Winter FAQs & Errata - 2019

[Kasper]

I guess they rushed the Slaanesh "nerfs" bit and forgot to change the warscroll of the Soulfeaster Keeper of Secrets. Warscroll still says 30 depravity? 

[Landohammer]

10 hours ago, Dolomyte said:

It’s not at all. People were losing their minds about slaanesh but they let it play out and now only did a few minor adjustments. People have been yelling frantically about OBR and they seem to be letting them go till June update. I think unless it’s an obvious interaction that’s broken they will wait and see if something seem overpowered or underpowered. 

I think its fair to wait a bit before bringing out the nerf-hammer. What' alarming about GW is the erratic timing of their changes. For example these were relatively unexpected. 

They let Slaanesh dominate for months but 40K Repulsors were actually adjusted pre-emptively, in anticipation of the SM codex release.  They significantly altered a skaven warscrolls months after their codex but adjusted Iron Hands abilities within a few weeks.

Its kind of creating a weird situation where you never really know when you are going to get nerfed or buffed. 

T9A got to this point and it was really alienating for many players. 

[Allornone]

6 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

Its kind of creating a weird situation where you never really know when you are going to get nerfed or buffed.

You know exactly when you are going to get nerfed or buffed. Two weeks after a new battletome comes out for unintended rules interactions, twice a year with the rebalancing faqs and each year with the GHB/CA. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Allornone

[amysrevenge]

11 hours ago, Sagittarii Orientalis said:

A bit out of topic, but how much is GW's decision making affected by reactions from facebook and reddit?

I know one case from 40K where they quickly nerfed an OP faction after complaints flooded from reddit.

I think this would be correlation rather than causation.

One cause:  There is an OP faction.

Two simultaneous effects (in parallel): outcry on reddit, and quick errata.

[Dolomyte]

Yeah the faq and errata are spelled out super clearly, two weeks after book and twice a year updates of everything 

[Sleboda]

Random bummer: 

Morghasts are still severely overcosted.

[Landohammer]

2 hours ago, Allornone said:

You know exactly when you are going to get nerfed or buffed. Two weeks after a new battletome comes out for unintended rules interactions, twice a year with the rebalancing faqs and each year with the GHB/CA. 

 

1 hour ago, Dolomyte said:

Yeah the faq and errata are spelled out super clearly, two weeks after book and twice a year updates of everything 

So I fully anticipate (and appreciate) those regularly scheduled updates. But the examples I referenced fall outside of the biyearly points balancing and post-codex clarifications 

For example, the Repulsors were nerfed weeks BEFORE the codex.

Iron Hands weren't just post-codex clarified, they had balance-based rule adjustments

Skaven had a warscroll change during a points update

Meanwhile Slaanesh were tolerated until the annual update. Of all these situations, Slaanesh likely needed the most immediate attention.

Don't get me wrong, all of these changes were VERY welcome. But I'm just making an observation that the methodology isn't always applied consistently. 

[tripchimeras]

47 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

Skaven had a warscroll change during a points update

Meanwhile Slaanesh were tolerated until the annual update. Of all these situations, Slaanesh likely needed the most immediate attention

Skaven warscroll was changed durring the bi-annual FAQ update, its not just a point adjustment time, rules were adjusted, and it wasn't just Skaven that got them.  This is literally the first time they have fully revamped a warscroll like this, but it was absolutely done at one of the 2 times of year you would expect something like this to happen.  Everybody should have been prepared to have to re-balance their lists come end of year, the fact that the re-balancing occurred in a new way as opposed to a 20-40pt adjustment or whatever doesn't really change the result.

Slaanesh was released after the GHB updates were assembled, there is no inconsistency here.  This was the earliest we could have expected a non-clarifying faq for them.  Both changes were made in the same update, and in each case the book release schedules would not have allowed these changes in time for the GHB rollout.  They needed time to determine the extent of the Slaanesh issue, they rolled it out at the first "scheduled" opportunity.  I see no inconsistency here on their part.  In both cases they stuck to their update schedule.

Edited December 19, 2019 by tripchimeras

[Dolomyte]

17 hours ago, Landohammer said:

For example, the Repulsors were nerfed weeks BEFORE the codex.

Iron Hands weren't just post-codex clarified, they had balance-based rule adjustments

Someone else explained skaven and slaanesh, iron hands was a part of the two week faq and errata, so the time anything that is extremely game breaking gets fixed when it slips through

The repulsor was a part of the summer faq if i remember correctly, which is the bi yearly time all that stuff gets updated, it’s also when bolter drill went from beta rule to in effect 

[Forrix]

To be blunt, I think Iron Hands were only nerfed because the ITC said they were so busted they were banning them from tournaments (ITC being a huge deal in 40k). That is why Rob started his #banSlaanesh thing. If there was a coordinated tournament system through which a vast a majority of AoS tournaments were ran and it had decided to ban Slaanesh then GW would have responded much quicker.

[NinthMusketeer]

This is the second time they have done a full warscroll update outside of a model release (first time was the grundstock thunderers) and man is it a big step up. The new plague monk warscroll is WAY more user-friendly while preserving the role and function of the unit on the tabletop.

[Landohammer]

2 hours ago, Forrix said:

To be blunt, I think Iron Hands were only nerfed because the ITC said they were so busted they were banning them from tournaments (ITC being a huge deal in 40k). That is why Rob started his #banSlaanesh thing. If there was a coordinated tournament system through which a vast a majority of AoS tournaments were ran and it had decided to ban Slaanesh then GW would have responded much quicker.

Wow I did not know either of those things! That is pretty significant correlation. Good on the ITC guys for standing up to the IH insanity and good on GW for responding quickly. If only the same thing had occurred for Slaanesh!

 

[Allornone]

18 hours ago, Forrix said:

ITC said they were so busted they were banning them from tournaments (ITC being a huge deal in 40k).

I don't follow much 40k, what was so busted in the IH that TO had to ban them when absolutely overpowered  things gets allowed all the time?

[Dolomyte]

27 minutes ago, Allornone said:

I don't follow much 40k, what was so busted in the IH that TO had to ban them when absolutely overpowered  things gets allowed all the time?

I’m going off of rough memory here but there was an interaction where with an artifact and a character that made vehicles near unkillable. The iron hands player Would have a leviathan dreads two repulsor executioner and a daradeo, all of them would have a 5++ invuln and all would reduce damage received by 1 or in half?

I saw one guy run it it was sick, his murder bubble literally just tabled a guy while the hero healed the small damage that made it in. 

[mikethefish]

On 12/20/2019 at 1:56 PM, Forrix said:

To be blunt, I think Iron Hands were only nerfed because the ITC said they were so busted they were banning them from tournaments (ITC being a huge deal in 40k).

It wasn't just an arbitrary decision - no tournament organizer wants to go to the drastic measures to exclude armies (and by extension, the people who play them).  The Iron Hands win ratio was VERY skewed, to the point where it was becoming a fairly serious problem.

[Forrix]

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 1:28 AM, mikethefish said:

It wasn't just an arbitrary decision - no tournament organizer wants to go to the drastic measures to exclude armies (and by extension, the people who play them).  The Iron Hands win ratio was VERY skewed, to the point where it was becoming a fairly serious problem.

Yeah, I dont know 40k enough or the IH stuff to comment on the actual rules but I heard they were over an 80% winrate. By comparison I think DoK peaked at 77% and they were the highest we've seen in AoS. Slaanesh and OBR have been hovering just under 70%.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Forrix

[stratigo]

On 12/21/2019 at 8:02 AM, Allornone said:

I don't follow much 40k, what was so busted in the IH that TO had to ban them when absolutely overpowered  things gets allowed all the time?

There were too many saves to go through and healing after that. IH vehicles were strictly just too good. 
 

4 hours ago, Forrix said:

Yeah, I dont know 40k enough or the IH stuff to comment on the actual rules but I heard they were over an 80% winrate. By comparison I think DoK peaked at 77% and they were the highest we've seen in AoS. Slaanesh and OBR have been hover just under 70%.

I mean, two weeks isn’t enough time for accurate statistics, but sometimes things are obviously busted

[Alessio]

Can someone explain me this FAQ please? 

Q: If a Pitched Battle profile has a later publication date than 
the latest General’s Handbook, but its Pitched Battle Profile is 
not included in the latest General’s Handbook, can it be used in 
a Pitched Battle?
A: Yes.

[The_Dudemeister]

That means anything coming out with points cost becomes official part of the game/an army.

Battalions they publish in White Dwarf for example.

Edited December 30, 2019 by The_Dudemeister

[Alessio]

11 hours ago, The_Dudemeister said:

That means anything coming out with points cost becomes official part of the game/an army.

Battalions they publish in White Dwarf for example.

Perfect thanks!

[sal4m4nd3r]

On 12/19/2019 at 7:26 AM, Kasper said:

I guess they rushed the Slaanesh "nerfs" bit and forgot to change the warscroll of the Soulfeaster Keeper of Secrets. Warscroll still says 30 depravity? 

GW rushed something out? Wow color me shocked. /s

They spent about 77 seconds balancing the nurgle book where they just forgot about Blades of putrefaction. Not ONLY is it still 6+ but it targets a FRIENDLY unit. It would have taken an extra 10 seconds to balance this rule and bring it inline with 2019 modern rules. 

[Skreech Verminking]

14 hours ago, The_Dudemeister said:

That means anything coming out with points cost becomes official part of the game/an army.

Battalions they publish in White Dwarf for example.

wait I can still use that skryre and probably only good efficient pointwise battailon from the carrion empire set😍😍😱 for the skaven!

 

I must be the happiest rat in the entire under empire right now!

Edited December 31, 2019 by Skreech Verminking