The Rumour Thread

[MitGas]

Personally I've got no problem with the FAQ being delayed BUT some needed changes are pretty obvious, I don't understand why they didn't change the worst offenders that almost every player out there knows for now and then just release a more extensive FAQ later on... cause obviously their strategy really didn't work out well, looking at all the nerdrage.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

6 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I'm curious about what the actual difference in game data is. Sure there are events, but do we even know what GW pulls its data from? Like if GW pulls data exclusively from events of 100 players or more it's irrelevant that there are several 50 player events globally.

I sympathize with the rules team a lot on this. I think the argument that the Tabletop Simulator meta is too different from the in-person meta to draw good conclusion on which to base their points adjustments would be solid if they made it. You don't really have to worry about lists with 15 Cockatrices in them for real life games. I even understand how they can't actually acknowledge the existence of TTS on Warhammer Community, so they are not in a position to directly say this. And I could accept that there is too little in-person data to make big points adjustments.

But that only goes so far, because large effect sizes become reliably detectable even with small data pools. I don't think anyone really believes that Kroak or Spell-in-a-Bottle would be meaningfully more balanced for in-person tournaments (or even in-person casual games). That's why I think their decision not to adjust these particular things is pretty incomprehensible.

[Marcvs]

8 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I think the argument that the Tabletop Simulator meta is too different from the in-person meta to draw good conclusion on which to base their points adjustments would be solid if they made it. You don't really have to worry about lists with 15 Cockatrices in them for real life games.

I don't really understand this argument. 1) TTS lists are legal lists, 2) Most people use TTS to test or train with lists they have or plan to build IRL, 3) Skewed lists very much exist in real life (last big-ish tournament in between lockdowns here in France was won by a list with 70 sentinels)

Edited January 26, 2021 by Marcvs

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Just now, Marcvs said:

I don't really understand this argument. 1) TTS lists are legal lists, 2) Most people use TTS to test or train with lists they have or plan to build IRL, 3) Skewed lists very much exist in real life (last big-ish tournament in between lockdowns here in France was won by a list with 70 sentinels)

I think you understand what I am getting at, but are not convinced it's a good argument. Which is fair.

I think we can both acknowledge that there are different pressures shaping IRL and TTS lists. People not putting certain lists on the table due to non-rules related factors is still meta shaping. Like, maybe Gyrocopter spam is super good, but people are just not putting a list of 30 of them on the table on a whim IRL at a price point of 1200€, where they very well might on TTS. There is also the hobby time commitment, although that's less of a barrier since you can paint an army pretty quickly to a three colour tabletop standard if you don't care about quality, regardless of what the list looks like. Never the less, I am sure "I don't want to paint 120 skeletons" has been prevented at least some players of fielding that list in the past.

Again, it's fair if you think that this is not a good enough reason not to do points updates given the data the rules team has. But at least it is a reason potentially worth acknowledging, and I could see the rules team coming down on the side of the data not being good enough to base large point changes on at least partially due to it. I think this consideration would help make their decision more understandable, regardless of whether we agree with it.

[Feii]

10 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

I don't really understand this argument. 1) TTS lists are legal lists, 2) Most people use TTS to test or train with lists they have or plan to build IRL, 3) Skewed lists very much exist in real life (last big-ish tournament in between lockdowns here in France was won by a list with 70 sentinels)

40k but a similar game system where there were game winning lists playing $500 worth of Beasts + something else of nurgle IRL. (and I believe they got addressed and nerfed in the FaQ) 

[Marcvs]

1 minute ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I think you understand what I am getting at, but are not convinced it's a good argument. Which is fair.

I think we can both acknowledge that there are different pressures shaping IRL and TTS lists. People not putting certain lists on the table due to non-rules related factors is still meta shaping. Like, maybe Gyrocopter spam is super good, but people are just not putting a list of 30 of them on the table on a whim IRL at a price point of 1200€, where they very well might on TTS. There is also the hobby time commitment, although that's less of a barrier since you can paint an army pretty quickly to a three colour tabletop standard if you don't care about quality, regardless of what the list looks like. Never the less, I am sure "I don't want to paint 120 skeletons" has been prevented at least some players of fielding that list in the past.

Again, it's fair if you think that this is not a good enough reason not to do points updates given the data the rules team has. But at least it is a reason potentially worth acknowledging, and I could see the rules team coming down on the side of the data not being good enough to base large point changes on at least partially due to it. I think this consideration would help make their decision more understandable, regardless of whether we agree with it.

 

1 minute ago, Feii said:

40k but a similar game system where there were game winning lists playing $500 worth of Beasts + something else of nurgle IRL. (and I believe they got addressed and nerfed in the FaQ) 

Ok, fair point, I can surely acknowledge the fact that they might have considered this arguments (what I really think is that they have a policy of not acknowledging the existence of TTS)

From my perspective, your comments are actually an argument in favour of taking TTS results into account. IF there is a list which is both a) problematic (as in, dominating) and b) legal, this should be addressed. The argument that people won't use it because it takes long to paint is pretty weak IMHO, considering the amount of time people can put into the hobby, while the one based on money is even worse -pay to win is not a great label for a game. Just to be clear on this point, I don't think AoS is nowhere close to "pay to win". 0%. But I would still push back strongly against the argument: it doesn't happen 'cause its too expensive.

[Ragest]

They don’t have to point at TTS, just take all data provided by players using it and that’s all. And, again, we have clues that IRL matches have been played, they had enought data, that is just a lazy excuse, dont take it seriously.

[Bayul]

36 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I'm curious about what the actual difference in game data is. Sure there are events, but do we even know what GW pulls its data from? Like if GW pulls data exclusively from events of 100 players or more it's irrelevant that there are several 50 player events globally. 

That's an additional problem about the FAQ people already mentioned: The lack of transparency. On top of the lack of point changes, the delay and the disputable worthless meta-watch articles. Those must be based on missing data somehow.

[zilberfrid]

13 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I think you understand what I am getting at, but are not convinced it's a good argument. Which is fair.

I think we can both acknowledge that there are different pressures shaping IRL and TTS lists. People not putting certain lists on the table due to non-rules related factors is still meta shaping. Like, maybe Gyrocopter spam is super good, but people are just not putting a list of 30 of them on the table on a whim IRL at a price point of 1200€, where they very well might on TTS. There is also the hobby time commitment, although that's less of a barrier since you can paint an army pretty quickly to a three colour tabletop standard if you don't care about quality, regardless of what the list looks like. Never the less, I am sure "I don't want to paint 120 skeletons" has been prevented at least some players of fielding that list in the past.

Again, it's fair if you think that this is not a good enough reason not to do points updates given the data the rules team has. But at least it is a reason potentially worth acknowledging, and I could see the rules team coming down on the side of the data not being good enough to base large point changes on at least partially due to it. I think this consideration would help make their decision more understandable, regardless of whether we agree with it.

The advantage of TTS is that you can spot problems before they end up in official tournament because it's easier to get the models on the table.

As for gyrocopters: I have a few, and finding metal ones on ebay certainly was not that expensive. The most expensive one I purchased was 15 euros, which is not even a modern hero price.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

6 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

But I would still push back strongly against the argument: it doesn't happen 'cause its too expensive

Yes, I don't believe that's a good argument either. But it becomes more understandable if you look at their apparent philosophy of only adjusting things once they become problematic, not before. Arguably, spam list for certain units on TTS have not yet become problematic. Again, kind of flimsy reasoning, but somewhat understandable.

[Ragest]

I’m hearing rumours about some communities working on their own faqs, with rule clearings and points changes.

[Sleboda]

6 hours ago, Heijoshin said:

You’ve all been playing games, reading rulebooks, and submitting your questions and comments – thanks for that!"

but yet 

"We have decided to withhold any changes to Pitched Battle profiles in this update because of the reduced number of games being played around the world and, therefore, the reduced amount of feedback and results from events that would follow them."

Schrödinger's FAQ - Where enough games / feedback have simultaneously been and not been played / given.  

You're reaching so you can try to be negative. This is not a conflict.

They state their appreciation for what we've done in terms of playing and giving feedback. They then say it's still not enough to push change.

"games / feedback have simultaneously been and not been played / given"

That statement simply does not accurately represent what they said.

 

[KingBrodd]

7 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

I’m actually hoping for a combined fyreslayer/dispossesseds battletome.

Oh that would be awesome!! Would be a great way to introduce the Dispossessed and then in a few years split them, a reverse Orruk Warclans!! 

But I do believe the 4 forces that are in most dire need of updates are Fyreslayers, Orruk Warclans, Skaven and Beasts of Chaos.

[novakai]

 

Tyranids?

[zilberfrid]

3 minutes ago, novakai said:

 

Tyranids?

Silent people?

[Nasnad]

5 minutes ago, novakai said:

 

Tyranids?

Got something in the style of tyranids, but then again, looks like nothing they have. Could be linked to those strange eggs there was in another rumor engine? .. silent people stuff?

[KingBrodd]

6 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Silent people?

 

4 minutes ago, Nasnad said:

Got something in the style of tyranids, but then again, looks like nothing they have. Could be linked to those strange eggs there was in another rumor engine? .. silent people stuff?

Looks like Nids but fingers crossed for Silent People!! But also glad for Nids players and Xenos in general!!

[l1censetochill]

20 hours ago, Ragest said:

Apologies, not trying to interrupt everyone's hatejerking, but as someone who hasn't played a game of AOS since pre-COVID, are those numbers on the right the win percentages for the most recent online tournaments?

Because for all the tooth gnashing and garment rending people are doing, a meta where the top dogs are winning ~55% of their games and all but 4 armies are above 40% is actually a huge improvement over the times where Slaanesh, FEC or DoK were dominating (if I'm remembering correctly, in each of those cases their winrates were >70%).

Again, I haven't been playing on TTS or anything so maybe I'm missing something. But if those numbers on the right are to be believed, the meta actually seems way more diverse and balanced than it was from 2017-2019. A few armies are in need of some love, but the situation isn't nearly as bad as I'd assumed it to be after reading through the last couple pages of this thread.

[Ragest]

21 minutes ago, l1censetochill said:

Apologies, not trying to interrupt everyone's hatejerking, but as someone who hasn't played a game of AOS since pre-COVID, are those numbers on the right the win percentages for the most recent online tournaments?

Because for all the tooth gnashing and garment rending people are doing, a meta where the top dogs are winning ~55% of their games and all but 4 armies are above 40% is actually a huge improvement over the times where Slaanesh, FEC or DoK were dominating (if I'm remembering correctly, in each of those cases their winrates were >70%).

Again, I haven't been playing on TTS or anything so maybe I'm missing something. But if those numbers on the right are to be believed, the meta actually seems way more diverse and balanced than it was from 2017-2019. A few armies are in need of some love, but the situation isn't nearly as bad as I'd assumed it to be after reading through the last couple pages of this thread.

Results are mostly IRL.

I have to explain something there, when you just have ONE army that is dominating the game the winrate grows exponencially, because you can win everything and is hard to defeat you.

But that’s not the case, we have 4 (maybe 5-6 with Morathi’s book) powerhouses, so the winrate splits into them. And you can think there is some diversity, but when you go throught pure win (top1) to perfect scores in tournamets or top3, you are going to ser the same lists one time and another, and you have to count aswell how many of those powerhouses took part on it.

And finally, everyone that likes to analyse competitive performances know that if you have a hughe number of matches and a hughe winrate every 1% counts. Is not the same 60%wr at 10 matches that 60%wr at 300 matches. 

[Neverchosen]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/01/26/how-well-do-you-know-the-spirits-of-hysh/

Sorry to move away from the angry FAQs postst but the new Lumineth artwork looks pretty amazing!

[Raviv]

A new article about the LRL: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/01/26/how-well-do-you-know-the-spirits-of-hysh/

It's full of hints of possible new units. I wonder how many of them are planned for this wave

Edit: Ninja'd.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Raviv

[Thaliontil]

4 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/01/26/how-well-do-you-know-the-spirits-of-hysh/

Sorry to move away from the angry FAQs postst but the new Lumineth artwork looks pretty amazing!

 

Absolutely amazing. And they reveal that the Spirefall was one of the factors that lead to the Age of Chaos...

[King Under the Mountain]

21 hours ago, Ragest said:

Yet again i'm reminded that I wont get much chance to play my Kharadron while they are doing so well in the meta. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Quote

The rarest and most difficult Hyshian spirits to tame are those of the zenith, the pure light that exists above the clouds.

So that's what "Zenith" is supposed to be.

[King Under the Mountain]

10 minutes ago, Raviv said:

A new article about the LRL: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/01/26/how-well-do-you-know-the-spirits-of-hysh/

It's full of hints of possible new units. I wonder how many of them are planned for this wave

Edit: Ninja'd.

"The Spirefall was the result of the unchecked hubris of the Lumineth"

Yeah sounds about Elf