gamers.  I'm not sure whether I think that is a wrong approach either.

[Kramer]

1 minute ago, Aezeal said:

You know I really think gw playtests just with the unit as they are out of the box. I genuinely playtested quite a lot with a few pretty prdoction models or something with a common load out as in the box... But not with the pov of power gamers.  I'm not sure whether I think that is a wrong approach either.

True, I feel there should be some thought there as well.. but GW is making such a case for the three ways to play (which I personally love) they should test it in all three settings. 

[Tzaangor Management]

I suspect we are about to see a number of rules like this that will fundamentally change people's armies, although this may be the thick end of the wedge, given the time and expense you have gone to @Thomas Lyons.

I don't think that they really could have communicated this decision earlier, because they would have had to do it for every single unit they were changing. I personally wouldn't have bought marauders had I known their minimum unit size was increasing. This in contrast to your massive outlay is small fry, but if they'd communicated the KO changes, then what about the next thing down the line and the next thing and the next thing.

[Nico]

This could have been flagged earlier. 

Gameplay wise - The practical solution is to play them as 10 Rifles for probably a 50% damage reduction (TOs should be sympathetic as regards WYSIWYG here) coupled to a range increase. People would start to figure out how to deploy to keep their valuable stuff more than 3" from their chaff wall soon.

I think we all knew that KO were OP (or more specifically they were almost an autowin vs 50% of armies but hard countered by a minority (Stormcast)). Someone was inevitably going to get hit by the nerf bag - whether it was Mr Bought 6 Khemists or Rigger Spam or Thunderers.