GW is asking for advice on GHB 2019

[Enochi]

Ugg. So they are doing a 2019 General's handbook soon? I mean they just released AOS 2.0 this summer and it had basically everything the handbook covers. Now roughly 6 months later they are already doing an update? Not really happy about this. 

[CaptainSoup]

7 minutes ago, Enochi said:

Ugg. So they are doing a 2019 General's handbook soon? I mean they just released AOS 2.0 this summer and it had basically everything the handbook covers. Now roughly 6 months later they are already doing an update? Not really happy about this. 

They release the GHB every year, hence why the year number is on the book. The book probably won't be released anytime soon, but they are already working on making the book since making that content takes time. 

[Rachmani]

2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Just to put my own opinion in.  I think you're completely right on saying that some armies do need warscroll / battletome changes - my Khorne (Bloodbound) army would love to receive a bit of love as there are some pretty big issues with it.  However, I don't think that a post where GW have asked a specific question is the right place to post that.  It's only going to make their life harder than necessary, trying to sort out the information that they specifically want.

I get something similar a lot in my job as a Web Dev.  I'll get half a dozen people to test out a new function I've added on a website.  Out of all the feedback I get, I can guarantee that around 60 to 70% of the comments will be completely unrelated to that new function.  They're valid comments don't get me wrong, but it's not what I'm working on so they have to either be put aside for later, or more likely chucked.  Worse still is when people end up commenting on something that's going to be changed as a future project.

You‘re definitely right and although everyone answering could do both, give an answer to the question asked and at the same time PS. Them with „Army XY needs an overhaul“, the likelihood of that happening is close to zero.

So there is no perfect or maybe even just feasible way of doing it. Nevertheless both types of feedback have to be given - and heard. 

Maybe the community team will be able to handle it. 

 

P.S. Something I would shy away from in both cases is the „how“. There are ofc a lot of clever people with good game (and more specific balance) sense. But the act of sorting them out from all the not so good advice is tedious af. But if one were to just drop feedback in a concise manner, maybe giving both in one post could be sortable.

[Fulkes]

20 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?

 

Can you compare the Mortis Engine, Coven Throne and Bloodseeker Palanquin? I am greatly curious if the last one truly runs as much as a Mortarch when checked this way.

[kenshin620]

42 minutes ago, Enochi said:

Ugg. So they are doing a 2019 General's handbook soon? I mean they just released AOS 2.0 this summer and it had basically everything the handbook covers. Now roughly 6 months later they are already doing an update? Not really happy about this. 

 

33 minutes ago, CaptainSoup said:

They release the GHB every year, hence why the year number is on the book. The book probably won't be released anytime soon, but they are already working on making the book since making that content takes time. 

Yea I would hazard a guess that GHB 2019 will be out in the summer, exactly 1 year from GHB 2018 (give and take a month or two depending on what other releases are done at the time).

 

 

[Jetengine]

One of the more obvious things I feel the GHB2019 is going to have to address is Artillery. Does everyone get the same Stormcast-and-ballista-have-one-profile rule or is it just them ? 

[CaptainSoup]

6 minutes ago, Jetengine said:

One of the more obvious things I feel the GHB2019 is going to have to address is Artillery. Does everyone get the same Stormcast-and-ballista-have-one-profile rule or is it just them ? 

Could you elaborate? Don't most artillery profiles come with their own guys to actually run the physical artillery weapon?

[Jetengine]

Just now, CaptainSoup said:

Could you elaborate? Don't most artillery profiles come with their own guys to actually run the physical artillery weapon?

The Ballista has a singular profile which makes it reasonably stronger since you cant just pick off squishy seperate dudes with a single wound. No other artillery piece does.

[Gecktron]

1 minute ago, Jetengine said:

The Ballista has a singular profile which makes it reasonably stronger since you cant just pick off squishy seperate dudes with a single wound. No other artillery piece does.

Skaven artillery pieces are similar (WLC, Plague Catapults). 

[CaptainSoup]

20 minutes ago, Jetengine said:

The Ballista has a singular profile which makes it reasonably stronger since you cant just pick off squishy seperate dudes with a single wound. No other artillery piece does.

I had to look at two warscrolls to see what you mean. The SCE is a one wound tracker profile for the whole unit while older artillery warscrolls have a separate wound tracker for the men operating the artillery. That is interesting. I guess its all the more reason for them to increase their points cost!

[Jetengine]

1 minute ago, CaptainSoup said:

I had to look at two warscrolls to see what you mean. The SCE is a one wound tracker profile for the whole unit while older artillery warscrolls have a separate wound tracker for the men operating the artillery. That is interesting. I guess its all the more reason for them to increase their points cost!

Exactly. Other then the above mentioned Skaven stuff I cant think of another artillery piece that isnt also a chariot that has a singular profile.

[Lemon Knuckles]

3 hours ago, Fulkes said:

Can you compare the Mortis Engine, Coven Throne and Bloodseeker Palanquin? I am greatly curious if the last one truly runs as much as a Mortarch when checked this way.

• Mortis Engine 152 pts (vs 180 GHB18); have not accounted for the Reliquary or Bound Necromancer
• Coven Throne 284 pts (vs 260 GHB18); have not accounted for Scrying Pool, The Hunger or Deathly Invocation
• Bloodseeker Palanquin 238 pts (vs 320 GHB18); have not accounted for Fine Vintage or Deathly Invocation

This was an interesting one in term of the Palanquin v Covent Throne comparison.  Regardless of opportunity to calibrate some of the formula's variables, etc., to get closer to GHB values, the disparity between these two units is ridiculous.  There really is no justification.  And while I don't think we can solve all of the game's issues through points adjustments, examples like these highlight that there are definitely issues with the internal logic of point costs, and it would be nice to have some sort of logical foundation in place to make sorting the 2nd level issues easier.

If there's sufficient interest, I might just make a dedicated thread on this topic.  Better yet, if some bright and enterprising folk want to help build/tweak/noodle the math and logic, I could definitely use the brain-power.

[Fulkes]

2 minutes ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

• Mortis Engine 152 pts (vs 180 GHB18); have not accounted for the Reliquary or Bound Necromancer
• Coven Throne 284 pts (vs 260 GHB18); have not accounted for Scrying Pool, The Hunger or Deathly Invocation
• Bloodseeker Palanquin 238 pts (vs 320 GHB18); have not accounted for Fine Vintage or Deathly Invocation

This was an interesting one in term of the Palanquin v Covent Throne comparison.  Regardless of opportunity to calibrate some of the formula's variables, etc., to get closer to GHB values, the disparity between these two units is ridiculous.  There really is no justification.  And while I don't think we can solve all of the game's issues through points adjustments, examples like these highlight that there are definitely issues with the internal logic of point costs, and it would be nice to have some sort of logical foundation in place to make sorting the 2nd level issues easier.

If there's sufficient interest, I might just make a dedicated thread on this topic.  Better yet, if some bright and enterprising folk want to help build/tweak/noodle the math and logic, I could definitely use the brain-power.

Thanks! And yeah, I had a sneaking suspicion the Palanquin is around 100 points over costed (even if you take into account the missing rules, Fine Vintage is incredibly limited as an ability if you're not running a Soulblight army that lets you run Blood Knights as battleline and every hero had DI but the Palanquin's is a toned down when compared to the Coven Throne's). I feel like it was a typo that slipped in that no one noticed when they updated the points in the most recent book. Why else would it cost the same points cost as Akham?

I'd already posted as such on Facebook last night, but I felt it worth getting verification as my gut feeling may be pretty good when it comes to points costs, it's not perfect.

[adreal]

I posted on the Facebook topic, my two armies (wanderers and nighthaunt) I feel are okay points wise (though some tweaks will come, stalkers for one will most likly go up, thanks legions of nagash). I did comment that a change to realm wandering would be welcome.

 

Granted this will most likly be passed over, but if they only ask for points, and no one mentions any other things that need changing (like KO and stuff like that) then these things may not change, cant hurt to make our voices heard after all

[Fulkes]

I skimmed through comments and saw that other things were being mentioned (I even tossed in that the Coven Throne should be a Vampire Lord because a Vampire Queen is the one in charge on it and how can royalty not be on par with a lower ranking Lord) but who knows if they'l take that feedback people are giving and actually do something with it or not.

[Icegoat]

Putrid blightkings and pusgoyles should have disgustingly resilient. They die to easy right now to evocator and witch aelves. 

[PlasticCraic]

3 hours ago, Jetengine said:

The Ballista has a singular profile which makes it reasonably stronger since you cant just pick off squishy seperate dudes with a single wound. No other artillery piece does.

Yeah, there used to be an FAQ on that.  One of the earliest ones they ever released, saying you could target the crew and artillery piece separately. 

As far as I can see, that FAQ has now been removed?

I'm going to email the FAQ team about that one and see where we stand. 

Since they have a single Pitched Battle profile and appear on the same Warscroll, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that you can target them separately without the FAQ.  Until we get an answer I guess we will play that you can target them, since that's the status quo, but it'll be hard to explain that to new players!

PS FWIW the Squig Gobba is another one with a single profile, although you'd expect that since unlike the Ballista it is on a single base.

[PJetski]

13 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

Putrid blightkings and pusgoyles should have disgustingly resilient. They die to easy right now to evocator and witch aelves. 

Just about everything dies to Evocators and Witch Elves

[adreal]

1 hour ago, Icegoat said:

Putrid blightkings and pusgoyles should have disgustingly resilient. They die to easy right now to evocator and witch aelves. 

Doesnt the harbinger of decay allow you to put disgustingly resilient on a unit of blightkings or blightlords?

[Black Blade]

22 hours ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

• 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.

This is really quite interesting, thank you. It kind of validates my play experience with each (I understand that certain elements are not accounted for but still...)
The Sequitors surprise me most, only scoring 10 points higher despite double the grandweapons and a far preferable special ability. Fulminators should be lower points (but then again i think this is a game-wide condition that applies to all non-flying cavalry units). Also Evocators probably should sit around 200/220, they punch hard but they can't take a whole lot really. Again thanks for doing all this work. 

[sloane_paints_stuff]

1 hour ago, Icegoat said:

Putrid blightkings and pusgoyles should have disgustingly resilient. They die to easy right now to evocator and witch aelves. 

Blightlords do have disgustingly resilient as they have the daemon keyword. Would like to see them come down in price and be able to be ran as a single for 100 pts. Blightkings and the other rotbringer heroes should have a mw save as would fit with the lore and nurgle themes.

I think of all the armies points wise nurgle is pretty well balanced. Just a couple tweaks. Beasts are too pricey, along with blightlords. Battalions are also too pricey imo, could do with a 20 points drop.  Glottkin isnt really worth his points either, GUO trumps him in a lot of ways. The maggoth lords are over priced, they should be around 180-200. But mostly nurgle was well written. Contagion is probably the most balanced summoning system of the lot, it's the trees that make nurgle so good so the tree could go up in summoning points maaaaaybe or faqd to wholly within so less shenanigans. As a nurgle player i think itd be fair.

[Waiyuren]

Comments on the Facebook post are closed now. Lots of stuff about DoK, Dispossessed, and KO, merging mini-factions, and allegiance abilities/battalions for mini-factions.

I didn't see too many clearly gamey ideas, although they were in there. 😅

[Ragnar Alpaca]

4 hours ago, Waiyuren said:

Comments on the Facebook post are closed now. Lots of stuff about DoK, Dispossessed, and KO, merging mini-factions, and allegiance abilities/battalions for mini-factions.

I didn't see too many clearly gamey ideas, although they were in there. 😅

Dispossessed you say? Good. Maybe they’ll buff us if they see enough people still love the classic beards. Also I really do feel sorry for the poor KO, they just need some big buffs.

[Kyriakin]

BCR need a way to play Age of Sigmar (i.e. an objective-based game).

That means some new Allegiance Ability that effectively multiplies the number of models on an objective by x3, or whatever (admittedly, number of wounds on the objective would be OP).

That way, Mournfang or Yhettes have some chance of holding a contested objective (Gnoblar allies currently just evaporate).

[Jamopower]

I'd like to see more of points increases than drops. Some of the stuff is already very low cost and still not worth taking in a big picture (stuff like freeguild guard for example). By always decreasing and decreasing, you'll be finally in a place where common grot costs one point per model.