Jump to content

GW is asking for advice on GHB 2019


kenshin620

Recommended Posts

Personally, I would just like to see the next GHB promote and encourage small point games along with the normal 2000 points.  Would also like to see warbands get a revised and updated ruleset, but I have a feeling that will be a separate boxset in 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply
26 minutes ago, Equinox said:

Personally, I would just like to see the next GHB promote and encourage small point games along with the normal 2000 points.  Would also like to see warbands get a revised and updated ruleset, but I have a feeling that will be a separate boxset in 2019.

Honestly I think smaller point games will get their own attention once GW has fleshed out more factions and its then more beneficial to push the game harder to new comers. Right now any big push hits the wall of "hey wait half these armies have only 2 models and no battletome,  but I want to play as the elves with the big flying bird" 

40K got around that by listing the index on each faction page until it was replaced with a codex, AoS doesn't do that, although there is stats for each unit on a download, however that is just that unit and its warscroll, not the army rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I appreciate GW engaging the community, I don't know that there's a whole lot to be gained by going wide with soliciting random opinions.

At the end of the day, it shouldn't be too hard to create an objective system for points costing.

I have actually been fiddling around with a spreadsheet recently to see if I could create a formula that would produce consistent and reasonable points values for units.  I haven't spent a lot of time or effort on it yet, but I was very quickly able to get a decent basis going.  It considers attacks, range, rend, saves, wounds, movement, fly, spell casting, command abilities and a few basic special abilities.  I bashed it against a bunch of Death units and these were the results:

  • Black Knights:  119 points (vs 120)
  • Skeleton Warriors:  80 points (vs 80)
  • Grave Guard:  66 points (vs 80)
  • Grimghast Reapers:  160 points (vs 140)
  • Morghasts:  196 points (vs 220)
  • Dire Wolves:  73 points (vs 60)
  • Hexwraiths:  157 points (vs 160)
  • Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon:  455 points (vs 440)
  • Nagash:  799 points (vs 800)
  • Vargheists:  176 points (vs 160)
  • Necromancer:  70 points (vs 110)
  • Wight King:  80 points (vs 120)

Of the list, only the results for the Necro and Wight King are obviously really borked.  The Vargheist result is surprising.  I think most would agree that Grave Guard are over-costed, Grimghasts under-costed and Dire Wolves too.

One consistent formula calculated all of these values.  The fact that there's so much similarity with actual point values suggests the GW has some kind of method to their madness.  Wouldn't it be better to improve the method, rather than just wade through a tidal wave of opinions?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to conduct a poll on a Facebook group for a certain army, hopefully a collection of opinions in one place will make their jobs easier. Personally, I think GW will be looking for trends (so if 1000 people say that a unit needs a nerf then they are much more likely to nerf that unit than if one or two says a unit needs a nerf), so I'm a little worried that less popular armies will be ignored in favour of popular armies a lot of people talk about (even if the less popular armies are in more need of a change). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CaptainSoup said:

Why do stormvermins need a point reduction? How will this help the army? GW said to provide reasoning why you put your voice in. How do you expect GW to take you seriously if you don't give them what they ask for?

Just a bit of tough love from your neighborhood skeleton 💖

So a better answer would be 10 stormvermin shouldn't cost more than 20 clan rats because both of these units have nearly the same damage output but the unit of clan rats get more out of the faction's bluffs (warlords command ability making them go from 1 to 2 attacks vs 2 to 3) and would have twice the number of wounds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I decided to conduct a poll on a Facebook group for a certain army, hopefully a collection of opinions in one place will make their jobs easier. Personally, I think GW will be looking for trends (so if 1000 people say that a unit needs a nerf then they are much more likely to nerf that unit than if one or two says a unit needs a nerf), so I'm a little worried that less popular armies will be ignored in favour of popular armies a lot of people talk about (even if the less popular armies are in more need of a change). 

That's an interesting thought. If GW is looking for that kind of aggregate data then it would get skewed by popular armies and not armies that may actually need help.

42 minutes ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

While I appreciate GW engaging the community, I don't know that there's a whole lot to be gained by going wide with soliciting random opinions.

At the end of the day, it shouldn't be too hard to create an objective system for points costing.

I have actually been fiddling around with a spreadsheet recently to see if I could create a formula that would produce consistent and reasonable points values for units.  I haven't spent a lot of time or effort on it yet, but I was very quickly able to get a decent basis going.  It considers attacks, range, rend, saves, wounds, movement, fly, spell casting, command abilities and a few basic special abilities.  I bashed it against a bunch of Death units and these were the results:

  • Black Knights:  119 points (vs 120)
  • Skeleton Warriors:  80 points (vs 80)
  • Grave Guard:  66 points (vs 80)
  • Grimghast Reapers:  160 points (vs 140)
  • Morghasts:  196 points (vs 220)
  • Dire Wolves:  73 points (vs 60)
  • Hexwraiths:  157 points (vs 160)
  • Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon:  455 points (vs 440)
  • Nagash:  799 points (vs 800)
  • Vargheists:  176 points (vs 160)
  • Necromancer:  70 points (vs 110)
  • Wight King:  80 points (vs 120)

Of the list, only the results for the Necro and Wight King are obviously really borked.  The Vargheist result is surprising.  I think most would agree that Grave Guard are over-costed, Grimghasts under-costed and Dire Wolves too.

One consistent formula calculated all of these values.  The fact that there's so much similarity with actual point values suggests the GW has some kind of method to their madness.  Wouldn't it be better to improve the method, rather than just wade through a tidal wave of opinions?

 

I can agree mostly on those calculated points changes. The only thing would be to round out the numbers so they're easier to put in lists. No one wants to have a 1988 points list. That would be really awkward to maneuver around if you want it get that extra command point for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Enoby said:

 so I'm a little worried that less popular armies will be ignored in favour of popular armies a lot of people talk about (even if the less popular armies are in more need of a change). 

Yea thats my worry. Especially for allegianceless ranges like Gutbusters or Gitmob.

On the bright side I'm sure they'll finally fix SCE!😋

 

But I also agree with the sentiment that armies that need rule overhauls unfortunately will benefit little from point adjustments, unless said point adjustments are massive. 150pt Ironjaw Brutes! Lets do it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

On the bright side I'm sure they'll finally fix SCE!😋

 

Oh I most wholeheartedly agree! SCE are in much need of some updates, arguably the army that needs the most help right now. I certainly hope they release the fourth revisioned battletome so they can finally be a viable army. *IMMENSE SARCASM*

😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

Oh man, that certainly tickled my funny bone! 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Lemon Knuckles said:
Spoiler

While I appreciate GW engaging the community, I don't know that there's a whole lot to be gained by going wide with soliciting random opinions.

At the end of the day, it shouldn't be too hard to create an objective system for points costing.

I have actually been fiddling around with a spreadsheet recently to see if I could create a formula that would produce consistent and reasonable points values for units.  I haven't spent a lot of time or effort on it yet, but I was very quickly able to get a decent basis going.  It considers attacks, range, rend, saves, wounds, movement, fly, spell casting, command abilities and a few basic special abilities.  I bashed it against a bunch of Death units and these were the results:

  • Black Knights:  119 points (vs 120)
  • Skeleton Warriors:  80 points (vs 80)
  • Grave Guard:  66 points (vs 80)
  • Grimghast Reapers:  160 points (vs 140)
  • Morghasts:  196 points (vs 220)
  • Dire Wolves:  73 points (vs 60)
  • Hexwraiths:  157 points (vs 160)
  • Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon:  455 points (vs 440)
  • Nagash:  799 points (vs 800)
  • Vargheists:  176 points (vs 160)
  • Necromancer:  70 points (vs 110)
  • Wight King:  80 points (vs 120)

Of the list, only the results for the Necro and Wight King are obviously really borked.  The Vargheist result is surprising.  I think most would agree that Grave Guard are over-costed, Grimghasts under-costed and Dire Wolves too.

One consistent formula calculated all of these values.  The fact that there's so much similarity with actual point values suggests the GW has some kind of method to their madness.  Wouldn't it be better to improve the method, rather than just wade through a tidal wave of opinions?

 

1

Won't an "objective system" ignore army synergies and special rules/artefacs interactions ?
Not trying to belittle your effort. I think there's merit in what you did, and a game should strive to be as balance possible. I just don't think something like an "objective point system" can be achieved. Certain "unbalance" should be assumed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

While I appreciate GW engaging the community, I don't know that there's a whole lot to be gained by going wide with soliciting random opinions.

At the end of the day, it shouldn't be too hard to create an objective system for points costing.

I have actually been fiddling around with a spreadsheet recently to see if I could create a formula that would produce consistent and reasonable points values for units.  I haven't spent a lot of time or effort on it yet, but I was very quickly able to get a decent basis going.  It considers attacks, range, rend, saves, wounds, movement, fly, spell casting, command abilities and a few basic special abilities.  I bashed it against a bunch of Death units and these were the results:

  • Black Knights:  119 points (vs 120)
  • Skeleton Warriors:  80 points (vs 80)
  • Grave Guard:  66 points (vs 80)
  • Grimghast Reapers:  160 points (vs 140)
  • Morghasts:  196 points (vs 220)
  • Dire Wolves:  73 points (vs 60)
  • Hexwraiths:  157 points (vs 160)
  • Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon:  455 points (vs 440)
  • Nagash:  799 points (vs 800)
  • Vargheists:  176 points (vs 160)
  • Necromancer:  70 points (vs 110)
  • Wight King:  80 points (vs 120)

Of the list, only the results for the Necro and Wight King are obviously really borked.  The Vargheist result is surprising.  I think most would agree that Grave Guard are over-costed, Grimghasts under-costed and Dire Wolves too.

One consistent formula calculated all of these values.  The fact that there's so much similarity with actual point values suggests the GW has some kind of method to their madness.  Wouldn't it be better to improve the method, rather than just wade through a tidal wave of opinions?

 

Did you count in the Allegiance Abilities, buffs that can affect the unit? Whether the unit is summonable or not or if the faction has access to healing? The list will get longer and incredibly intertwined. 

But nicely done so far =}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, CaptainSoup said:

I can agree mostly on those calculated points changes. The only thing would be to round out the numbers so they're easier to put in lists. No one wants to have a 1988 points list. That would be really awkward to maneuver around if you want it get that extra command point for example.

Yeah, these weren't suggestions on what points should be.  Just the result of trying to puzzle it out... "crack the code" as it were.  The initial run certainly makes it seem like it's possible.  I leave it up for debate whether it is even desirable to have a consistent and objective framework for points discussions in the first place, versus I think x because i am comparing it to y, or it is possible to do z with it.

22 minutes ago, Jator said:

Won't an "objective system" ignore army synergies and special rules/artefacs interactions ?
Not trying to belittle your effort. I think there's merit in what you did, and a game should strive to be as balance possible. I just don't think something like an "objective point system" can be achieved. Certain "unbalance" should be assumed.

Yes it would, and it actually should.

I would never advocate for "absolute" balance.  Certain unbalance is actually desirable, or else what's the point of even list building?  Any pile of equal points would be just as good as any other.  But that's not really the question, I don't think.  The question is more of where you want the unbalance to come from?  Do you want it to come from smart list design, unlocking synergies, army composition, the questions and answers presented by your list, or do you want it to come from inconsistent point costing?  

If the only reason list A will beat list B more often than not is because it is putting, say, 2400 points-worth of vanilla stats on the table for only 2000, that's a less desirable problem than saying list A will beat list B more often than not because it is able to get more value out of its 2000 points.  

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I tried to be as objective as possible. Nagash to stay as he is 800 points is still an awful lot to pay for one model, bllodknigjts to be reduced in points further to 220 maybe as why would you take them over morghasts as it stands? And my bug bear; make treelords more bloody expensive! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Balance is a pain. I play Street Fighter amongst other fighting games, and it never pleases everyone. I did post my thoughts on FB (and Twitter) for what it's worth, but I don't think it'll even be considered because of the factions I play. Anyway:

  • Drakespawn Knights - no points drops, but need to hit harder. Not even Eel hard, but something. 
  • Scourgerunner/Drakespawn Chariots - both considered weak choices and battalion taxes. No point drops needed if the stat-line gets something. 
  • Corsairs - stateline buff, again no points reduction. No one wants to paint 100 of them (40, 40, 20/10, 10). Synergy with Fleemaster good, but you don't have the CPs to keep using the command ability. Maybe there's something around redoing this ability? Lots of Fleetmasters really suits and I think Corsairs really belong in the Mortal Realms. 
  • Dark Riders - why aren't these Order battleline? Shadowblades are a waste of time, but at least you'd ally in an Assassin. These are a waste of the excellent dual build kit. 

Serious wishlist territory:

  • Sorceress on Drakespawn for Order Serpentis or Darkling Coven (I'd prefer former, thematically. The model is gone  though, however it so suits the Serpentis theme battle sorceress and add much needed none-ally magic to them) 100/120 pts depending on Warscroll
  • Dreadlord on Drakespawn for Order Serpentis. If you don't do anything for the Knights, at least let us buff them somehow beyond Do Not Disappoint Me. 100 points max, or if he's a combat monster with a greatblade, a bit more. You could then take more Knights and 1 less dragon if you wanted.
  • Dreadlord for Darkling Coven. A fighter leader wouldn't go amiss at all and would be awesome amongst Black Guard or Executioners. 
  • Some kind of synergy beyond Battalions. Free Cities is OK, but a bit more flavour would be much appreciated. 

Truthfully, I know there's no desire from GW. I should be grateful that the new aelves kick serious face, but I just don't love them like I do Serpentis, Privateers and Covens... 

I'll keep buying Corsairs, Knights etc until Malerion's aelves land, I promise, just make these guys a bit tougher in the face of MW, rend and Endless Spells!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Did you count in the Allegiance Abilities, buffs that can affect the unit? Whether the unit is summonable or not or if the faction has access to healing? The list will get longer and incredibly intertwined. 

But nicely done so far =}

No I didn't.

There are certainly ways to do it though.  

One would be to tax the unit that provides the buff.  For example, based on the vanilla calculation, the necro is only worth 70 points.  I don't think that makes any sense though, so obviously there's room to price in his ability to buff somehow.

Another way would be to differentiate some of the variables in the formula across different factions in order to reinforce their flavor and also to account for allegiance abilities, etc.  This would be 2nd level balancing, and could be really good.  In MtG, for example, the different colors have different strengths and weaknesses, and the same basic ability (e.g. draw a card, 2 points of burn, targeted removal, etc.) don't have the same mana cost in different colors.

What that could potentially give you is an objective vanilla framework for points costs, that can be further tweaked and customized on a faction by faction basis by modifying key variables.  

And if GW wanted a third level of balance for retail purposes (*cough* grimghasts *cough*), that could be a final modifier applied to the end.  Think of it like the rarity system in MtG or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

While I appreciate GW engaging the community, I don't know that there's a whole lot to be gained by going wide with soliciting random opinions.

At the end of the day, it shouldn't be too hard to create an objective system for points costing.

I have actually been fiddling around with a spreadsheet recently to see if I could create a formula that would produce consistent and reasonable points values for units.  I haven't spent a lot of time or effort on it yet, but I was very quickly able to get a decent basis going.  It considers attacks, range, rend, saves, wounds, movement, fly, spell casting, command abilities and a few basic special abilities.  I bashed it against a bunch of Death units and these were the results:

  • Black Knights:  119 points (vs 120)
  • Skeleton Warriors:  80 points (vs 80)
  • Grave Guard:  66 points (vs 80)
  • Grimghast Reapers:  160 points (vs 140)
  • Morghasts:  196 points (vs 220)
  • Dire Wolves:  73 points (vs 60)
  • Hexwraiths:  157 points (vs 160)
  • Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon:  455 points (vs 440)
  • Nagash:  799 points (vs 800)
  • Vargheists:  176 points (vs 160)
  • Necromancer:  70 points (vs 110)
  • Wight King:  80 points (vs 120)

Of the list, only the results for the Necro and Wight King are obviously really borked.  The Vargheist result is surprising.  I think most would agree that Grave Guard are over-costed, Grimghasts under-costed and Dire Wolves too.

One consistent formula calculated all of these values.  The fact that there's so much similarity with actual point values suggests the GW has some kind of method to their madness.  Wouldn't it be better to improve the method, rather than just wade through a tidal wave of opinions?

 

Pretty interesting to see, could you run this for the most commonly used Stormcast? Sequitors, Evocators, Liberators, Fulminators specifically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CaptainSoup said:

Oh I most wholeheartedly agree! SCE are in much need of some updates, arguably the army that needs the most help right now. I certainly hope they release the fourth revisioned battletome so they can finally be a viable army. *IMMENSE SARCASM*

😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

Oh man, that certainly tickled my funny bone! 😉

I actually do think they could do with point changes idk why everyone assumes that means cuts across the board. Increasing costs to Sequitors and Evocators while decreasing costs to Paladins and Dracothian Guard would go a long way to opening up the options for competitive play and increasing internal balance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Black Blade said:

I actually do think they could do with point changes idk why everyone assumes that means cuts across the board. Increasing costs to Sequitors and Evocators while decreasing costs to Paladins and Dracothian Guard would go a long way to opening up the options for competitive play and increasing internal balance

Realistically sure of course, and I'm sure you'll get the bulk of the points changes regardless of what anyone says. What's hilarious is the optics of it.

GW has a ton of factions with absolutely no love given to them and they've given SCE some TLC whenever they get the chance. It's a little weird when you have so many factions that desperately need their own battletomes and points changes yet they give SCE three of them, one every year or two. So the comments which I'm sure are on Facebook by now of someone raging about how SCE are utter trash and are in desperate need of fixing is quite humorous in comparison.  Now we all have a good idea as to why GW would give SCE so much love so there's no point derailing into that topic, but I would hazard to guess that if they didn't get as many points changes as other factions then most people wouldn't complain too much. 

All in good fun though, I hope that all factions gets some love in the next GHB instead of just a select few and some points changing on the side, but that probably isn't realistic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Black Blade said:

Pretty interesting to see, could you run this for the most commonly used Stormcast? Sequitors, Evocators, Liberators, Fulminators specifically.

  • Sequitors 121 (3 Mauls, 2 Greatmace)
  • Liberators 112 (4 Warhammer, 1 Grandhammer)
  • Fulminators 207 
  • Evocators 206 (Tempestblade and Stormstave)

Keep in mind that right now the formula does nothing with Bravery, and nothing with unusual one-off abilities like Celestial Lightning Arc.

**EDIT:  Fulminators up to 213 with a provisional stab at accounting for Impaling Strikes.  Would need to spend time noodling Sigmarite Shields and Intolerable Damage.  Doable, but will have to rejig the spreadsheet a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, froo said:

I gave my own experience with Ironjawz (I think they're in a good place) 

I'd hate to be in a bad place!

50 minutes ago, froo said:

I actually advocated for a points increase in the Big Boss on Giant Spider

Wouldn't disagree with that.  Maybe coupled with the venom being unmodified 6s (unmodified 5s with the CA) and a drop on the Spider Riders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...