The heavy hand of GW balancing returns...

[Kurrilino]

7 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Except you lost money while the CW are as they are, no money lost. Also I considered internal balance that‘s where my argument is coming from, in other words „they are okay in CW but bad compared to other armies“.

I‘d argue that they‘d have been a solid battleline unit about a year ago, just as much as Liberators were solid about 2-3 years ago. Yet the power wheel turns and CW were updated as being already out of date again.

however, let‘s wait for the campaign book, shall we?

I absolutely agree they are a solid battleline. I play them since 8 years. It's just they are not worth 600 points. 

I actually expected them to get cheaper before the book came out. Something like 70 for 5 and 50 points horde bonus.

[JackStreicher]

2 minutes ago, Kurrilino said:

I absolutely agree they are a solid battleline. I play them since 8 years. It's just they are not worth 600 points. 

I actually expected them to get cheaper before the book came out. Something like 70 for 5 and 50 points horde bonus.

Yes! Imo the sweetspot for warriors would be 80-90 pts and a big horde discount if someone is willing to play 30 =}

[The World Tree]

A Chaos Warrior should be stronger, not cheaper. The worst part about them is how unfluffy it feels to have them fight and kill nothing.

[MitGas]

2 hours ago, The World Tree said:

A Chaos Warrior should be stronger, not cheaper. The worst part about them is how unfluffy it feels to have them fight and kill nothing.

This.

[JackStreicher]

8 hours ago, The World Tree said:

A Chaos Warrior should be stronger, not cheaper. The worst part about them is how unfluffy it feels to have them fight and kill nothing.

Sadly a lot of units in most books have this issue ^^

I‘d prefer if GW regularly updated warscrolls since point adjustments simply don‘t cut it anymore. (It‘s also easily done by a pdf).

[XReN]

18 hours ago, Forrix said:

stone the rules design team to death with their Liberator models

*blows dust from 60 liberators with malicious intent*

[XReN]

9 hours ago, The World Tree said:

A Chaos Warrior should be stronger, not cheaper. The worst part about them is how unfluffy it feels to have them fight and kill nothing.

IMO they are the example of what elite footsloggers should be. They get rerollable 4+ save, 2 attacks, 2 wounds, easy access to rend. I'd prefer them as the baseline for balancing.

Also horde discount was increadibly bad idea and only serves the purpose of selling models, not making the game better and it should go.

[JackStreicher]

Just now, XReN said:

IMO they are the example of what elite footsloggers should be. They get rerollable 4+ save, 2 attacks, 2 wounds, easy access to rend. I'd prefer them as the baseline for balancing.

Are you listing things they have or things they should have? (They don‘t have any way to get rend)

[XReN]

1 minute ago, JackStreicher said:

Are you listing things they have or things they should have? (They don‘t have any way to get rend)

They do, greatblades have rend

[JackStreicher]

37 minutes ago, XReN said:

They do, greatblades have rend

True, I never considered those since I don‘t have any models with great blades  (4s to hit is so bad though xD)

Edited January 17, 2020 by JackStreicher

[ledha]

9 hours ago, The World Tree said:

A Chaos Warrior should be stronger, not cheaper. The worst part about them is how unfluffy it feels to have them fight and kill nothing.

Can also be applied to the entire stormcast eternal range. Sure, you could resolve most of the book problems by cutting price of 20/30% of most of the units, but who want 70 pts liberators ?

[BadDice0809]

16 hours ago, marke said:

As long as people keep buying stuff from GW at this rate, there isn't going to be any incentive to handle balance better 😂

I dont know. GW reacted fairly quickly to the 40k Iron Hands when FLG straight up ban the new rules at their events. Even though, from my very limited understanding of 40k, the following supplements (IF?) seem fairly broken and nothing as drastic was threatened, and no FAQ as speedily issued.

I don't like ITC, but I can't deny wishing AoS had as big, and nominally independent, organization to call GW out on their horrible and inconsistent rules writing. Maybe if we did, Hag Nar wouldn't have been a thing. Maybe Slaanesh and Gristlegore FEC would have been fixed immediately. The stupid Warp Lightning Vortex, which the KO book is set to revive, wouldn't exist. Maybe there would have been incentive to write the OBR book to where there is a point to taking something that isnt Pertifex.

[Dead Scribe]

I hope we never get an ITC in AOS the way it is in 40k.  I don't like houserules.  People argue over ITC being valid or official all the time and I would dread having to have those conversations in AOS.

Otherwise why not just houserule the things you hate out of the game?  Why do we need a team of people who have no qualifications and no official weight to tell us what house rules they approve of us to play with globally?  

If everyone is as upset at the rules as people claim on forums, why don't they all write GW and let them know, and when the poll comes every year, poll that the rules bother you?

Edited January 17, 2020 by Dead Scribe

[schwabbele]

10 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Why do we need a team of people who have no qualifications and no official weight to tell us what house rules they approve of us to play with globally? 

What makes you think GW staff is more qualified ?

10 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

If everyone is as upset at the rules as people claim on forums, why don't they all write GW and let them know, and when the poll comes every year, poll that the rules bother you?

They don't give a rats *** about that, they have to push sales. A yearly poll kinda says it all.

If AoS tourney scene would unite, we could actually push back if needed. Right now nobody cares at GW.

Edited January 17, 2020 by schwabbele

[Dead Scribe]

I'm highly opposed to some random internet fans dictating to me how I get to play my game.  If they want to write their own game and churn a tourney scene up around it and put the work in instead of riding GW's coattails and premade fan base, let them do that.  If its any good it should stand on its own merit.

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Can we try to keep this friendly please.  GW staff are real people too and I've read a few too many pretty rude comments aimed at them...

[PraetorDragoon]

Wasn't it that the whole Iron Hands thing, while not being well balanced at start, was made even worse by ITC rulings? I remember seeing something like that. 

[Dead Scribe]

I mean - the thing is that read this forum or any other forum and you'll find that no one can agree on what should or shouldn't be changed to make "balance".  "Balance" is different to everyone.

GW balance is not the greatest, we all know that.  But GW balance is still official balance, and when I go to the store to buy models I do so knowing that the rules I am building against are official, not some random committee of dudes that got to be on the committee because they are friends with the right people, choosing how to "balance" the game I play in their own opinion and then forcing that opinion on me ITC-style so that I have no choice but to play by those rules in tournaments.  

No thanks.  I hear enough horror stories online every day about how this and this needs changed to make "balance" but you can't balance a game like this, so when they change one thing for "balance" they are breaking something else.  

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, BadDice0809 said:

I dont know. GW reacted fairly quickly to the 40k Iron Hands when FLG straight up ban the new rules at their events. Even though, from my very limited understanding of 40k, the following supplements (IF?) seem fairly broken and nothing as drastic was threatened, and no FAQ as speedily issued.

I don't like ITC, but I can't deny wishing AoS had as big, and nominally independent, organization to call GW out on their horrible and inconsistent rules writing. Maybe if we did, Hag Nar wouldn't have been a thing. Maybe Slaanesh and Gristlegore FEC would have been fixed immediately. The stupid Warp Lightning Vortex, which the KO book is set to revive, wouldn't exist. Maybe there would have been incentive to write the OBR book to where there is a point to taking something that isnt Pertifex.

Except Iron Hands are still broken. Such rules shouldn't have made it through the review process in the first place.

@Dead Scribe ITC ist super vaid sicne without it 40K is barely playable. House Rules are great, they're just bad for people who are too slow to adapt to a quick Meta-Shift, meaning: a good General wouldn't mind as long as the rules make sense.

[Dolomyte]

I remember the days when everyone was mad that the latest book was always the best book. Now it seems the complaints are why isn’t the latest book the best book. 
 

It’s easy to drive in the backseat. GW use to put out the book and then spit in your face if you had the audacity to ask questions. Now we get two to three week faqs, and bi yearly rules and points updates. The game will never be perfectly balanced, and with the breakneck speed they push out content (We don’t want a single new tome every six months right?) stuff is going to get through and be wonky.

 

as to other games, I love malifaux and used to like kings of war until they decided with a rule change In third edition to make my entire $1200 raging heroes scenically based army invalid. Not that anyone plays either of those game’s in person near me (except KoW GT’S) but I like playing weekly or monthly, and I can’t do 2 day GTs four hours away every week. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Dolomyte

[Dead Scribe]

I disagree.  Saying house rules are great for skilled people and bad for people that are "bad generals" isn't going to drive that point home either.   Its just plain hostile.

If 40k was barely playable it wouldn't have literally tens of thousands of people playing it without ITC on a daily basis.  My store is always packed with 40k players playing the "barely playable" 40k in a non-ITC context.  We have over 200 people in the 40k group in my city alone that are very active, and they don't use ITC to my knowledge.  

I'd say that "barely playable" in that case is not only extremely hyperbolic (which I thought we are supposed to hate?) and just demonstrably not true.  A "barely playable" game wouldn't be the dominant juggernaut of tabletop gaming that 40k has been since pretty much forever.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Dead Scribe

[Zadolix]

It's only online that there so much push and hysteria about the competitive scene and ITC. I can bet 90% are playing homehammer or storehammer with their friends using the official rules in matched or narrative play. Competitive scene conversations can be useful for number crunching and analysing units which is nice when breaking down warscrolls but there is a whole section of the hobby which is all about just building themed / narrative forces and modeling and playing for fun. Personally I think if you want to play competitive and are OCD with balance then you should be playing Warmachine or Infinity which are tournament focused games, or even underworlds. Competitive Warhammer to me is more of a casual fun competitive format compared to other games which are bleeding edge competitive. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Zadolix
Typos

[Dead Scribe]

Its really about numbers.  I agree warmachine and infinity as game systems are more suited for tournament play.  But 40k and AOS has a much deeper player base so you have the ability to have much larger tournaments, much larger prizes, and much larger community where you can make content and earn money from doing that content than you do with smaller games.

[Forrix]

1 hour ago, schwabbele said:

If AoS tourney scene would unite, we could actually push back if needed. Right now nobody cares at GW.

Ironically, my original post is that GW might actually be trying to take a more active hand in balancing things now. GW nerfed Bloated Blessings hard in the 2 (ish) week FAQ when normally they avoid balancing or changing how something works no matter how obviously broken it is until the next Big FAQ.  Its possible GW has heard the message and is trying harder to nip issues in the bud (though they definetly overshot the mark in this case).

For what its worth I've specifically mentioned balance in both of the Big Surveys I've filled out. I'm typically against players writing rules for balancing though (reading homebrew rules often makes me appreciate the GW rules team more).

[Dolomyte]

25 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Its really about numbers.  I agree warmachine and infinity as game systems are more suited for tournament play.  But 40k and AOS has a much deeper player base so you have the ability to have much larger tournaments, much larger prizes, and much larger community where you can make content and earn money from doing that content than you do with smaller games.

Do people even play warmahordes anymore? That died out so long ago in my area, the new edition came out and made people even angrier. There seemed to be no attempt at balance . Infinity is cool.