The Rumour Thread

[Overread]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

Each GHB does NOT replace the previous one, generally only the points change (maybe some tweaks to the allegiance abilities). Each GHB adds new stuff

Aye and splitting the short and long term components means gamers can simply shelf the GHB in order and have all the content "relevant" whilst simply replacing the points booklet every year with the update. 

[michu]

Exactly @Joseph Mackay. The only time we could say that old GHB becomes obsolete (and even then not completely) is a new edition of AoS.

[GeneralZero]

This is not video game here. This is real life hobby, meeting, parties, that involves some organisation , schedule, travels, time consuming activities like painting, assembling (and maybe tinking 😜 ). 3 month update seems really short to me , for example, especially for tournaments organisation. 

Well, I can live with that (3 or 6 month updates), whereas 12 month is on contrary really too long. I'd vote 6 months in a ideal world.

[JackStreicher]

5 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

3 month update seems really short to me , for example, especially for tournaments organisation. 

Why do point changes every 12 weeks affect a tournament organizer at all? No rules change only points and therefor some army compositions (previously brokenly -cheap units become normalized). 

[Overread]

2 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Why do point changes every 12 weeks affect a tournament organizer at all? No rules change only points and therefor some army compositions (previously brokenly -cheap units become normalized). 

Because not everyone keeps up at the same speed. So suddenly the TO has increased chances of illegal armies being fielded. With the GHB that's once a year; with 3 month updates that's 4 times a year. 

[Qrow]

14 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

This is not video game here. This is real life hobby, meeting, parties, that involves some organisation , schedule, travels, time consuming activities like painting, assembling (and maybe tinking 😜 ). 3 month update seems really short to me , for example, especially for tournaments organisation. 

Well, I can live with that (3 or 6 month updates), whereas 12 month is on contrary really too long. I'd vote 6 months in a ideal world.

I think 3 months leaves itself open to knee-****** reactions, insufficient time for proper counter play to be found and a lack of proper tournament data to draw conclusions from. A review 6 months after a battletome comes out, similar to an errata, would be the sweet spot I think. After that, maybe a once a year overall update that focuses mainly on keeping older battletomes relevant, but also allows for further fine tuning of new battletomes.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Qrow

[SleeperAgent]

Yeah everyone I know who took the survey voted for the 3 months as well. It may seem quick to some, but 3 months ago was forever in balance terms. 12 months ago people thought Nighthaunt we're gonna be very powerful. I have seen successive armies come out and be more powerful every single time. Since GW deals in 20 point jumps, doing it every 3 months makes a lot more sense. If something goes too low, its only 3 months away from a fix. Whereas with the current 12 that thing becomes a problem all year.

As for TO's, its not difficult to have everyone put their list into Warscroll builder and print out a copy, or keep it on their phone. I feel like this should be standard procedure at this point.

[JackStreicher]

1 minute ago, Overread said:

Because not everyone keeps up at the same speed. So suddenly the TO has increased chances of illegal armies being fielded. With the GHB that's once a year; with 3 month updates that's 4 times a year. 

So the same TO organizes 4 Tournaments a year? Unlikely especially for bigger events. They need to ban a army etc. only once saying that they‘re using the points of AddDateHere. Nothing changes.

Even if so, you only have to look up the current point costs once: the week before the Tournament.

[5kaven5lave]

I think the longer period between points avoids knee-****** which is important. Sometimes stuff appears OP initially but can be countered easily once the gimmick becomes clear. This encourages people to think about the meta and their build rather than just blasting everything except vanilla as soon as it rears its head. 

EDIT: the phrase that’s been censored  isn’t sweary at all there, I’m sure people can figure out what I meant 🤣 

Edited June 14, 2019 by 5kaven5lave

[JPjr]

Counterpoint: 3 month point changes could actually lead to less 'kneejerk' changes. If you update more regularly there's less need to immediately change things or be as drastic with those changes.

Instead if something has been noted as not working as it possibly should but it's a bit of a borderline case you can give it another 3 months to bed in and review, or you can be more incremental, try a smaller points change, see how that works and then review again, maybe keeping as is, maybe upping the points or maybe even reverting to the original values.

With 3 month changes I wouldn't envisage it being a sweeping review every quarter, more just an ongoing process where things get flagged and subtly shifted where needed.

 

 

[Tropical Ghost General]

The issue with 3 month point changes is that not everyone paints that quickly. If you have a list painted but knowing that it's only going to be good for 3 months, then for at least the first month of the new changes your painting up new models to fit in with the new points, to play with for 2 months before you have to change your list all over again. Not everyone has the luxury of enough free time to chase that sort of ever-changing meta. 

[JackStreicher]

9 minutes ago, JPjr said:

Counterpoint: 3 month point changes could actually lead to less 'kneejerk' changes. If you update more regularly there's less need to immediately change things or be as drastic with those changes.

Instead if something has been noted as not working as it possibly should but it's a bit of a borderline case you can give it another 3 months to bed in and review, or you can be more incremental, try a smaller points change, see how that works and then review again, maybe keeping as is, maybe upping the points or maybe even reverting to the original values.

With 3 month changes I wouldn't envisage it being a sweeping review every quarter, more just an ongoing process where things get flagged and subtly shifted where needed.

 

 

Indeed Sir.

[EMMachine]

The question is, if pointchanges are even a point for buying the Generals Handbook?

I read postings from users, that they don't need to buy the GH for points because we get the points for free with battlescribe and Warscroll builder.

The question is, couldn't the points be PDF downloads for free, after we already get the points for free. That way, even 3 month changes would be possible

[The World Tree]

The points already are free - they go up on scrollbuilder.

[madmac]

43 minutes ago, JPjr said:

Counterpoint: 3 month point changes could actually lead to less 'kneejerk' changes. If you update more regularly there's less need to immediately change things or be as drastic with those changes.

Instead if something has been noted as not working as it possibly should but it's a bit of a borderline case you can give it another 3 months to bed in and review, or you can be more incremental, try a smaller points change, see how that works and then review again, maybe keeping as is, maybe upping the points or maybe even reverting to the original values.

With 3 month changes I wouldn't envisage it being a sweeping review every quarter, more just an ongoing process where things get flagged and subtly shifted where needed.

 

 

In theory, perhaps, but in practice I think not.

Even in most video games a three month update cycle is usually far too fast and results in a constant flood of kneejerk changes and burning out the playerbase over time. And that's a medium without nearly the time or financial investment tied into any particular game piece.

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by madmac

[DinoTitanedition]

Aaaah....page long discussions about points. Feels almost like two years ago. Next thing we need to do is discuss about how bad and unbalanced the rules are. I missed that SO MUCH. Not.  🙃

Anything new about the exciting stuff? WarCry for example? Is it going to replace the Skirmish ruleset? I guess so...that one died down too with the latest GHB.

[SleeperAgent]

2 minutes ago, madmac said:

In theory, perhaps, but in practice I think not.

Even in most video games a three month update cycle is usually far too fast and results in a constant flood of kneejerk changes and burning out the playerbase over time. And that's a medium without nearly the time or financial investment tied into any particular game piece.

 

Yes but in video games you would need to program the changes. In tabletop you just change the points, then if they are bad you revert them in 3 months. If what they are saying is correct and FEC don't get an update in this book does anyone really thing Gristlegore for the next 12 months will be fun?

[JackStreicher]

5 minutes ago, madmac said:

In theory, perhaps, but in practice I think not.

Even in most video games a three month update cycle is usually far too fast and results in a constant flood of kneejerk changes and burning out the playerbase over time. And that's a medium without nearly the time or financial investment tied into any particular game piece.

 

Monthly changes are an issue in games, even 2-monthly changes are (as League if Legends Pros claim), 3 months aren‘t especially since point changes in General won‘t be too drastic, also we are Talking about Point changes and not game mechanics being „patched“.

point changes imo are rather a „hotfix“

Edited June 14, 2019 by JackStreicher

[GeneralZero]

For the short term EMERGENCY points changes, we already have the errata & FAQ. (By emergency, I mean, misprinted points, big issue points etc...) So, no need to change less than 6 months. Even the annually change is nice enough. GW just have to use his actual tools (errata&FAQ) to react to real points issues. That's it.

[Overread]

8 minutes ago, SleeperAgent said:

Yes but in video games you would need to program the changes. In tabletop you just change the points, then if they are bad you revert them in 3 months. If what they are saying is correct and FEC don't get an update in this book does anyone really thing Gristlegore for the next 12 months will be fun?

The changes in most computer games are simple to enact; just value changes in unit property slots. They likely take about as much time to change as values in the GW army list. 

The difference is that the computer game delivers 100% accurate, real time feedback on the results. The developer can see the impact on the rankings very quickly and can harvest a lot more game data.

Tabletop games take longer to play and a lot longer to deliver results. not all gamers will deliver any feedback direct to GW and many might only moan on forums. Furthermore there's no means to skill check them. At least with a computer game the developer can see how the top players (more wins) are reacting to changes. Meanwhile in wargames every gamer is either top or bottom in their own self impression; but many have no real concept so will give feedback as if they are top even if they are pretty rubbish player that no amount of stat balancing could help. 

So the tabletop takes longer to gather in feedback, far longer. Heck online you get a lot of gamers who don't actually game. They theorise which is not bad, but it means that some portion of the data is recycled opinions and player results rather than individual results. So some viewpoints might appear stronger, but could be based only upon one actual players real world results. 

[Forrix]

45 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

For the short term EMERGENCY points changes, we already have the errata & FAQ. (By emergency, I mean, misprinted points, big issue points etc...) So, no need to change less than 6 months. Even the annually change is nice enough. GW just have to use his actual tools (errata&FAQ) to react to real points issues. That's it.

I was seriously taken back by how they completely failed to address Legions of Nagash or Daughters of Khaine in the last Big FAQ or rather small FAQ. It was a major missed opportunity for them.

[Qrow]

22 minutes ago, Forrix said:

I was seriously taken back by how they completely failed to address Legions of Nagash or Daughters of Khaine in the last Big FAQ or rather small FAQ. It was a major missed opportunity for them.

I have only recently started playing LoN, I was pure nighthaunt untill the legion of grief came out and have been enjoying the change of playstyle.

What about LoN needs FAQing? I have faced very few people that play them, the only really egregious thing I have seen is grimghast reaper spam.

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, EMMachine said:

The question is, if pointchanges are even a point for buying the Generals Handbook?

I read postings from users, that they don't need to buy the GH for points because we get the points for free with battlescribe and Warscroll builder.

The question is, couldn't the points be PDF downloads for free, after we already get the points for free. That way, even 3 month changes would be possible

On one of their community articles GW have already said that the points booklet is being made available for free as a PDF.  make of that what you will when it comes to updating points more often 😉

[Forrix]

16 minutes ago, Qrow said:

I have only recently started playing LoN, I was pure nighthaunt untill the legion of grief came out and have been enjoying the change of playstyle.

What about LoN needs FAQing? I have faced very few people that play them, the only really egregious thing I have seen is grimghast reaper spam.

The ability to resurrect a summonable unit of any size for 1 cp (most notably grimghast reapers) combined with stacking deathly invocations along with a general that is largely unkillable (Nagash) means they have incredible board control as removing or reducing their model count is effectively impossible for some armies. Nagash's dispels also just shut down armies that depend on spell casting like Tzeentch.  

I was thinking they would do something like separate out the Nighthaunt units from LON (this was a major theory at the time) or adjust the Undying Legion command trait to only work on Zombies and Skeletons or limit the size of units it can bring back. Reducing the number of gravesites could also make zoning a more effective tactic and limit deathly invocations a bit. Lowering Nagash's dispel bonus would also make him less harsh against other magic factions.

Its worth noting that there has been some major power creep in recent months with Skaven and Flesh-Eater courts leading the way that are definitely making LON, DOK, and for that matter Sacrosanct Stormcast seem much more reasonable (Sacrosanct units were considered pretty overpowered for awhile). Though LON and especially DOK are both still doing extremely well on the tournament circuit.  

[alghero81]

In the deleted video I’m sure they mentioned the digital version of the points booklet will be updated periodically.

Now if this means only after every battletome or can have a different frequency, it was not specified.

On the previous topic about Beasts of Chaos they already mentioned new Furies playable as monsters, so maybe the new pets will be fieldable as BoC? Here is hoping...

The death chicken may be a valid replacement to Chaos hounds