The Rumour Thread

[Harioch]

40 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Which is again why updating points values via a printed book that has to be to the printers months ahead of time is literally crazy. 

"Here's our online update to try to fix the fact that our actual update that is supposed to balance the game can't because we don't release it often enough and it's always out of date by months by the time it does release." It's utterly bizarre when you actually think .

Already been discussed in another thread but the best GW could do is release all codexes/tomes in the first 3 months of the editions as a recap of all the units (like the indexes in the earl 8 edition of 40k) and new units profiles added on a web page for free when they come. Like..a new unit for Lumineth ? Bam profile on the website and preorder in a month. And when next edition come they end up on the new codex.

About the new rule I don't know. It's something that you must keep an eye on but will not matter that much in the end. I would just had all Gods models to be on that list to be thematic or lore friendly. But random units, even strong or OP, I don't see....

I can see it becoming the new 0-1 on profiles. Like, now you're not limited in number of the same unit you take but instead that unit is rare and powerful and then is giving more victory points. I could see it for elite and legendary units (dragoncast) but not for strong units that are just regular common troops (sentinel lumineth). 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Harioch

[Juicy]

Im not hating it so much just yet. I see potential here. After this weekend tournament with a lot of dragon/longstrike/fulms spam i hoped for something to happen. Cause it was to much. Even citys where not really citys but just stormcast with another flavor. 
 

im not sure i love it but i dont hate this cause you get punished by getting to much comp units and looking back at some of the games it would swing deff the otherway cause some games where close to 1/4 vp. And winning with a worse list without comp vs a full comp list now matters.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Just now, Juicy said:

Im not hating it so much just yet. I see potential here. After this weekend tournament with a lot of dragon/longstrike/fulms spam i hoped for something to happen. Cause it was to much. Even citys where not really citys but just stormcast with another flavor. 
 

im not sure i love it but i dont hate this cause you get punished by getting to much comp units and looking back at some of the games it would swing deff the otherway cause some games where close to 1/4 vp. And winning with a worse list without comp vs a full comp list now matters.

Best case scenario this rule leads to more list variety because people explore tier 2 units instead of just bringing the best of the best.

Worst case competitive players just feel bad about having to play with a GW imposed handicap system.

[Kitsumy]

this rule is great for similar level armys, where both armys can have a fight, and kill each other units.

in this case, yeah it will tip the balance to other side.

 

but for lower power armys??? wont do anything. since they need to kill things in order to get closser, and those armys struggle doing that.

 

it should have been a change where worst armys get more points for objetives, not for killing.

[yukishiro1]

Or just...fix the bad armies, either by rules or points. GW already has two levers to pull, they didn't need to add a new third one while ignoring the first two. 

 

[Clan's Cynic]

I imagine there might be a bit of Schrodinger's Balance here.

If all the top tournament lists are bringing stuff on the Priority Target list anyway, is it still a balance pass?

[yukishiro1]

This also makes broken stuff in new tomes even more broken, because it is now not only broken by being underpointed or having fundamentally busted rules, but also broken because it's not going to be on the hit list for a couple months at least. 

Like think how broken Fulminators would be if you have a hit list and they *aren't* on it. That's what any new broken unit is going to be like. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by yukishiro1

[EonChao]

3 hours ago, Loyal Son of Khemri said:

I'm just hoping Tomb Kings kits are brought back at a reasonable price  . Still, the amount of lore and kits that are coming our way, from Kislev and Cathay alone, will spark hundreds of projects. I once told @Neverchosen over on the Old World Discussion thread that I plan on making an Ainu themed army from Kislev and Cathay (or Nippon if they ever release them) kitbashes when the time comes, to say nothing about my plans for Araby.

Oh I'd love Tomb Kings to be brought back. I think it'd be fun to mix some of them with OBR to use to make a Cities of Nagash idea

[Fellman]

I like it but i hope we still see point changes this month to compliment this

[novakai]

Assuming that Skaven book is out soon, would they take them out of the Hunter category in three or four months time?

[Arzalyn]

47 minutes ago, Kitsumy said:

this rule is great for similar level armys, where both armys can have a fight, and kill each other units.

in this case, yeah it will tip the balance to other side.

 

but for lower power armys??? wont do anything. since they need to kill things in order to get closser, and those armys struggle doing that.

 

it should have been a change where worst armys get more points for objetives, not for killing.

Exactly what I thought, cool that I can get 2 extra VP with my "bottom tier" army, but I doubt I can kill some of the units there to begging with (Morathi, Belakor, Gargants)...

I expect that the biggest shake up this will make in the competitive scene is giving some of the strong but not top tier factions a extra boost, as they should be able to kill those units. It will be more a matter if the 2~3 extra VP will change much their final result. For the target factions I doubt it will discourage their much. A good amount of games can be decided by who go first and project its power to eliminate the enemy powerful unit first anyway, this just reward you more for doing so.

2 minutes ago, novakai said:

Assuming that Skaven book is out soon, would they take them out of the Hunter category in three or four months time?

I doubt they will update it in the next 3~4 months. If they are using tournament data to get this list they will need at least this amount of time to start getting results for the Idoneth/Fyreslayers books and by that time the GHB2022 will be dropping soon. Unless they plan to change very little with the GHB matched play battlepack or know ahead of time that what they set to print in the GHB will not affect what they are seeing that need to be fixed.

[novakai]

Actually DoK would be a better example since they are right on the horizon, would Morathi and Bow snake keep their  hunted tag when their new book comes out.

I assume they will just by how they update stuff but it does beg the question of how this all function now. Maybe they are ok and balance in the new book, would it still be justify for them to have that tag afterward?

[Beliman]

I don't think it's a bad patch, but I hate bandaids. It reminds me of parasitic design mechanics from videogames (MMOs): patches that only last a few years (months?). That's one of the worst designs if you want an ongoing/seasoned game. Josh Strifes has a video that explains this type of design from a videogame pov:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwHJqXKwRKM

My main issue is that this patch should be part of the core game. Some units are perfectly to fit as Prime Hunters. Just not use this Battlescrolls as a bandaid, believe in what you do GW!!! 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Beliman
Grammar

[yukishiro1]

It definitely has the vibe of a MOBA or something where they periodically buff and nerf stuff to push people to different things they'll spend more money on, with all the abuse of whales that can come with it.

I actually kinda hope this was just a "oh no we forgot about the balance patch, just push something out, we can always pretend it ever happened if it bombs" and not part of some more planned-out scheme to push the game into MOBA balance churn. 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Warboss Gorbolg]

I think it is an interesting concept.

When good units get points hikes, a tidal wave of internet moans ensue. Additionally, it generally means fewer models on the table one way or another, which GW nor I as a player really wants (let's see those grand armies on the table). Similarly, rules changes take forever and nerfs create hard feelings.

Instead, this seems to attack the risk/reward relationship. I think it is worth experimenting with.

[JackStreicher]

It’s a double edged sword for me:

- On one hand I dislike punishing people for bringing their favorite unit - This patch should only punish you if you bring more than one minimum sized unit out of the list. Currently it punishes every use of such units.

- On the other hand: It might add more list variety, maybe?
 

Overall I‘d prefer them to fix their product (the books that encourage to use mostly those units) instead of adding another document you need to carry around.

[yukishiro1]

If it's enough to make current top picks not the best any more people will just switch to the next best thing, I don't see any world where it really boosts list diversity in a meaningful way. At best you'll have the current meta list and then you'll have the "takes the second best unit in that role to avoid giving up points" list instead. 

And of course gargants don't even have a choice. They give up these points no matter what. Even if you only take 1 mega and a bunch of minis...in which case you give up bonus points *and* have a bad army. 

Honestly the worst thing is just the added bookkeeping in a game that's already getting too full of it. I don't want to have to consult multiple scoring rubrics and cross-reference multiple units to figure out how many points I scored at the end of a turn. We now have literally like 7 different things that impact the amount of points you score:

1. Points for holding objectives.

2. Points for battle tactics.

3. Points for grand strategies.

4. Points for killing monsters.

5. Points for doing (2) with monsters...sometimes. 

6. Points for killing units on the Sin List, as long as they weren't killed by other units on the Sin List.

7. Even more points for (6) if your army is on the Bin List.

That's just absurd. There is no reason a scoring system needs that level of layering.

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Marcvs]

9 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

If it's enough to make current top picks not the best any more people will just switch to the next best thing, I don't see any world where it really boosts list diversity in a meaningful way. At best you'll have the current meta list and then you'll have the "takes the second best unit in that role to avoid giving up points" list instead. 

And of course gargants don't even have a choice. They give up these points no matter what. Even if you only take 1 mega and a bunch of minis...in which case you give up bonus points *and* have a bad army. 

Honestly the worst thing is just the added bookkeeping in a game that's already getting too full of it. I don't want to have to consult multiple scoring rubrics and cross-reference multiple units to figure out how many points I scored at the end of a turn. We now have literally like 7 different things that impact the amount of points you score:

1. Points for holding objectives.

2. Points for battle tactics.

3. Points for grand strategies.

4. Points for killing monsters.

4. Points for doing (2) with monsters...sometimes. 

6. Points for killing units on the Sin List, as long as they weren't killed by other units on the Sin List.

7. Even more points for (6) if your army is on the Bin List.

That's just absurd. There is no reason a scoring system needs that level of layering.

 

and then you might play Apex Predators, and you score your battle tactic by killing the general, who is a monster, and you do it with a monster, and the general was a Predator, but also an Apex Predator, and your monster was also an Apex Predator, but you're playing a Hunter faction...

[yukishiro1]

Yeah, I knew I was forgetting at least one more layer of ridiculous scoring rules. 

It's actually hilarious when you think about it: they took the Apex Predators gimmick that almost never sees the light of day in competitive mission packs because competitive players dislike it , and they made a whole new, slightly different, stacking version of it and applied it to the whole game. 

It's impressive in a way - they came up with a "solution" that never would have even occurred to anyone to ask for. Like the mechanic who "fixes" your broken brakes by changing the transmission so you can "brake" by going into reverse then flooring the pedal till you reach equilibrium. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Ragest]

The first part of the balance is fine, i see the aditional VPs as an interesting mechanic.

But where is the real balance? Because they are going to balance the game, not like the last "balance" updates, right?

Edited March 14, 2022 by Ragest

[Rachmani]

2 hours ago, Beliman said:

I don't think it's a bad patch, but I hate bandaids. It reminds me of parasitic design mechanics from videogames (MMOs): patches that only last a few years (months?). That's one of the worst designs if you want an ongoing/seasoned game. Josh Strifes has a video that explains this type of design from a videogame pov:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwHJqXKwRKM

My main issue is that this patch should be part of the core game. Some units are perfectly to fit as Prime Hunters. Just not use this Battlescrolls as a bandaid, believe in what you do GW!!! 

 

This, so much.

I actually really like the idea behind it. The whole Prime stuff.

I don't however, really like it being used as a band aid that only targets specific units or armies.

[Enoby]

I think most people seem to agree that warscroll rewrites are the preferred method of balancing, both for reducing power and increasing it. However, I do wonder how long it takes to rewrite a warscroll successfully - with how rarely it happens, you'd think it's an arduous process but I do wonder what the timescale is. 

Looking at Malifaux, they tend to balance through slight tweaks to the model's rules (though sometimes more than slight); these happen alongside 'battleplan' updates in something called Gaining Grounds.  They can change around 10-20 rules in these, and they're annual like the GHB. I wonder if AoS would be better served by annual warscroll changes to the best and the worst alongside points changes for lesser offenders, rather than Warscroll changes as the last resort. 

[yukishiro1]

Warscroll changes > point adjustments > this weird handicap system where you get compensated for having bad overpriced units by getting extra points for killing your opponent's busted underpriced units. 

[Aussiemandias]

I'm not overly familiar with how GW does stuff, but do things go "Sold Out Online" before put back on the store with a round based mini photo?

A bunch of Maneaters just had the random Sold Out Treatment. No rumours of AoS-ified Maneater box? (I lament for I did not have the female maneater sculpt) Excuse prices, je venir d'Australie...

Not trying to stir the (maw) pot, but usually this is a sign that the kit is due a revamp or is being removed, right?

[Matrindur]

39 minutes ago, Aussiemandias said:

I'm not overly familiar with how GW does stuff, but do things go "Sold Out Online" before put back on the store with a round based mini photo?

A bunch of Maneaters just had the random Sold Out Treatment. No rumours of AoS-ified Maneater box? (I lament for I did not have the female maneater sculpt) Excuse prices, je venir d'Australie...

Not trying to stir the (maw) pot, but usually this is a sign that the kit is due a revamp or is being removed, right?

Sold out Online also happens when they get reboxed into the new 3.0 box design but that would mean they are getting a new book soon