The Rumour Thread

[Jarminiatures]

So are people willing to accept buffs for some Lumineth units to address the poor internal balance? Otherwise all the expected NPE "fixes" that sound like they're coming down the line will leave the upcoming book in a bad state.

I know it'll be a case of world's smallest violin for Lumineth players amongst a lot of the AoS playerbase at the thought of Lumineth struggling but at its core it's a low resilience army, with a few magic tricks and with the ability to easily put out a moderate amount of damage but limited ways to put out a large amount of damage (except for if I run a huge block of Wardens or the overcosted monsters we have).

[KarrWolves]

The biggest surprise for me is Nurgle not being touched (although they've stated in the document they're looking at them): they've been very strong since their release last year and recently there seem to be at list 1 Nurgle list (if not 2) in every top3 of a GT. And the flies spam will probably be even stronger in the new GHB with the Bounty Hunter Battalion...

The other one is Daughters of Khaine but their book is probably too recent to get a change, they'll stay super strong for at least 6 months.

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, Jarminiatures said:

So are people willing to accept buffs for some Lumineth units to address the poor internal balance? Otherwise all the expected NPE "fixes" that sound like they're coming down the line will leave the upcoming book in a bad state.

I think it all depends, you expect some other type of weakness for any other strength that your army has. Abilities that ignore the main core rules doesn't help in that context.

Let's look at KOs. We have a lot of shooting and the best movement in the game using our main gimmick (Fly High). But we are not the best at shooting and our foot-troops move 4" without ships.

We don't have Priests, Mages or Monsters and we need our tricks to play around this things (mainly, one-use artifacts like Spell in the Bottle, Voidstone Orb, Ventplates, etc...). 

Imho, KOs have a bad gameplay design because they are a bit too much dedicated to do only one thing, but they are one of the best armies to illustrate my point.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Beliman

[Marcvs]

1 hour ago, Jarminiatures said:

So are people willing to accept buffs for some Lumineth units to address the poor internal balance? Otherwise all the expected NPE "fixes" that sound like they're coming down the line will leave the upcoming book in a bad state.

Exactly. They should apply the same approach they used with Stormcast: sure, they nerfed their good stuff, but in return they gave interesting buffs to other things like vanguard hunters, the knight zephyros, the knight azyros and all the other units no one ever saw on the tabletop! 😋 /s

[Boingrot Bouncer]

I don't think people complain about LRL being to powerful (except for a few people that probably haven't played that many times against them) but it's all the NPE, for example the foxes that non-shooting armies can not do much against or our famous sentinels.

Sentinels make it pretty much impossible to bring important 5-6 wounds heroes since you can not hide them so unless they have a ward save a unit of sentinels can delete them first round without you being able to anything to counter that. Same damage against my 40 unit of zombie will kill about 5 zombies which isn't a big deal. 

So if GW removes the most prominent NPE they can actually give some buffs to LRL and most people will be happier even if the army might rise in win percentage.

[Magnus The Blue]

27 minutes ago, Boingrot Bouncer said:

I don't think people complain about LRL being to powerful (except for a few people that probably haven't played that many times against them) but it's all the NPE, for example the foxes that non-shooting armies can not do much against or our famous sentinels.

Sentinels make it pretty much impossible to bring important 5-6 wounds heroes since you can not hide them so unless they have a ward save a unit of sentinels can delete them first round without you being able to anything to counter that. Same damage against my 40 unit of zombie will kill about 5 zombies which isn't a big deal. 

So if GW removes the most prominent NPE they can actually give some buffs to LRL and most people will be happier even if the army might rise in win percentage.

Couldn't agree more.  Sentinals and Foxes are not crazy good competitively but horrible to play against. The rest of the book could do with some buffing. 

[Flippy]

16 hours ago, Beliman said:

From my POV, that rules was written with 2.0 in mind. That means that this rules followed the same basis of Garrison rules, just with that little input: units cannot join or leave this model’s garrison if it has made a move or flown high in the same phase (they can join or leave before it does so).

AoS 3.0 changed how the main Garrison rules work, so even if that parenthesis could be used in 3.0 (surpassing this new rules), it was made for another edition and that's were the problem comes from.

Nobody knows how this rule should be played, both sides have their own arguments and there was at least two big tournaments playing with the old 2.0 rules (can disembark before the ship has moved, but the passengers can't move after leaving the ship). Time will tell if KOs have been cheating or not since 3 july of 2021 XD

Yes, I was aware that there is a conflict of rules here (sort of), which is not easy to settle if you insist on applying the classic rules on interpretation (does the new rule from AoS 3.0 take precedence or the specific one from the KO tome?). But the correct question is different: Is there any reason to assume that the designers' intent was to immobilize the ships after the unit leaves? Does it make any sense (game-wise) or is it just an unintended interaction? I have my answers and so the way I play is - the unit disembarks (which is the unit's movement) and the ship can freely move.

[Jarminiatures]

52 minutes ago, Boingrot Bouncer said:

I don't think people complain about LRL being to powerful (except for a few people that probably haven't played that many times against them) but it's all the NPE, for example the foxes that non-shooting armies can not do much against or our famous sentinels.

Sentinels make it pretty much impossible to bring important 5-6 wounds heroes since you can not hide them so unless they have a ward save a unit of sentinels can delete them first round without you being able to anything to counter that. Same damage against my 40 unit of zombie will kill about 5 zombies which isn't a big deal. 

So if GW removes the most prominent NPE they can actually give some buffs to LRL and most people will be happier even if the army might rise in win percentage.

My concern is that the discourse, both online and in person, is so overwhelmingly negative about Lumineth that it's creating a kind of feedback loop where people think they need nerfing and tweaking because they're still busted or horrible without realising that the book is so imbalanced that it needs buffing in areas. It's only a personal opinion, I think the grumbling from some players at the level of support Lumineth received feeds into it too - even if they casually forget that a lot of players waited years to be able to play a fully fledged high elf-esque faction in the game.

As people have noted, competitively Lumineth haven't been relevant for a while (mainly points hikes and the Unleash Hell tweak). I agree that the most egregious NPE needs tweaking yet go back a page here and someone is moaning about Total Eclipse. At my last tournament, I was facing a gargants player and they moaned massively about me using Darkness of the Soul on a mega. I know this is a bit ranty but it feels difficult to not get the stigma that you're That Guy as a Lumineth player.

[chosen_of_khaine]

While I agree that Foxes, Sentinels, and Total Eclipse aren't the most interactive to play against, every army has elements that could be a "NPE" (such an awful, overused term). Let's not ignore the fact that much of what determinies which armies get hate and which armies are deemed "fine" is merely the discourse around them coming from 1-2 major AoS content creators, whose (often poor) takes get uncritically parroted throughout the community and basically just become memes. I would bet money that ~50% of people who have complained about LRL online have not played a single game against them.

Season of War once had a battle report with LRL a while back that ended up very one sided, not because of any "cheese" or "NPE", just the mission and dice plus some very good play from the LRL player. Nonetheless, the comment section was full of "ugh stop playing LRL" or "nerf LRL already" because the community just decided they were the army to hate. Like most internet memes, it gets tired pretty quick.

Edited June 23, 2022 by chosen_of_khaine

[Flippy]

13 minutes ago, chosen_of_khaine said:

Season of War once had a battle report with LRL a while back that ended up very one sided, not because of any "cheese" or "NPE", just the mission and dice plus some very good play from the LRL player.

He is very good. But there is also an unnerving moment in the LRL hero phase when the the lady-narrator starts her usual Teclis casts Total Eclipse; Teclis casts Protection of Teclis; Teclis casts Speed of Hysh on himself; Teclis casts Lambent Light on whoever needs to die.

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Flippy said:

Yes, I was aware that there is a conflict of rules here (sort of), which is not easy to settle if you insist on applying the classic rules on interpretation (does the new rule from AoS 3.0 take precedence or the specific one from the KO tome?). But the correct question is different: Is there any reason to assume that the designers' intent was to immobilize the ships after the unit leaves? Does it make any sense (game-wise) or is it just an unintended interaction? I have my answers and so the way I play is - the unit disembarks (which is the unit's movement) and the ship can freely move.

Agree, but I don't have a clue about what the designers are trying to do with KOs.

Remember that you can move again with the units that disembarked (in the same phase), because leaving a Garrison is not a move anymore, and our "leaving a Garrison" is not at the end of the Movement Phase, like all others.

Not sure if that's completely intended, take in mind that a lot of abilities that let you move after being teleported, are being handicapped or removed.

 

Note: Btw, I hope that it remains the same!!

Edited June 23, 2022 by Beliman

[Wordy9th]

I think the psychographic profile of those who play LRL has the same effect of playing against an old school Blue Deck magic player, and as such players tend not to like sitting there listening to how they can't do x and y, usually in a tone of condescending villainous smuggery xD. 

Is this all LRL players? Absolutely not, but it takes just one game against someone triumphantly telling you total eclipse has gone off before explaining what his foxes do in the shooting phase to make someone get their Opinion For Life.

This combined with LRL player turns usually taking absolutely ages doesn't make for a great average experience. But the post above that mentioned content creator hot takes should be taken into consideration, and yes the hate can get a bit much at times. I hope a new tome can make it a more pleasurable experience for everyone all-round.

[The Red King]

I don't think poor timmy with his all melee army is comforted by the fact that the fox spam list he can't do anything against isn't doing well at tournaments. 

[pnkdth]

1 hour ago, chosen_of_khaine said:

While I agree that Foxes, Sentinels, and Total Eclipse aren't the most interactive to play against, every army has elements that could be a "NPE" (such an awful, overused term). Let's not ignore the fact that much of what determinies which armies get hate and which armies are deemed "fine" is merely the discourse around them coming from 1-2 major AoS content creators, whose (often poor) takes get uncritically parroted throughout the community and basically just become memes. I would bet money that ~50% of people who have complained about LRL online have not played a single game against them.

Season of War once had a battle report with LRL a while back that ended up very one sided, not because of any "cheese" or "NPE", just the mission and dice plus some very good play from the LRL player. Nonetheless, the comment section was full of "ugh stop playing LRL" or "nerf LRL already" because the community just decided they were the army to hate. Like most internet memes, it gets tired pretty quick.

LRL is one of the more popular armies in AoS so I very much doubt there's a lack of experience in facing LRL out there. It is top 6 in tournament entries in AoS 3rd edition. Perhaps the army is rare in your area but that doesn't make it true across the community.

In other words, I wouldn't put too much money behind that bet.

[KingBrodd]

We've had Seasons of War Thondia, whats the betting we get a Seasons of War Gallet book at some point?*

*Hopefully soon.

[chosen_of_khaine]

45 minutes ago, The Red King said:

I don't think poor timmy with his all melee army is comforted by the fact that the fox spam list he can't do anything against isn't doing well at tournaments. 

Bringing cutthroat meta lists in casual games vs "poor timmy" has always been an issue independent of the armies themselves, which can be further exacerbated by poor matchups. The majority of true Negative Play Experience ^TM comes from the players themselves, not army rules.
 

13 minutes ago, pnkdth said:

LRL is one of the more popular armies in AoS so I very much doubt there's a lack of experience in facing LRL out there. It is top 6 in tournament entries in AoS 3rd edition. Perhaps the army is rare in your area but that doesn't make it true across the community.

In other words, I wouldn't put too much money behind that bet.

Tournament popularity doesn't necessarily correlate with casual popularity, but more to my point I think you overestimate how much the vocal online complainers actually play the game. And when they do, they'll already have the opinions of certain weekly content creators floating around in their heads to justify anything that doesn't go their way in a game.

[pnkdth]

Just now, chosen_of_khaine said:

Tournament popularity doesn't necessarily correlate with casual popularity, but more to my point I think you overestimate how much the vocal online complainers actually play the game. And when they do, they'll already have the opinions of certain weekly content creators floating around in their heads to justify anything that doesn't go their way in a game.

When an army is about twice as popular as all but 6 other armies it is a very good indication it is, i.e. you will face LRL twice for every other than the top 6-7 armies at a tournament (since the entries per army takes a sharp dive by about half post top 7 IIRC).

My argument do not hinge on the claims of vocal players online. I do not over/underestimate them. I'm just interested in why you think LRL isn't popular or why you think people haven't really played against them. The data seem to suggest a lot of players out there have indeed played against them.

[chosen_of_khaine]

32 minutes ago, pnkdth said:

When an army is about twice as popular as all but 6 other armies it is a very good indication it is, i.e. you will face LRL twice for every other than the top 6-7 armies at a tournament (since the entries per army takes a sharp dive by about half post top 7 IIRC).

My argument do not hinge on the claims of vocal players online. I do not over/underestimate them. I'm just interested in why you think LRL isn't popular or why you think people haven't really played against them. The data seem to suggest a lot of players out there have indeed played against them.

I didn't say they weren't popular, my point is entirely that of the group of people that complain about LRL online, some number don't play very frequently, and some number haven't played much (or at all) vs LRL - and I'd bet the number that do and have is under 50% of the online complainers. Wasn't intended to be a nuanced point, just to get across that the vocal complainers online are (I believe) very overrepresentative of people who actually have experience playing against the army, and have their opinions mostly formed by online content creators, which leads to the community hating on an army for not much reason more than someone online telling them to.

Edited June 23, 2022 by chosen_of_khaine

[zilberfrid]

Do also note that increased gating by GW makes that NPE worse.

Previously, the (in this case LRL) faction abilities were gated behind a paywall, which was annoying

Locking the warscrolls away as well increases the "Gotcha" effect because only people that pirate or fork over hundreds of euros in books they don't need have any idea what an opponent is capable of doing.

This is a reason why I won't return to GW games.

Edited June 23, 2022 by zilberfrid

[The Red King]

44 minutes ago, chosen_of_khaine said:

The majority of true Negative Play Experience ^TM comes from the players themselves, not army rules.

That's quite a claim when the majority of NPE complaints are demonstrably leveled at a particular armies rules.

 

Do you have anything to back up that claim besides personal anecdote because the statement "most online complaints of NPE are related to LRL" is something we can all see wheras "most NPE is caused by a bad (as an opponent not bad at the game) player who just so happens to 9 times out of 10 be playing a particular army" is... less demonstrable. 

 

Now I grant that we can easily see that there were claims of NPE before LRL and there will most likely be claims after so in that regard I consider the claim "bad players will cause bad experiences regardless of what rules are available" to be both true and demonstrable. What I do not agree with is the idea that that somehow ignores the fact that LRL's rules represent the majority of complaints and thus presumably is the rule set the majority of bad players are using currently to cause the bad experience. Further it is no defense of the NPE rules of LRL that the bad players will use other rules if LRL are fixed. 

 

 

Rambled a bit but in summary, bad players will use bad rules or bad attitudes/actions to cause bad feelings.  We can't ask GW to police attitudes but we CAN and should expect them to police bad rules.

[The World Tree]

25 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Do also note that increased gating by GW makes that NPE worse.

Previously, the (in this case LRL) faction abilities were gated behind a paywall, which was annoying

Locking the warscrolls away as well increases the "Gotcha" effect because only people that pirate or fork over hundreds of euros in books they don't need have any idea what an opponent is capable of doing.

This is a reason why I won't return to GW games.

But... they aren't gated????

[ChaosUndivided]

So every Khorne or S2D player is a "poor timmy" now cuz their armies lack any shooting?

This whole convo seems like it belongs in another thread.. yet again.

[Ravinsild]

40 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Do also note that increased gating by GW makes that NPE worse.

Previously, the (in this case LRL) faction abilities were gated behind a paywall, which was annoying

Locking the warscrolls away as well increases the "Gotcha" effect because only people that pirate or fork over hundreds of euros in books they don't need have any idea what an opponent is capable of doing.

This is a reason why I won't return to GW games.

All the Warscrolls are free in the app. 

[novakai]

1 hour ago, pnkdth said:

LRL is one of the more popular armies in AoS so I very much doubt there's a lack of experience in facing LRL out there. It is top 6 in tournament entries in AoS 3rd edition. Perhaps the army is rare in your area but that doesn't make it true across the community.

In other words, I wouldn't put too much money behind that bet.

Eh, beside the fact that tournament data is not a true representation, they only in the middle of the pack in popularity like most other armies in the game.

they are definitely not the new SCE that LRL player seem to preach like it’s a fact 

[pnkdth]

5 minutes ago, chosen_of_khaine said:

I didn't say they weren't popular, my point is entirely that of the group of people that complain about LRL online, many don't play very frequently, and many haven't played much (or at all) vs LRL - and I'd bet the number that do and have is under 50%. Wasn't intended to be a nuanced point, just to get across that the vocal complainers online are (I believe) very overrepresentative of people who actually have experience playing against the army, and have their opinions mostly formed by online content creators, which leads to the community hating on an army for not much reason more than someone online telling them to.

Or maybe GW goofed and created a faction with lots of, while flavourful, rules which forgot there's a second player at the table. A second player who wants to have fun for the duration of setting up and playing the game. It would make sense that these more causal players would bear the brunt of these NPEs since they're not sitting listbuilding/tweaking/testing day in-day out to crack the code. For some the cracking of the code and go at it with cut-throat lists is the fun (like the people playing on SoW).

Back when I still played Planetside 2 the infiltrator class got a lot of hate (still do) because of its mechanics. It wasn't topping the meta or anything but it had lots of cheap ways to get kills. That stuff sticks, the experience which sours an otherwise great game. Same with LRL, it happens to have enough of those NPE moments to turn people sour. Basically, the point isn't if you win or lose but how the game takes you there. To go back to Planetside 2, people were happier to go up the Heavy Assault class just because it played and felt more fair to face despite it statistically being stronger.

In short, some mechanics simply rub people the wrong way regardless of powerful they are. Just some rules which didn't land well. It happens in almost every asymmetrically balanced game.