Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
RuneBrush

The great big Generals Handbook 2019 Discussion Topic

Recommended Posts

I feel like the points changes are in the right direction but too small to matter. Nurgle, I think will continue to fall behind and disappear from the competitive scene despite being a 2nd edition battletome. I'm less familiar with Nighthaunt but I suspect people will continue to only take them in LON or Legion of Grief. 

The deciding factor will be what they plan to do with Skaven and FEC but I'm not holding my breath. A 20 point increase to ghoul kings on Terrorghiest won't change much.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion most of these point changes are good enough. They do decent job at improving inner balance while also nerfing some of the top tier armies. Lon got increases for nagash and arkhan both and necromancer too. These 3 are all popular and importan lon chars (well arkhan and necro primarily). Grimghasts got significant nerf, any lon list that ran 3x30 of these guys either needs to find 180p to remove from their lists or replace those grimghasts (add to this wolf and arkhan/necro changes). Idoneth eel changes may feel insignificant on surface but they're pretty huge once you start spamming them. If army has like 3x9 eels that's already 90p, add soulscryer increases and we're looking at 30-60 extra. Dok got 30p extra on big witch elf units and 30 extra for hag queen. This may not be enough to fully drop dok but it can still give 120+p nerf to most dok lists out there. Meanwhile many other armies received some decent point reductions. No, bcr, ko or ironjawz, etc. are not suddenly gonna be s-tier armies but the gap is smaller now and these armies have better fighting change. Same with nighthaunt. Yes the grimghast nerf hurts them too no doubt, but I'd argue that it hurts nh less than the nerf hurt lon unless you spammed nothing but them before but this change should encourage people to have more variance in their lists.

Obviously the big question will be whether the upcoming nerfs to skaven fec and fyreslayers (talking about hgb mainly here) will be enough. Especially skaven and fec need significant changes for the game to be more balanced (in gristlegore's case, it's not the point changes I care tbh, I want that always-on always strike first to be nerfed).

  • Like 5
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just came back from a 4 Way Triumph and Treachy Game that we expanded with the new Rules for 1000pts battles and it was quite nice of a mix. The game really built up and the fist turns of the game had a nice vibrant feeling of our forces building up.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raging_Moose said:

Has anyone seen any info on gitmob? I know they won't have any alligence abilities but I typically have a lot of luck with blocks of 60 grot archerers for 270 pts. Also the shaman with sneaky stabbing is fire

I thought gitmob just got rolled into gloomspite with the rest of the goblins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Belper said:

I thought gitmob just got rolled into gloomspite with the rest of the goblins?

Nope, the whole range disappeared when Gloomspite was release (along with Greenskinz), the shaman was temporary a Madcap on the store, but I believe it was just to sell off the remaining stock.

 grant in the GHB preview, i believe they still have pitch battle profile along with Tomb Kings and Swifthawk agent units from Spire of Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point changes are about the skew lists, at the end of the spectrum. It's not even about competitive lists it's about changes that stop make the most extreme skews non-starters.

Competitiveness or lack there of is a battletome issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

The point changes are about the skew lists, at the end of the spectrum. It's not even about competitive lists it's about changes that stop make the most extreme skews non-starters.

Competitiveness or lack there of is a battletome issue.

Except it doesn't though? The changes  are so minimal that most skew lists are unaffected or not particularly different. Stormcast shoot only lists stayed points neutral, stormcast drop lists went up slightly but not enough for other strategies to be viable, DoK has to tighten their belts a little but they're not going to take any different units (blood stalkers would be mediocre at 100 for 5), LoN will just swap out what their big 'rez this' unit will be, Idoneth lists probably won't change AT ALL and nothing else really had much in the way of skew.

Slaanesh, FEC, Skaven, and Fyreslayers I don't believe we've seen yet.

The changes are fine and they smooth out the powercurve a bit, but they didn't dramatically alter anything. You're not suddenly gonna see Blood Stalker spam or Desolator Bombs or Kharadron (ever), you're just going to have an extra half turn longer before the competitive lists table you.

 

Notable exception for Seraphon who might just be strong enough to hit the top tables again (because they honestly only needed a small push).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, angrycontra said:

In my opinion most of these point changes are good enough. They do decent job at improving inner balance while also nerfing some of the top tier armies. Lon got increases for nagash and arkhan both and necromancer too. These 3 are all popular and importan lon chars (well arkhan and necro primarily). Grimghasts got significant nerf, any lon list that ran 3x30 of these guys either needs to find 180p to remove from their lists or replace those grimghasts (add to this wolf and arkhan/necro changes). Idoneth eel changes may feel insignificant on surface but they're pretty huge once you start spamming them. If army has like 3x9 eels that's already 90p, add soulscryer increases and we're looking at 30-60 extra. Dok got 30p extra on big witch elf units and 30 extra for hag queen. This may not be enough to fully drop dok but it can still give 120+p nerf to most dok lists out there. Meanwhile many other armies received some decent point reductions. No, bcr, ko or ironjawz, etc. are not suddenly gonna be s-tier armies but the gap is smaller now and these armies have better fighting change. Same with nighthaunt. Yes the grimghast nerf hurts them too no doubt, but I'd argue that it hurts nh less than the nerf hurt lon unless you spammed nothing but them before but this change should encourage people to have more variance in their lists.

Obviously the big question will be whether the upcoming nerfs to skaven fec and fyreslayers (talking about hgb mainly here) will be enough. Especially skaven and fec need significant changes for the game to be more balanced (in gristlegore's case, it's not the point changes I care tbh, I want that always-on always strike first to be nerfed).

While I understand that grimghasts were being abused in LoN, it is frustrating as a nighthaunt player to have one of our best units nerfed this hard because another faction can abuse it. Nighthaunt is struggling as it is, most of the point reductions we got are a great step in the right direction, but they are just one step in that direction (come on GW, only 20 points off the mourngul?)

I know it is an unpopular opinion in some circles, but I really hope they take nighthaunt units availability away from LoN, with the obvious exception of the LoG. They can already ally us in, no problem with that, but they are having to balance the much weaker nighthaunt battletome based on our units use in LoN.

I'm hoping that the swiftness with which GW are pushing out the balancing of the latest battletomes indicates that they are aware of the problem they have caused. A lot of people will be upset if they do large point changes in such new battletomes (and it is entirely understandable of they will be, it isn't the players faults that GW released OP battletomes), but if GW take that frustration and critisism on the nose and accept it then at least they are willing to correct and learn from their mistakes.

Edited by Qrow
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Qrow said:

While I understand that grimghasts were being abused in LoN, it is frustrating as a nighthaunt player to have one of our best units nerfed this hard because another faction can abuse it. Nighthaunt is struggling as it is, most of the point reductions we got are a great step in the right direction, but they are just one step in that direction (come on GW, only 20 points off the mourngul?)

I know it is an unpopular opinion in some circles, but I really hope they take nighthaunt units availability away from LoN, with the obvious exception of the LoG. They can already ally us in, no problem with that, but they are having to balance the much weaker nighthaunt battletome based on our units use in LoN.

I've said this in the past, I don't understand why the points for Grimghast when fielded in a Legions army isn't different to when fielded in a Nighthaunt army?  Each army has it's own list of points within the Pitched Battle Profiles, so it'd be super easy to do.  This would also be the easiest way on dealing with what armies can take what battalions - got a points cost within your Pitched Battle Profile list?  Yes - then you can take it, No - then you can't.

  • Like 11
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's odd because GW clearly thinks like that but doesn't act on it. It's like hellstriders in Hedonites, they deliberately moved it from one unit with a weapon choice into two units and yet didn't change anything between them except the weapon. Stats, abilities and points all remained identical. It's the same for some units between armies too, it just strikes me that somewhere in their system they know its possible to do and yet they don't quite get there and do it.

 

Still at least the ground work is there for AoS 3.0 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Belper said:

Except it doesn't though? The changes  are so minimal that most skew lists are unaffected or not particularly different. Stormcast shoot only lists stayed points neutral, stormcast drop lists went up slightly but not enough for other strategies to be viable, DoK has to tighten their belts a little but they're not going to take any different units (blood stalkers would be mediocre at 100 for 5), LoN will just swap out what their big 'rez this' unit will be, Idoneth lists probably won't change AT ALL and nothing else really had much in the way of skew.

Slaanesh, FEC, Skaven, and Fyreslayers I don't believe we've seen yet.

The changes are fine and they smooth out the powercurve a bit, but they didn't dramatically alter anything. You're not suddenly gonna see Blood Stalker spam or Desolator Bombs or Kharadron (ever), you're just going to have an extra half turn longer before the competitive lists table you.

 

Notable exception for Seraphon who might just be strong enough to hit the top tables again (because they honestly only needed a small push).

You misunderstand. What you mentioned are the competitive builds. The point changes are as you mention unlikely to drastically change those main crux of those builds. 

But the tip of the skew is not the same as the top competitive builds. Competitive builds skew enough to be strong at what the faction excels at, while maintaining enough flexibility to play the objective game. 

The top of the skew is say something like Volturnos and all eels. Which I don't think is IDK best competitive build but is the tip of the skew. Which if you did the math isn't a legal list.

Even something like Jack Armstrong's DoK list which I would argue isn't the tip of the skew is now illegal. He can't play the list as is, full stop. You are arguing that his list isn't illegal enough, which is tbh a terrible place to have a discussion.

I don't think it's a reasonable goal to destroy competitive builds. The goal should be identifying what makes those builds good. Determining if those reasons are in the scope of the intent of the rules, and distributing those reasons to factions who are struggling. 

Unit diversity is a complicated game and it's not just predicated on in book factors. Blood stalkers are functionally a dead unit. It doesn't matter what they cost the have no role is Age of Sigmar based on their warscroll abilities, not their point cost. Maybe if it was 10 points per 5 you could mass enough shots to be some sort of gate keeper list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Thiagoma said:

Imo the riderless options are useless. Without the anointed save, the -1 to save is useless on the frosty for example. Sending a huge base 5 save behemoth into combat is suicide.

At least he has more use than when mounted and unmounted Phoenix costed the same.

22 hours ago, Raging_Moose said:

Has anyone seen any info on gitmob? I know they won't have any alligence abilities but I typically have a lot of luck with blocks of 60 grot archerers for 270 pts. Also the shaman with sneaky stabbing is fire

Don't know if I see Gitmob in the review (it's possible it wasn't mentioned because they got no changes) but I have seen Greenskins (who also vanished from the shop the same time as Gitmob).

11 hours ago, Qrow said:

While I understand that grimghasts were being abused in LoN, it is frustrating as a nighthaunt player to have one of our best units nerfed this hard because another faction can abuse it. Nighthaunt is struggling as it is, most of the point reductions we got are a great step in the right direction, but they are just one step in that direction (come on GW, only 20 points off the mourngul?)

I see it like @RuneBrush

Either should there be different Pitched Battleprofiles for different Allegiances or Allegiances itself had to cost points depending on there use. Nerfing a unit because it was too strong in another allegiance was a bad thing.

2 hours ago, Overread said:

It's odd because GW clearly thinks like that but doesn't act on it. It's like hellstriders in Hedonites, they deliberately moved it from one unit with a weapon choice into two units and yet didn't change anything between them except the weapon. Stats, abilities and points all remained identical. It's the same for some units between armies too, it just strikes me that somewhere in their system they know its possible to do and yet they don't quite get there and do it.

The only point I see is that you can use 4 units (2 of each kind) in Meeting Engagements (if there is not another restriction).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I don't think it's a reasonable goal to destroy competitive builds. The goal should be identifying what makes those builds good. Determining if those reasons are in the scope of the intent of the rules, and distributing those reasons to factions who are struggling. 

* to make every unit first viable internally in the faction and then making the faction viable externally.

 

the issue isn‘t even comp. gaming concerning the point values. It‘s that for example with Idoneth you get stomped even in friendly games if you try to build a balanced list (less eels more Infantry, sharks etc.). There is one IDK playstyle and GW doesn‘t make other IDK units viable at all.

Edited by JackStreicher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 7:09 AM, Pestilens said:

300 for a hurricanum without mage is so interesting.... :)

Yeah, I keep going back and forth on it in the sense that trimming 80 points for one without a battlemage is handy, but getting a battlemage with access to all realm spells, unbinding and the +1 to casting roll for only 80 instead of 110 is tricky.   Granted for the extra 30 points a free standing battlemage costs you get a couple more hit points a so... very situational I think. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Free People got some real love, some lower prices to strengthen the core of the lists but also some of the points changes are interesting enough to make you reconsider some of your tried and true list options. For instance not only are the Greatswords down to 120 for 10 but by discounting the massive 30 to a measly 300 points it really begs me to reconsider their role in a list. Also the overall points required for the battalion cost and units dropped by 50, and that is a really important 50 in that it gives a great deal of flexibility to choose units or add ons that were just 20-30 points to expensive before. 

Also the allegiance ability is the unchanged superior version they came out with last year so grat all around. 

My Scourge list picked up some fantastic changes and Darklings got a little more viable. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

At least he has more use than when mounted and unmounted Phoenix costed the same.

I wish it was some kind of consolation. The Phoenix were changed on every single GHB.

People that enjoy the Aelves keep trying inventive ways to field then so they can ise their models. We didnt exactly were on the top tier on any way, and now we got bashed on the face  with not one but 2 punches in the face with Dragonlords and Phoenix going up in points (AGAIN). I can see the same with the Dispossesed increse in Warriors cost. 

Why?

Few armies too hits as severe as 40 points,and it os not as if we are dominating the meta. If GW had given us any new buff to mitigate it, i would be fine but in reality we only lost. And a lot. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

* to make every unit first viable internally in the faction and then making the faction viable externally.

 

the issue isn‘t even comp. gaming concerning the point values. It‘s that for example with Idoneth you get stomped even in friendly games if you try to build a balanced list (less eels more Infantry, sharks etc.). There is one IDK playstyle and GW doesn‘t make other IDK units viable at all.

Not all units are capable of being viable though. This goes back to my original comment. Some units based on their narrative function, don't have a viable function in the game as played. Fiends are a perfect example of this. They aren't a "bad" unit by any measure, they check all the boxes, but once you leave the context of the book and points and play the game in the manner that we the players have created, they fall flat. People refuse to admit how much of the game is influenced by how we choose to play the game, and the choices people are making in the game from the perspective of their own faction, not singularly rules and points.

IF the game was mostly about single wound combat blocks, sure Fiends could prove a good unit when compared to say a second KoS. But that isn't how we the representations of the meta have chosen to play we value certain attributes over other, and not all of those attributes are rules based attributes. Most people aren't interested in painted 200 single wound models, and thus the strength of the KoS increases in real world value, compared to say Fiends. 

Again the example Blood Stalkers, how cheap would they have to be before their 5 shots, and low body count would be relevant in the way we choose to play the game. I would argue less than 90, and even then it would be a marginal choice. Pricing these units so low that people take them, runs into the problem that players are taking them for reasons other than the narrative role assigned to them. The designers are reasonable loathe to do so, and I can't help but agree with that principle.  GW has historically struggled with dual role units as well, but I tip my hat because dual rule units are notoriously difficult to price .The problem here is what the unit does, based on its warscroll, not how the designers priced that warscroll.

IDK competitively are probably the best representation of a traditional Aelven force we have had to date. 8th edition HE might also be close. The best build includes like 20-40 infantry models mostly in faction. Yes the skew build exists but that just got a price increase, 18 eels cost an extra 90 pts extra which brings you from 18 to 15, which doesn't sound like a lot, but I can tell you as a competitive IDK player a unit of 6 morrsarr and a 9 morrsarr or a unit of 3 and unit of 6 are completely different units.  Not to mention the soul scryer went up 30 pts a pop, bring us to 150 pts over what the build cost previously.

I have this discussion in a lot of faction threads because being able to understand this is fundamental to competitive gaming. If you want to play competitively first you have to understand that the points cost of a unit is almost the last consideration. Its in the is it viable to do so phase of list construction. You start at role, and lots of units are going to get culled at the role stage of list construction. The bigger your tome the more warscrolls are going to get cut.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thiagoma said:

I wish it was some kind of consolation. The Phoenix were changed on every single GHB.

People that enjoy the Aelves keep trying inventive ways to field then so they can ise their models. We didnt exactly were on the top tier on any way, and now we got bashed on the face  with not one but 2 punches in the face with Dragonlords and Phoenix going up in points (AGAIN). I can see the same with the Dispossesed increse in Warriors cost. 

Why?

Few armies too hits as severe as 40 points,and it os not as if we are dominating the meta. If GW had given us any new buff to mitigate it, i would be fine but in reality we only lost. And a lot. 

 

Agreed I could have dealt with +20 to these. Would have been hard but doable. Would have made pure my a fairly neutral change and had to tighten my belt on my PT. +40 with +10 to the battalion though means I'm out of options. 

 

5 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Not all units are capable of being viable though. This goes back to my original comment. Some units based on their narrative function, don't have a viable function in the game as played. Fiends are a perfect example of this. They aren't a "bad" unit by any measure, they check all the boxes, but once you leave the context of the book and points and play the game in the manner that we the players have created, they fall flat. People refuse to admit how much of the game is influenced by how we choose to play the game, and the choices people are making in the game from the perspective of their own faction, not singularly rules and points.

IF the game was mostly about single wound combat blocks, sure Fiends could prove a good unit when compared to say a second KoS. But that isn't how we the representations of the meta have chosen to play we value certain attributes over other, and not all of those attributes are rules based attributes. Most people aren't interested in painted 200 single wound models, and thus the strength of the KoS increases in real world value, compared to say Fiends. 

Again the example Blood Stalkers, how cheap would they have to be before their 5 shots, and low body count would be relevant in the way we choose to play the game. I would argue less than 90, and even then it would be a marginal choice. Pricing these units so low that people take them, runs into the problem that players are taking them for reasons other than the narrative role assigned to them. The designers are reasonable loathe to do so, and I can't help but agree with that principle.  GW has historically struggled with dual role units as well, but I tip my hat because dual rule units are notoriously difficult to price .The problem here is what the unit does, based on its warscroll, not how the designers priced that warscroll.

IDK competitively are probably the best representation of a traditional Aelven force we have had to date. 8th edition HE might also be close. The best build includes like 20-40 infantry models mostly in faction. Yes the skew build exists but that just got a price increase, 18 eels cost an extra 90 pts extra which brings you from 18 to 15, which doesn't sound like a lot, but I can tell you as a competitive IDK player a unit of 6 morrsarr and a 9 morrsarr or a unit of 3 and unit of 6 are completely different units.  Not to mention the soul scryer went up 30 pts a pop, bring us to 150 pts over what the build cost previously.

I have this discussion in a lot of faction threads because being able to understand this is fundamental to competitive gaming. If you want to play competitively first you have to understand that the points cost of a unit is almost the last consideration. Its in the is it viable to do so phase of list construction. You start at role, and lots of units are going to get culled at the role stage of list construction. The bigger your tome the more warscrolls are going to get cut.

That was the most nonsense I have seen posted on her in quite a while. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Enochi said:

Agreed I could have dealt with +20 to these. Would have been hard but doable. Would have made pure my a fairly neutral change and had to tighten my belt on my PT. +40 with +10 to the battalion though means I'm out of options. 

 

That was the most nonsense I have seen posted on her in quite a while. 

Because you are incapable of understanding or have no experience by which to offer rebut? The same theory of analytics are used in everything from sport to economics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody seemed to care about Tzeentch, but the army got a lot of point changes:

Tzaangor Shaman 160 (-20)
Tzaangor Englightened 160/480 (+20/60)
Ogroid 170 (-10)
Gaunt Summoner 160 (-20)
Changeling 180 (-20)
Pinks 180 (-20)
Blues 90 (-10)
Brimstones 60 (-10)
Flamers 140 (-20)
Burning Charriot 150 (-10)
Exalted Flamer 90 (-10)

The Changehost will probably come back as a competitive list (100 points of reduction considering you are taking 3Pinks, 2Blues, 2Brims), allowing for another hero (auto included LoC, Blue Scrib and Gaunt summoner), or more endless spells. 

We get a new viable and very tzeentchian trick: Changeling with Purple sun of Shyish combo went down of 70pts to 230

Some of the reduction costs will be eaten up by endless spell increases, but thankfully the vortex did not change. 

One of our only very competitive unit got nerf with the Enligthened, but it seems fare looking at how they perform. It is a bit compensated by the Shaman decrease. 

The one thing I am really concerned about is the disapearence of the Gaunt Summoner with familiar from the point list. Remains only the regular Gaunt Summoner and the Gaunt Summoner on Disc who both went down to 160 . Hope we will keep our familiars for the +1 to cast an the extra 4 wounds. 

Also, I am curious to give a new try to the flamers and charriots again. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Asimov said:

Tzaangor Shaman 160 (-20) Tzaangor Englightened 160/480 (+20/60) Ogroid 170 (-10) Gaunt Summoner 160 (-20) Changeling 180 (-20) Pinks 180 (-20) Blues 90 (-10) Brimstones 60 (-10) Flamers 140 (-20) Burning Charriot 150 (-10) Exalted Flamer 90 (-10)

*Laughs in Honest Wargamer*

I think Horrors will be seeing a lot of play this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Because you are incapable of understanding or have no experience by which to offer rebut? The same theory of analytics are used in everything from sport to economics.

No because your rambling is foolish. That every unit can't be viable is frankly garbage. In a game where units can be viable as simply chaff and Cheap Objective Grabbers there is really no excuse. 

If units are useless that typically mean that something in your army is either too good for its points or it needs a point reduction/rules change. 

And I know plenty of people that run Horde armies over Elite ones so your 200 model count excuse falls flat. And Considering the same people who are writting the majority of the fluff in the battletomes are writing the rules as well to my knowledge then its really there own fault for painting themselves into a corner.

Your last statement just reinforces that you know nothing. Units being cut from a list doesn't mean there aren't viable. Example is the annoited on foot in my PT. It is a viable unit having a well defined role that it fills effectively. It is usually unplayed because its roll can be filled by others that can do other things but I could still use it competitively. For example if I wanted to make a list they has my Phoenixes charge up the board while he camps back with the guard.  The Phoenixes without riders are NONVIABLE as they cannot fufulling there roll. They are too fragile to stay on the board as a tarpit and lack the punch to be point effective as a damageing unit. They have good speed but as a single model can't function as an objective grabber. Now if there were to reduce the points of these they might be able to function as either a tarpit or suicide attacker. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 6:39 PM, Mandzak-Miniatures said:

So am I understanding that Gors are being advertised as being a better option over the popular ungor raiders?

Ungor raiders are not battle line, meaning that if a battle line unit is better than them in all ways now, there’s no reason to take them.

also ungor raiders not being upgraded to count as battle line further makes them worthless.

Had to check this hadn't been addressed. GW is saying Gors are now comparable to Ungors - not Ungor Raiders. Raiders have bows, Ungors have melee weapons, Raiders are not battle line, Ungors are. Currently (and even after the points drop) Ungors are the better battle line selection. Furthermore Ungor Raiders are one of the best units available to BoC thanks to the Desolating Beastherd battalion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @Enochi I believe @whispersofblood 's point is that army construction isn't just about points but about function within the army itself. I dispute that points are the least of importance and would actually say that the two elements are of near equal weight. A unit can only fill a specific role if its points are priced as such compared to its stats, which allows it to full-fill that role in a cost effective manner. 

 

His broad point though is that armies are built designed to answer questions the enemy asks of them; and to ask questions/present challenge to the enemy. This means that within any given meta certain questions are going to likely arise more than others, which means the answers will asirse more often. If no one takes a certain kind of unit, or not many of them, then chances are the counters to those units will be less. 

In addition armies with more bloat of models will get more likely cross overs, esp with AoS as the variety of unit types is fewer tahn, say, 40K. 

So yes to some degree how we choose to build (at the group and indiviudal levels) will result in some models being less popular at large. That said adjusting balance can give them niches to function in and effective use can mean that the meta is not too overpowering. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did that rumour about limiting how many CP you can buy during list building amount to anything? Someone was claiming that the new GH made it so you could only take 1 extra CP for 50 points, but I haven't seen or heard anyone talk about it since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...