Were Jabberslythes considered too powerful?

[Kevlar1972]

1 hour ago, Myzyrael said:

Ive never seen the micromanagement as a problem, but we play not tournament level hard. My personal experience with wholly within is that it reduced crazy “I buff my whole army with this dude you cannot see/kill/...” thing. 

On the downside I dislike that some armies have it already and some still have just whitin. Oh how I would love to see that seraphon get that cure for their annoying standard bearer ?.

I agree.  It also makes buff stacking on max sized units much more difficult.  These units usually already have decent internal buffs, add a couple outside buffs and its a giant deathstar.  I won't be sad to see those curtailed.

[decker_cky]

35 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

Other than large base MSUs like monstrous cavalry or big base infantry, how many times has this actually happened? Outside of a few abilities that specifically targets a particular model, is it really that hard to not have 3-6 model buffer to make sure half a unit doesn't disappear?

Tough to illustrate, but an important thing to remember from the base rules is that you can't make any move, including a pile in, unless the unit ends in coherency.  If you have a sniper ability and multiple units in combat, it's definitely possible to crack a large unit. This issue being that it requires at least two units charging in, and most sniper abilities are on models that will cause a significant amount of damage already, limiting the impact (ie, they take all the casualties on whichever side they later sacrifice). 

[kenshin620]

4 minutes ago, decker_cky said:

Tough to illustrate, but an important thing to remember from the base rules is that you can't make any move, including a pile in, unless the unit ends in coherency.  If you have a sniper ability and multiple units in combat, it's definitely possible to crack a large unit. This issue being that it requires at least two units charging in, and most sniper abilities are on models that will cause a significant amount of damage already, limiting the impact (ie, they take all the casualties on whichever side they later sacrifice). 

Well yea if you are a good player who can manipulate the board well and finish off a good chunk of a unit through model sniping, like a Gargant Bag Stuff, then maybe it's me but I think you should be rewarded for catching your opponent off guard!

But if it's an average horde of Blood Warriors chopping up a horde of Sequitors, unless the spacing was truly bizarre, I highly doubt breaking unit coherency to get additional kills would be a likely outcome.

 

On the other subject I guess it is hard to balance wholly within vs "just need to touch one guy". A blanket one way or the other is a little rough, they could do it through a case by case basis (but methinks they're too lazy for that). Like a minor buff for a non top tier army should be "within", a powerful ability for a top tier army should be "wholly within". But judging which are true Deathstars and which aren't is a little subjective. Especially on the subject of 30-40 man horde units.

 

And I think I'm getting really off topic about the Jabber!

 

 

[Nico]

49 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

Other than large base MSUs like monstrous cavalry or big base infantry, how many times has this actually happened? Outside of a few abilities that specifically targets a particular model, is it really that hard to not have 3-6 model buffer to make sure half a unit doesn't disappear?

Morathi or a Tidecaster snipe one model in a unit of 30 Dudes, don’t engage them, so no piling in. 15 die, and you lose a CP on Battleshock. It’s a very real thing.

Deepkin players take the Soell to do this by default.

[Aezeal]

3 hours ago, Nico said:

Wholly within is generally bad for the game. It adds a lot of micromanagement and scope for gotcha moments when you pile in one model out of wholly within etc..

The alleged problem of congaing has led to the worse solution of the split units rule, which results in certain kill one model abilities wiping out half a unit. Law of unintended consequences striking again.

Having played nurgle twice recently I have to say that that ability is crazy strong though... 

[decker_cky]

30 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

Well yea if you are a good player who can manipulate the board well and finish off a good chunk of a unit through model sniping, like a Gargant Bag Stuff, then maybe it's me but I think you should be rewarded for catching your opponent off guard!

The rule is supposed to define casualty removal not create an offensive tool. It's a 'gotcha' rule of the worst kind that leads to poor play experiences.

[kenshin620]

Well I do admi t my personal experiences don't measure up with others.

That is the problem with big edition changes, they are essentially an experiment to see what happens when they tweak rules. And unlike video games, it's hard to make any immediate changes if problems arise or finding enough player feedback. Have to wait for "The Big" FAQ/Errata they promise to do every 6-8 months.

Like the launch of 8th edition 40k made some...unsavory powergame lists.

[Nos]

On 9/24/2018 at 5:49 PM, Domowoj said:

Yeah, this is the Jabberslythe's second points-hike this year. At 120, they would always be worth their points, but including one in your army was tricky before allies rules came around. IIRC, allies rules were implemented during the 2017 GHB, and at that point, the Jabbers became great. 2018 GHB bumped them to 140 without a warscroll change. I think that was a good place for them to be. The problem now is that they are better incorporated into a broad faction, so they had to be re-balanced within a larger spectrum of army-selection. But the interactions are very complex and I think GW has overcompensated here for sure.

Jabberslythes went from...

1) too good but hard to include (Chaos allegiance only)

2) too good and easier to include (Most chaos subfaction allegiances can include as ally)

3) points hike to 140 - I think this was a good balance.

4) GW overcompensates during BoC release. I don't know why they think Jabbers needed to be nerfed so hard; they were good, but definitely LESS of an auto-include with the full BoC range available to choose from.

Because they don't prioritise/aren't particularly good at or invested in balancing stuff

[Kevlar1972]

1 hour ago, Nos said:

Because they don't prioritise/aren't particularly good at or invested in balancing stuff

Because they use rules changes to drive sales.  I'm sure the jabber hit its saturation point where it just wasn't selling as well.  So they nerf it and make a new flavor of the month.  (Chimera).  This has been their business model since forever.  Make something way too good.  Wait until its hit market saturation and no one is buying it.  Nerf it, make something else a better bargain.  

They're in business to sell miniatures, not make a perfectly balanced game.

[Nos]

45 minutes ago, Kevlar1972 said:

Because they use rules changes to drive sales.  I'm sure the jabber hit its saturation point where it just wasn't selling as well.  So they nerf it and make a new flavor of the month.  (Chimera).  This has been their business model since forever.  Make something way too good.  Wait until its hit market saturation and no one is buying it.  Nerf it, make something else a better bargain.  

They're in business to sell miniatures, not make a perfectly balanced game.

Eh I think you're overthinking it. Most models dont receive buffs until their book is released. There's a plethora of things they could buff if they wanted to make things more appealing to buy that they don't if they were doing as you say. Look at SCE. They made a ton of things less useful. According to your logic making everything good or viable would be by far the most commercially sensible thing to do. Most of the Stormcast's best units are now very cheap to buy and very easy to get on the second hand market for next to nothing after being bought at already heavy discount. You could buy a very competitive SCE army for less than £150 now if you don't mind monopose. 

What a lot of people forget is that GW products are produced at such an advanced stage there's no real way to actually balance the meta without a massive reboot. BOC was most likely "tested" at the point when Jabbers were massively overpowered for reasons that have since shifted. At the point of testing they probably were balanced with their new profile but with the advance of the meta they no longer are at release. For most GW things it will be the same.

But they are in the Buisness of selling models absolutely and that is very much their first concern. Which is why people should buy the model because they want the model. Its stats and rules are always subject to change and redudnancy. That's shouldnt come as a secret or surprise to anyone.

[Seraphage]

Skyfires work perfectly fine btw ?

 

[Blackspine]

I ran three Jabberslythes at a GT

I'll be the first to say, they were very powerful. 

Most armies there had tools to deal with them; Order has absurd shooting, Tzeentch had ways of dealing with them (this was during the change-host fad where 1/3 tables was changehost) , and destruction still had some remnants of shooting from the Rukk.  

I understand most of the changes, toning down the d3 mortal wounds to 1, (it should have eliminated the 4+ roll with that)

not stacking of auras; fits in new AOS narrative/ rules. 

All that and a price increase? Seems absurd.

 

My reasoning for taking three, was my army had no access to mortal wounds / high rend. The jabbers fit the mortal wound requirement well. 

Beastmen ( Brayherd, warherd, gravespawn, brass stampede etc) have access to mortal wounds now.  (blood greed etc) Even my nurgle army (which they were in) has access to mortal wounds with their new book (Book was not out at time )

What I don't get, is that with the access of mortal wounds, and complete neutering of their power and value, is why they exist?
They're redundant now.  They serve no role; too expensive for a throw away, not fast enough to outdo comparative units (Knights/ centigors for starters) , and don't dish out mortal wounds like they used to.

If they're going to take the time to adjust everything, just create a new unique role for them. Be it harasser; flying with some shooting etc, be it aura fiend, be it just a summoning locus/ sacrificial beast that adds to the herdstone.....just do something with it.

 

I grew to love this ugly ****** of a model.  I'd love to see a reason to use it again. For now, it'll decorate my shelf, as the ghorgons and cygors come out to play....at long last. 

[Popisdead]

oh big time since it was only 120 points.  It was D3 mortal wounds for each wound the enemy did in return.  Any enemy unit you couldn't deal with you just threw Jabberslythes at and pretty much removed it.

[themortalgod]

28 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

oh big time since it was only 120 points.  It was D3 mortal wounds for each wound the enemy did in return.  Any enemy unit you couldn't deal with you just threw Jabberslythes at and pretty much removed it.

It was a 50% chance of D3 MWs up to max of 10 rolls. The median wounds output was only 10. That isn't exactly game breaking and there was a ton of counterplay. (screen it, shoot it, zap it) 

Back in AoS 1 where it did damage for overkill, maybe we could see an argument of OPness. But now that it is down to ~5 MWs from a 160pt model that hits like a wet noodle it feels nerfed handily into the floor.  Though, even on overkill, it didn't feel OP to me, it was a kamakaze but it had counter play and back then you could choose NOT to attack it (or limit the attacks to minimize return damage)