Winter FAQs & Errata - 2019

[RuneBrush]

Here we go folks, a thread where we can chew the cud over the latest round of FAQs and Errata!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/12/17/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-new-updates-now-live/

[Overread]

Overall I've liked the changes, for a lot of armies this was less about reining in stronger options and more about making some less than optimal choices a bit cheaper to make them more attractive to take in armies. A worthwhile approach and an encouraging thing to see GW addressing.

 

 

Slaanesh I still feel has issues with depravity. The changes made might weaken its game impact now, but they still leave you with an army that wants to max its leader slot out (all 6 at 2K) and ideally wants multiple multi-wound characters, which pushes it heavily toward keepers. Furthermore they still want to summon leaders as they will increase depravity generation. 

It still heavily undervalues troops of any kind and leaves itself open to focusing purely on one army mechanic of depravity generation. 

Depravity itself also still generates the same which means a miss-match in performance when compared against 1wound majority armies and multiwound majority armies 

 

It's very much a step in the right direction, I just wish GW had been a bit bolder.

[Neffelo]

7 minutes ago, Overread said:

Overall I've liked the changes, for a lot of armies this was less about reining in stronger options and more about making some less than optimal choices a bit cheaper to make them more attractive to take in armies. A worthwhile approach and an encouraging thing to see GW addressing.

 

 

Slaanesh I still feel has issues with depravity. The changes made might weaken its game impact now, but they still leave you with an army that wants to max its leader slot out (all 6 at 2K) and ideally wants multiple multi-wound characters, which pushes it heavily toward keepers. Furthermore they still want to summon leaders as they will increase depravity generation. 

It still heavily undervalues troops of any kind and leaves itself open to focusing purely on one army mechanic of depravity generation. 

Depravity itself also still generates the same which means a miss-match in performance when compared against 1wound majority armies and multiwound majority armies 

 

It's very much a step in the right direction, I just wish GW had been a bit bolder.

Yeah, I Feel the same way. I think they went too light with the Depravity table. We will have to see if the locus nerf + depravity nerf will be enough.  I think that people may bring more Contored Epitomes now. 

The nerfs take Slaanesh down a notch, but I was expecting a bit more. We'll have to see how it works in play. 

 

[Overread]

In my view the depravity point cost increases almost is worse than if they'd left it alone. At least in terms of internal battletome balance. By making the costs greater it puts even more weight on taking more keepers (or at least multi wound leaders) and maxing out the leader slot. So it actually makes the issue of taking anything but leaders worse. It also kind of highlights that that's how GW wants the army to work,, which in my view is a massive shame because it really cuts out so many great models and variations in playstyle. 

When you look at competitive/good army lists and you've basically got the least number of troops for the least cost that you can manage to put on the table; that tells me something is wrong with the army. 

 

Don't get me wrong, cutting down on what depravity can summon should knock some of the power out of the army which in a keeper/leader heavy list building on depravity is an issue. 

[Paladin of Khorne]

Haven’t been able to dig into the changes yet, but can anyone say if Deepkin became less Battletome Eelriders yet?

[HollowHills]

3 minutes ago, Paladin of Khorne said:

Haven’t been able to dig into the changes yet, but can anyone say if Deepkin became less Battletome Eelriders yet?

Short answer is no. 

The long answer is that sharks, turtles and both eidolons got fairly significant reductions. I don't think that sharks are actually worth it over 3 morsarr, having looked at it a bit. That said they are definitely usable. 

I would definitely take an eidolon of the storm at 360 points. I would probably not take an eidolon of the sea, but others disagree and see him as a good option even prior to the point decreases. 

Ultimately I don't see any real reason not to just use eels when playing idoneth still. I don't think we will see that happen until the next battletome. 

[tripchimeras]

12 minutes ago, Overread said:

In my view the depravity point cost increases almost is worse than if they'd left it alone. At least in terms of internal battletome balance. By making the costs greater it puts even more weight on taking more keepers (or at least multi wound leaders) and maxing out the leader slot. So it actually makes the issue of taking anything but leaders worse. It also kind of highlights that that's how GW wants the army to work,, which in my view is a massive shame because it really cuts out so many great models and variations in playstyle. 

When you look at competitive/good army lists and you've basically got the least number of troops for the least cost that you can manage to put on the table; that tells me something is wrong with the army. 

 

Don't get me wrong, cutting down on what depravity can summon should knock some of the power out of the army which in a keeper/leader heavy list building on depravity is an issue. 

On the one hand I agree with you.  I want books with internal balance, and this hurts it more.  On the other hand, as a mostly competitively minded player, Slaanesh was a huge problem, and while this surely doesn't fully solve it, It is a bigger nerf to an army then we have seen in a long while, and should knock them back into the midst of the rest of the top tier at the very least (I truly hope).  If this can knock them down into the mid to high 50's in win-rate I will be mostly satisfied.  I think the locus change in particular is going to be meaningful... We will obviously have to wait and see though.

GW likes a soft touch, and I have mixed feelings about that.  But still I think we have seen them with this December faq show an inclination to do some things that they have generally been resistant to in the past.  In addition to the Slaanesh change, I think the fact that they are strait up replacing the plague monk scroll, is something that bodes very well for the future, if it shows a willingness to do something so drastic again (as it has been needed on more then 1 occasion and ignored in the past). 

I also think we are seeing this soft touch with points in a few instances actually work.  I posted about this in more depth in the Deepkin thread but this approach actually appears to be succeeding in the case of Sharks.  They have come down 40pts in 12 months, and are now at a place where they are usable competitively.  Not only that I think they are basically 10pts shy from being basically on par with eels, which is shocking.  I think people have always said 80-90pts was the range where they met or exceeded eels, and I just honestly never thought they would get even close, yet here we are 10 pts away from true internal balance between them and eels.  Certainly not a wide enough gap to prevent them from being usable competitively.  Very pleased with that alone.

Edited December 17, 2019 by tripchimeras

[Neffelo]

14 minutes ago, Overread said:

In my view the depravity point cost increases almost is worse than if they'd left it alone. At least in terms of internal battletome balance. By making the costs greater it puts even more weight on taking more keepers (or at least multi wound leaders) and maxing out the leader slot. So it actually makes the issue of taking anything but leaders worse. It also kind of highlights that that's how GW wants the army to work,, which in my view is a massive shame because it really cuts out so many great models and variations in playstyle. 

When you look at competitive/good army lists and you've basically got the least number of troops for the least cost that you can manage to put on the table; that tells me something is wrong with the army. 

 

Don't get me wrong, cutting down on what depravity can summon should knock some of the power out of the army which in a keeper/leader heavy list building on depravity is an issue. 

While I don't disagree with you here, The issue is that GW would have to rewrite how depravity works completely to fix t his and that just was not going to happen in a FAQ.  

Slaanesh is probably the worst tome of 2019 when it comes to internal and external balance, and in my opinion it would require quite a bit of work to get that back on track. Hopefully they can improve on this in the GHB 2019.  

[michu]

Plague monks warscroll is still not updated on GW's site. Could someone check if maybe at least the app have new one?

[HollowHills]

38 minutes ago, michu said:

Plague monks warscroll is still not updated on GW's site. Could someone check if maybe at least the app have new one?

I just updated my app and it's still the old one.

[Infernalslayer]

Slaanesh does need more than that, as it is the most unfun army to play against, but it is a start.

 

Love the update to Blightkings' unmodified 6s, but still sad that the 3 Maggoth Lords haven't received any love since before the beginning of AoS to make them enticing to use. 

[Zanzou]

33 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

I just updated my app and it's still the old one.

time for a chat with the web devs... or whoever is making them botch this

[michu]

Ben Johnson said on twitter that, yes, web devs had some technical issues tomorrow.

[Landohammer]

Overall I am very happy with the changes to the armies I use. Sylvaneth, Cities, and Idoneth changes were all solid. I will be happy to see wildriders, turtles, and treelords on the table again. 

I think the jury is still out regarding Slaanesh. At first glance I really like the nerfs. They are clearly hitting the right nails (depravity and locus) But I agree that the changes may force competitive players into more Keeper (and chariot) spam.

However the one ray of sunshine in all this, is that at the end of the day this is an objective based game. Players who spam Keepers will run into the same issues as other armies: They won't have the infantry they need to screen and retake objectives. 

[michu]

12 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

Overall I am very happy with the changes to the armies I use. Sylvaneth, Cities, and Idoneth changes were all solid. I will be happy to see wildriders, turtles, and treelords on the table again. 

I think the jury is still out regarding Slaanesh. At first glance I really like the nerfs. They are clearly hitting the right nails (depravity and locus) But I agree that the changes may force competitive players into more Keeper (and chariot) spam.

However the one ray of sunshine in all this, is that at the end of the day this is an objective based game. Players who spam Keepers will run into the same issues as other armies: They won't have the infantry they need to screen and retake objectives. 

TBH, there is that old meme:

Opponent's army can't score objectives...

If it doesn't exist.

[whispersofblood]

6 hours ago, Landohammer said:

Overall I am very happy with the changes to the armies I use. Sylvaneth, Cities, and Idoneth changes were all solid. I will be happy to see wildriders, turtles, and treelords on the table again. 

I think the jury is still out regarding Slaanesh. At first glance I really like the nerfs. They are clearly hitting the right nails (depravity and locus) But I agree that the changes may force competitive players into more Keeper (and chariot) spam.

However the one ray of sunshine in all this, is that at the end of the day this is an objective based game. Players who spam Keepers will run into the same issues as other armies: They won't have the infantry they need to screen and retake objectives. 

This is self-fulfilling since many times the changes only solidify the hegemony of the list people hate playing, which makes people say they weren't hit enough.

Edited December 18, 2019 by whispersofblood

[Nizrah]

The only competive SCE roster get nerfed (double tap) and we get discount on very bad warscrolls (drakes). Im very, very dissapointed.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Nizrah

[Landohammer]

15 minutes ago, michu said:

TBH, there is that old meme:

Opponent's army can't score objectives...

If it doesn't exist.

Ahahaha I actually use that quote a lot jokingly but in this case its probably true.

At least Keepers can't rely on an 83% chance of going first anymore. Having a 33% chance of failure means that Alpha strikes may occasionally fail. 

3 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

This is self-fulfilling since many times the changes only solidify the hegemony of the lost people hate playing, which makes people say they weren't hit enough.

Well I have played 3 different Slaanesh lists in a tournament setting and I hated all of them lol. 

[whispersofblood]

57 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

Ahahaha I actually use that quote a lot jokingly but in this case its probably true.

At least Keepers can't rely on an 83% chance of going first anymore. Having a 33% chance of failure means that Alpha strikes may occasionally fail. 

Well I have played 3 different Slaanesh lists in a tournament setting and I hated all of them lol. 

What was different about them? 

[Landohammer]

24 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

What was different about them? 

List 1 -Max Cheese - Keeper and Chariot spam, beastmen battleline

List 2 - Moderate Cheese- 1 Keeper, chariot and misc character spam

List 3 - Minimal Cheese - 1 Keeper, 1 chariot, fiends, seekers

Games vs list 1 and 2 weren't even close. But the game vs list 3 was relatively close until depravity put 900pts+ back on the table. Having your opponent essentially just respawn half their army is just nuts. 

Again I think that they focused on the right issues to begin nerfing. If Slaanesh continues to be a problem then perhaps GW should take a look at the Keeper specifically. It seems to be the epicenter of Slaanesh's issues. 

 

 

[Forrix]

5 hours ago, Overread said:

In my view the depravity point cost increases almost is worse than if they'd left it alone. At least in terms of internal battletome balance. By making the costs greater it puts even more weight on taking more keepers (or at least multi wound leaders) and maxing out the leader slot. So it actually makes the issue of taking anything but leaders worse. It also kind of highlights that that's how GW wants the army to work,, which in my view is a massive shame because it really cuts out so many great models and variations in playstyle. 

When you look at competitive/good army lists and you've basically got the least number of troops for the least cost that you can manage to put on the table; that tells me something is wrong with the army. 

 

Don't get me wrong, cutting down on what depravity can summon should knock some of the power out of the army which in a keeper/leader heavy list building on depravity is an issue. 

I've been on the fence about a Slaanesh army for awhile and Fiends being so sub-optimal while being such good models has been one of the things putting me off of it. I love the new Keeper of Secrets but I don't want to buy and paint three.

[whispersofblood]

3 hours ago, Landohammer said:

List 1 -Max Cheese - Keeper and Chariot spam, beastmen battleline

List 2 - Moderate Cheese- 1 Keeper, chariot and misc character spam

List 3 - Minimal Cheese - 1 Keeper, 1 chariot, fiends, seekers

Games vs list 1 and 2 weren't even close. But the game vs list 3 was relatively close until depravity put 900pts+ back on the table. Having your opponent essentially just respawn half their army is just nuts. 

Again I think that they focused on the right issues to begin nerfing. If Slaanesh continues to be a problem then perhaps GW should take a look at the Keeper specifically. It seems to be the epicenter of Slaanesh's issues. 

 

 

I forget sometimes that not everyone buys and reads every book. I'm curious for those who don't play the army. What do you think is in the HoS faction?

HoS may be the only faction with more warscrolls with the hero keyword then without. And, two of its three battle traits only work on heroes from that specific book, which is odd because none of the other gods have a specific restriction. 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by whispersofblood

[Lord Krungharr]

I think with the new Slaves to Darkness tome out we might see more Mortal Slaanesh armies.....with Archaon…..and a Keeper to make him attack twice.

I for one am very happy to see my Warherds all less expensive, providing room for Jabberslythes!

[Chikout]

Overall this felt like a play experience faq. The change to the locus is better for people playing against Slaanesh. Fyreslayers may have got better but two blocks of 20 makes for a more interesting game than one block of 30. The same logic applies to the stormfiends. Assuming they simplify the plague monks, that will also create a better play experience. The decrease in points on large monsters may encourage a bit more variety in list building which will also be better for the game. 

The unfortunate standout is Petrifex elite not necessarily because it is overpowered but because it is such an auto pick for Obr players. 

[Morglum Ironhide]

Why no Soulgrinder in the bases size document? That's the most needed model for clarification surely!