Big FAQ?

[Future]

I think the FAQ is about what I expected. I really didn't think they would be altering battleline and definitely didn't expect point changes in the FAQ.

 

Not that its on topic , just curious where are DOK winning 80% of the time? The big numbers I see are 5% play rate in the meta with a 23% win rate. Really strong no doubt, out performing everything. However, I don't know where 80% comes from?

[SwampHeart]

37 minutes ago, Future said:

I think the FAQ is about what I expected. I really didn't think they would be altering battleline and definitely didn't expect point changes in the FAQ.

 

Not that its on topic , just curious where are DOK winning 80% of the time? The big numbers I see are 5% play rate in the meta with a 23% win rate. Really strong no doubt, out performing everything. However, I don't know where 80% comes from?

3rd section of the stats I linked - it's currently at 76%

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, CaptainSoup said:

the most possible explanation for what we received through this big FAQ was that aside from some rules that needed clearing up, the game itself and its core rules are working as intended. There is nothing so brazenly broken in the game that it is having a large effect on game play

I had the same thought. A lack of sweeping changes in the FAQ is not an indication of failure by GW to take action. Rather, it is an indication that the game is working as intended.

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

DoK have an 80% win ratio in major events

What do you define as major?

From where is your aggregate data coming?

 

Edit: saw your source ... Ohhhkaaay, I guess? 🤷‍♂️

[Skreech Verminking]

nothing to see her.

technical issue

 

[Overread]

If GW is going to make 2019 a bit year for Battletomes (as we all hope and prey and sacrifice for) then it kind of makes sense not to rock the boat too much. Lets not forget if you look at the attendance rates for events any army that has a modern battletome (excepting possibly stormcast) is doing really well whilst any army with an older one is doing ok and most without are either doing moderate to nothing as most don't even bring those armies. 

So I'd say it would be better to see GW release a slew of battletomes and get AoS to the same state that 40K is now in. then its much easier to address balance because all the factions are on a level playing field. At least if the GW team expects to push out a lot of Battletomes in one year and tidy the game up that is the sensible approach I'd take. Yes it means a period where DoK are a bit broken for a while, but on the flipside it means that when bigger balance adjustments do come it should be a smoother transition rather than a messy one. 

[Ninelives]

16 hours ago, Euphanism said:

Its so weird to me that Chaos Gargants and Aleguzzler Gargants are on different base sizes...but are the exact same model.

I just checked again, looks like you're talking about Chaos Siege Gargant (Forgeworld OOP ? ) not the normal Chaos Gargant. 

 

[Kramer]

Haha I always have a bit of a chuckle when I see this 😅 

‘These rules are no longer used’

[Tzaangor Management]

5 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

3rd section of the stats I linked - it's currently at 76%

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a statistical analyst and that I'm a big fan of the work that LLV is doing in collecting and tabulating this information, but I think it's probably a little early in the process to begin using the data to call for sweeping changes. DoK are undoubtedly strong and they are probably the standout army from the first six months of AOS 2.0, but their win percentage is beginning to come down from 80%+ recorded when the stats were first published and other armies are on an upwards trend. They may still rest at the top of the tree by the time that GHB 2019 arrives, or they may find a counter in a debuff heavy Slaanesh army or a fanatic heavy Moonclan army for example and while neither of these is a certainty, neither, equally, is DoK dominating the tournament scene for the next six months.

Disciples of Tzeentch would probably make a reasonable comparison with DoK, but we do not have the historical data to check this against. Next year we'll be in a better position and can compare whatever the new hotness is against the current performance of DoK, but this year we don't have a suitable yardstick and we don't even know if win percentage should be the headline statistic. There are a number of barriers to entry for players to get into DoK: Monetary cost of the  most competitive build, finesse required to maintain all of the buffs and painting requirements (not evident in the win percentage, but important for GT Heats, etc.) for example. All of these factors make DoK the choice for highly skilled and competitive gamers. Compare this to LoN and it's easy to see why they have over double the representation at tournaments and it could be argued that they are actually the stronger army based on top 10 finishes. Their win percentage is likely skewed by the number of people playing them, but the fact that they are always there or thereabouts at the top end of the tournament is  clear.

DoK are strong. Do they need some re-pointing? maybe. Do they need Warscroll updates? possibly. Do they need both? potentially. Is the data proof of this? perhaps. I love seeing the stats and I am sure that LLV has plans for further analysis, categories, breakdowns, etc., but this project is still in it's infancy. It will be a while, if ever, before we can make definitive statements based on the data.

4 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

I’m very confused with this stat lines.

I’m missing Every skaven clan in this lists (excluding skyre and pestilens).

I know they might not have been used in any or many tournamanets, but come on guys, they exist like every other army, why not include them. 

 

This is down to how armies are recorded. I'm sure that some of the GA Chaos armies have been Skaven heavy and possibly even all from a currently unsupported Clan, but until someone turns up to a tournament with a Clan Moulder allegiance for example, then they won't show up in the stats.

On the plus side, there is the chance for anyone to be the undisputed Verminus or Moulder champion available!

[JackStreicher]

14 hours ago, Vextol said:

Maybe.  I'm just glad it's limited to just one mode....oop.  An entire faction gets it.  At least there aren't any other ways to get tha....oop.  Neferata can cast it on an entire unit.

Heroes on monsters are some of the most overcosted, under utilized and squishy models in the game.  And everyone hates shooting right?  Ethereal amulet is just one more way to avoid being shot to death.  Healing abilities are pretty useless a lot of the time because anything potent that needs healed is probably going to get dead before you get a chance do anything.  Ethereal amulet helps with this.  And are you REALLY concerned with the amulet?  Because you can fix it.  Just take gildenbane.  How about instead of nerfing Ethereal amulet, bump the range of Gildenbane to "Within 12 inches" instead of a useless, measly 3.  Boom.  Ethereal amulet balanced.  Heck, go ahead and bring Spell Mirror back.  Make an artifact that nullifies mystic shield within a range.  Whatever you need to do that doesn't simply erase a useful artifact.

I don't even have to mention that 50% of the armies out there can't deal with a REGULAR 3+ reroll 1 hero.  You are already spoiled if the ethereal amulet is all that's holding you back.

I don't really care how they deal with it, but this constant need to break anything even remotely cool in the name of 'balance' makes the game so stale and unbalanced.  It's really hard to tell someone an army is unbalanced when there are a gazillion different options and variables.  It's easy when everyone's stuff is simply last years stuff X.0.   

Remove ethereal amulet from the game and a lot of the cool heroes that are finally seeing play will go right back to being shelved.  That makes me sad faced.

You are aware that „An entire Army gets it“ is simply a wrong statement. An entire Army get 4+ and now guess why.

well it would still be cool and powerful at a 4+ max. Your beloved hero could now actually die to a gazillion attacks so you would actually have to use some tactics.

Also: Due to the OP Amulett the entire Shyish Section of Artefacts is neglected since that Amulet is too good and you feel like missing out if you don‘t put it on your Monster.

 

about Monsters: So underused! I‘ve never ever seen anyone using Nagash, Vhrodai, the Mortarchs, a VoZD, a Dreadlord on Black Dragon, a Stardrake, a Leviadon, Alarielle, a Treeman, a Stonehorn (Mhhm that tasty 3+ rerolling 1s while halfing all dmg) etc.

I really felt like that chaos giant which oneshotted my Leviadon was totally overcosted! Gish these 180 points were such a bad investment!

also the Gorgon, summoned for free which oneshotted 30 Namarti felt ABSOLUTELY overcosted, thise tasty 6 mortals wounds in addition to the normal dmg, which he still can do with 8 wounds on him,  seemed really, really weak!🥺

YOU MUST BE RIGHT, now I see it! 😱

 

no one said make it unusable, just make it fair, which is a 4+ like ALL ethereals have (at best).

 

 

[Kyriakin]

9 hours ago, kenshin620 said:

I mean...what would they need to FAQ for BCR?

Mournfangs gain +2 attacks! 🤩

Some way to claim objectives (e.g. models multiplied, wounds, etc.), and thus play this objective-based game.

I guess that isn't really FAQ material.

[Vextol]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

You are aware that „An entire Army gets it“ is simply a wrong statement. An entire Army get 4+ and now guess why.

well it would still be cool and powerful at a 4+ max. Your beloved hero could now actually die to a gazillion attacks so you would actually have to use some tactics.

Also: Due to the OP Amulett the entire Shyish Section of Artefacts is neglected since that Amulet is too good and you feel like missing out if you don‘t put it on your Monster.

 

about Monsters: So underused! I‘ve never ever seen anyone using Nagash, Vhrodai, the Mortarchs, a VoZD, a Dreadlord on Black Dragon, a Stardrake, a Leviadon, Alarielle, a Treeman, a Stonehorn (Mhhm that tasty 3+ rerolling 1s while halfing all dmg) etc.

I really felt like that chaos giant which oneshotted my Leviadon was totally overcosted! Gish these 180 points were such a bad investment!

also the Gorgon, summoned for free which oneshotted 30 Namarti felt ABSOLUTELY overcosted, thise tasty 6 mortals wounds in addition to the normal dmg, which he still can do with 8 wounds on him,  seemed really, really weak!🥺

YOU MUST BE RIGHT, now I see it! 😱

 

no one said make it unusable, just make it fair, which is a 4+ like ALL ethereals have (at best).

 

 

The amulet only helps normal attacks.  Most of those heroes you listed deal in mortals, self-earned survivability or magic and most, if not all, were nearly unfieldable a year ago.  Regardless, amulet helps a few of them, but most are good on their own or they can't use it.  I could just as easily list the heroes that are over priced (like half of the mortarchs, an unbuffed "treeman", Alarielle-kudos for the win though-, leviadons...) And the list would be much larger.  Besides, anyone concerned about powerful units should pretty much  stray from referencing BCR in  any context.  Please don't nerf the stonehorn again.  Poor fella has had a rough life 😂

Leaves you with death being very powerful right now.  Given.  I was expecting something in the FAQ but alas, nagash's rein goes on.

Mybe if your leviadon wasn't a big, overcosted monster, it wouldn't have hurt so bad to be one shotted by a drunken fat guy.  If only he was a hero, you could have given him that amulet. I'd like to know how that happened actually.  Must have been a statistical anomoly or that giant must have had some serious buffs.

Seriously though, I could almost list the "overpowered" artifacts in order.  Just pick a place to stop because there will always be a next one that needs to be destroyed.  Good artifacts keep old factions remotely viable and allow for counters to "unbeatable" or one dimensions lists.

Edit: What is a Gorgon?

[HollowHills]

I get that people feel some armies are too strong and I also agree the stats we have back that up. At the same time I'm not really sure why you would expect an faq to change that. For DoK or LoN you can't just faq the strongest parts of the army out of existence, it throws the entire army out of whack and could potentially ruin them. 

Most of the issues regarding which armies are too strong can be done with points adjustments. Witch elves and hag queens will go up in cost, perhaps other units in the army go down. Running the current lists won't work anymore because you'll get less bang for your buck. Exactly the same can be done for eel spam in IDK or reapers in LoN. 

Point changes come in the general's handbook, that's how it's been since we got matched play for aos. Things which can't be balanced by points I. E. Doppelganger get an faq to fix them. 

You also have to think about the consequences of changing lots of printed rules and putting them in online pdf docs. Is that a good experience for players? 

In my opinion some things should never have existed, realm artefacts, summoning being free, command point stacking, prayer spam. However, now they do exist they can't just be faq'd out of existence. 

The best we can hope for is new rules to balance matched play which may come in th3 general's handbook. 

[JackStreicher]

23 minutes ago, Vextol said:

The amulet only helps normal attacks.  Most of those heroes you listed deal in mortals, self-earned survivability or magic and most, if not all, were nearly unfieldable a year ago.  Regardless, amulet helps a few of them, but most are good on their own or they can't use it.  I could just as easily list the heroes that are over priced (like half of the mortarchs, an unbuffed "treeman", Alarielle-kudos for the win though-, leviadons...) And the list would be much larger.  Besides, anyone concerned about powerful units should pretty much  stray from referencing BCR in  any context.  Please don't need the stone or again.  Poor fella has had a rough life 😂

Leaves you with death being very powerful right now.  Given.  I was expecting something in the FAQ but alas, nagash's rein goes on.

Mybe if your leviadon wasn't a big, overcosted monster, it wouldn't have hurt so bad to be one shotted by a drunken fat guy.  If only he was a hero, you could have given him that amulet. I'd like to know how that happened actually.  Must have been a statistical anomoly or that giant must have had some serious buffs.

Seriously though, I could almost list the "overpowered" artifacts in order.  Just pick a place to stop because there will always be a next one that needs to be destroyed.  Good artifacts keep old factions remotely viable and allow for counters to "unbeatable" or one dimensions lists.

Edit: What is a Gorgon?

The argument about old factions is an entirely different one. I am talking about the Amulet, which is simply too good.

there are also a lot of non-Monster units that are overpriced/useless.

The giant: whipped into a frenzy and wounded with both headbutts of which I failed the save. I  took 12 damage (since it‘s a flat 6 dmg).  One mighty kick wounded for 2 dmg followed by 7 massive club attacks which finished me off. It wasn‘t a anomaly.

 

if the Leviadon had a Ethereal Amulet he would never ever die as long as any of my mages can cast mystic shield. 🤷🏼‍♂️ That‘d be boring.

[Vextol]

41 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

The argument about old factions is an entirely different one. I am talking about the Amulet, which is simply too good.

there are also a lot of non-Monster units that are overpriced/useless.

The giant: whipped into a frenzy and wounded with both headbutts of which I failed the save. I  took 12 damage (since it‘s a flat 6 dmg).  One mighty kick wounded for 2 dmg followed by 7 massive club attacks which finished me off. It wasn‘t a anomaly.

 

if the Leviadon had a Ethereal Amulet he would never ever die as long as any of my mages can cast mystic shield. 🤷🏼‍♂️ That‘d be boring.

All things have to be taken into consideration, including the impact decisions have on all armies.  The amulet is universally available so it's impact on old armies is a legitimate concern.

As to the  giant, getting two headbutts through without saving anything is actually very unlikely.  He also made it there uninterrupted and unscathed (possibly 1 other wound) and he WAS buffed so he wasn't really 180 points because he needed support from a probably 80+ point hero.  So more like a buffed, melee specific 260 min point unwounded monster one shotted an unguarded, support specific 380 point monster (which should more appropriately be 340 or less).  Not really all that crazy.  These are the kinds if stories that lead people to saying a unit is OP.  It's important to get all the details.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I don't think the amulet needs to be changed.  I think mystic shield should go back to what it was (wouldn't go to bat for that though) but even if it doesn't, I wouldn't change the amulet.  

And if we're only talking amulet, a lot of the heroes listed as troublesome are named heroes.  No worries there.

[stato]

1 hour ago, HollowHills said:

I get that people feel some armies are too strong and I also agree the stats we have back that up. At the same time I'm not really sure why you would expect an faq to change that. For DoK or LoN you can't just faq the strongest parts of the army out of existence, it throws the entire army out of whack and could potentially ruin them. 

Most of the issues regarding which armies are too strong can be done with points adjustments. Witch elves and hag queens will go up in cost, perhaps other units in the army go down. Running the current lists won't work anymore because you'll get less bang for your buck. Exactly the same can be done for eel spam in IDK or reapers in LoN. 

Point changes come in the general's handbook, that's how it's been since we got matched play for aos. Things which can't be balanced by points I. E. Doppelganger get an faq to fix them. 

You also have to think about the consequences of changing lots of printed rules and putting them in online pdf docs. Is that a good experience for players? 

In my opinion some things should never have existed, realm artefacts, summoning being free, command point stacking, prayer spam. However, now they do exist they can't just be faq'd out of existence. 

The best we can hope for is new rules to balance matched play which may come in th3 general's handbook. 

Hello, do you have a moment to talk about our friends the Kharadron....? 🤣

[Overread]

In the case of Daughters of Khaine you can't just fix it with a price increase. At present one of the popular lists is based off 90 Witch Aelves and several queens for support. Lets say 

90 Witch Aelves
2 Hag Queens
1 Slaughter Queen on Cauldron

That's only 1260 points and is the powerhouse backbone of the army. If you want to make that invalid you've got to raise the points quite significantly. Furthermore as that is the powerhouse of the army list, raising the points doesn't resolve the issue. It just means that the DoK list relies more heavily on its already strong powerhouse and the DoK player gets to bring less models and variety in their list. So it doesn't fix things and makes them less interesting to play as/against. You'd essentially be shifting what is supposed to be a battleline en-mess troop into an elite troop type in cost. DoK already have that with Blood Sisters, you don't want to choke the range by pushing things into the same slots to compete with each other too directly - esp as DoK don't have a huge model range to start with. 

You also have to consider if its a power house just because of the witches, or because of the buffs. If so counterplay might mean that players at large need to learn to just snipe the leaders off to reduce buffs. 

 

Another aspect that could resolve it might be to give Witch Aelves a special rule that they can only benefit from one buff at a time; or if they have a prayer buff/debuff on them then they cannot receive a spell sourced one (and vis versa). Both of those approaches might not make any change in points, but might address the power of those units whilst at the same time not invalidating other units in the army roster from getting multiple bonuses. 

 

 

Points is only one area of balance and shouldn't always be the one we reach for. Sometimes its better to think outside of the points box and consider other aspects that could be adjusted that might yield a better and more favourable result. Another aspect might be that DoK don't get any changes at all, but that other armies are boosted up to meet their challenge. Ergo instead of seeing them as ahead of the curve, see them as the curve and raise other armies to match them. 

 

I dislike the notion of just increasing points, it doesn't resolve the matter, dilutes army variety and composition and runs the risk that if you increase it too far you invalidate collections. 

[RuneBrush]

One thing that I think is worth remembering is that it's not that long ago, where if a broken army were released, it'd stay that way for many years until a new book for it was released!  I think where we're at now is a huge improvement over then 

Another thing to bear in mind is that some other players aren't perhaps as invested in the hobby as we are.  If you look round, we've all taken the time to register on TGA, keep an eye on the FAQs and now discussing it.  There are lots and lots of people out there that don't have the same level of investment - they'll buy an updated book when they pass a GW store and that's going to be it - even 6-monthly updates they're not going to bother with.  There isn't an ideal solution - updating warscrolls electronically would be amazing - a tweak here and there, but you'd then have that awkward situation of "hang on, you're playing with version 1.2, we're on 1.6 now!".

Personally I'm really excited to see what the next Generals Handbook holds - it may be there's a change in there that means that some of the currently perceived problems simply don't exist under GHb19.  Maybe for matched play there's a new rule where you can't include more than 2 units that share the same warscroll?  or maybe they've gone back to a percentage of Hero, Elite, Troop?  What I'm trying to say (by wandering round the garden), is no point changes in the latest FAQ doesn't necessarily mean that GW haven't worked out a resolution for some of the issues.

[JackStreicher]

58 minutes ago, Overread said:

In the case of Daughters of Khaine you can't just fix it with a price increase. At present one of the popular lists is based off 90 Witch Aelves and several queens for support. Lets say 

90 Witch Aelves
2 Hag Queens
1 Slaughter Queen on Cauldron

That's only 1260 points and is the powerhouse backbone of the army. If you want to make that invalid you've got to raise the points quite significantly. Furthermore as that is the powerhouse of the army list, raising the points doesn't resolve the issue. It just means that the DoK list relies more heavily on its already strong powerhouse and the DoK player gets to bring less models and variety in their list. So it doesn't fix things and makes them less interesting to play as/against. You'd essentially be shifting what is supposed to be a battleline en-mess troop into an elite troop type in cost. DoK already have that with Blood Sisters, you don't want to choke the range by pushing things into the same slots to compete with each other too directly - esp as DoK don't have a huge model range to start with. 

You also have to consider if its a power house just because of the witches, or because of the buffs. If so counterplay might mean that players at large need to learn to just snipe the leaders off to reduce buffs. 

 

Another aspect that could resolve it might be to give Witch Aelves a special rule that they can only benefit from one buff at a time; or if they have a prayer buff/debuff on them then they cannot receive a spell sourced one (and vis versa). Both of those approaches might not make any change in points, but might address the power of those units whilst at the same time not invalidating other units in the army roster from getting multiple bonuses. 

 

 

Points is only one area of balance and shouldn't always be the one we reach for. Sometimes its better to think outside of the points box and consider other aspects that could be adjusted that might yield a better and more favourable result. Another aspect might be that DoK don't get any changes at all, but that other armies are boosted up to meet their challenge. Ergo instead of seeing them as ahead of the curve, see them as the curve and raise other armies to match them. 

 

I dislike the notion of just increasing points, it doesn't resolve the matter, dilutes army variety and composition and runs the risk that if you increase it too far you invalidate collections. 

You‘d have to increase  points (Witches) while decreasing points for less chosen Units (Blood Stalkers) to shift what will be chosen. (Same goes for Idoneth, Stromcasts etc.).  —> Shifting Points not necessarily increasing them.

also a slight rules change for the Witch Elves like „need to be wholly within 7“ of a DoK Hero“ might work, since you can‘t spread out anymore. Or simply change two Daggers to „May reroll hit rolls of 1“ instead of +1 Attack. Or make the hag brew cause a MW to the unit on a 6 (per Model, No Fabatical Faith allowed) and suddenly Witch Hordes are going to nuke themselves if they want to stay buffed while smaller Groups will not care as much.

they could‘ve done that with the FAQ, but they didn‘t.

[Overread]

Another aspect is that at present the points values for AoS feel quite high compared to Warhammer 40K. It would not surprise me if we see a steady reduction in points across the board over the years. As the game grows in fans there is often a greater desire for larger games.

If GW balances that against solid Skirmish rules which can soak up the entry level and lower point games, then we could see 2K still being the standard in 10 years time, but the number of actual models we could field might be well over double what we put down now. That has huge implications on balance and army composition; esp as factions grow over time. 

[Overread]

2 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

You‘d have to increase points (Witches) while decreasing points for less chosen Units (Blood Stalkers) to shift what will be chosen.

also a slight rules change for the Witch Elves like „need to be wholly within 7“ of a DoK Hero“ might work, since you can‘t spread out anymore. Or simply change two Daggers to „May reroll hit rolls of 1“ instead of +1 Attack. Or make the hag brew cause a MW to the unit on a 6 (per Model, No Fabatical Faith allowed) and suddenly Witch Hordes are going to nuke themselves if they want to stay buffed while smaller Groups will not care as much.

they could‘ve done that with the FAQ, but they didn‘t.

FAQ's aren't supposed to be huge balance and gamechangers in that way - they are supposed to resolve common issues rather than common balance issues. That's the whole concept of a FAQ. 

 

As for increasing and decreasing that can work, but its just shifting the numbers around rather than dealing with actual issue of battle performance. You ideas of fully within is another good concept that could change how they function and fare. Shifting to fully within would not only change how they gain from buffs, but also mean that larger concentrated units of Witches would be less favourable over more smaller units

[JackStreicher]

2 minutes ago, Overread said:

Another aspect is that at present the points values for AoS feel quite high compared to Warhammer 40K. It would not surprise me if we see a steady reduction in points across the board over the years. As the game grows in fans there is often a greater desire for larger games.

If GW balances that against solid Skirmish rules which can soak up the entry level and lower point games, then we could see 2K still being the standard in 10 years time, but the number of actual models we could field might be well over double what we put down now. That has huge implications on balance and army composition; esp as factions grow over time. 

I like to have a lot of Models on the Table, but I know more people who don‘t and those people aren‘t interested in a Skirmish Version of AoS since Skirmish has comparatively too few models on the table. So skirmish won‘t soak up anyone, it would result in lower point values (like 1500) becoming the norm for matched play.

[Dead Scribe]

That would be interesting to observe.  I think that tournament standard dictates current norms so if tournaments stayed at 2000 points through a point reduction, I'd expect everyone to basically follow suit like-it-or-not because thats the expected "norm".

[Overread]

True - another option is that GW introduces ways to play beyond 2K and introduces a 3K or even 4K variation or twist on the rules. 

 

Right now I think the point values work well, esp as a lot of armies are either very small or have no battletome. Expansion of the game is for later when GW has more resources to bolster some armies up  and to expand on the game itself. Stormcast woudl do well with more points as they've more native variety; Daugthers of Khaine or any smaller armythough would mostly just be taking more of the same. 

[Kramer]

2 hours ago, HollowHills said:

t. For DoK or LoN you can't just faq the strongest parts of the army out of existence, it throws the entire army out of whack and could potentially ruin them

They did with Kharadron Overlord Thunderers... grumble grumble grumble