AoS3 - The points discussion

[Overread]

I think the sting for DoK and Slaanesh is that they literally just got new books so seeing point hikes on top of point hikes is quite a blow, though its nice to see hellstriders and such come down a bit. It does make you wonder how GW's internal system is for proof reading and balancing and writing things when battletomes being updated for 3.0 are being updated even before they've actually had a 3.0 game and in quite a significant way, this isn't just a few small corrections.

 

That said if every army is going up I can see logic from GW's angle in trying to limit the chances of the games ending up with vast armies that discourage newbies; and local gamers can always settle on new point values. It's very important that we remember that 2K isn't a magical number. We can play 2.5K or 3K games if we want to get back to larger forces. 

With some of the world opening up and - fingers crossed - vaccines rolling out more and more we might at least have hope that games pick up enough that we can get some real feedback on all this not just armchair theory crafting. 

[yukishiro1]

The sting for everybody is that these points just don't make sense, as we can all tell from taking a quick look at them. This isn't some masterful plan we just can't see the logic of. It's largely scattershot nonsense. Just like the 9th edition initial points were scattershot nonsense. It's not like those turned out to be a masterful galaxy brain plan nobody could see the wisdom of, either.

GW is just really bad at setting initial points for a new edition. I think at this point it is safe to say that GW has little competitive understanding of its own games, and relies heavily on the players to find the correct points values because it is incapable of doing so itself. Seeing things like Slaangors go up by as much as Sentinels really brings this home. 

[wayniac]

And yet they have competitive playtesters and at least one designer who is a fairly competent competitive player, so these changes make even less sense if there's someone who actually "gets it"

[yukishiro1]

GW's playtesting programs are unfortunately not very serious, as ex-playtesters occasionally attest to. They often don't even include the point values in the rules they send to the playtesters (or at least some of the playtesters) to test - this happened with 9th edition, for example. The whole thing is more of a program to keep influencers on side than a serious testing system, as evidenced by the constant errors (i.e. 10 point Reavers in the DE book, 240 points a model nundams that ignore damage 1 in the new SoB book, etc) that make it into the final books, even quite aside from balance problems.

[Spears]

1 hour ago, Dracan said:

Can someone explain to me why warp lightning vortex went up 10pts and the other 2 skaven spells by 45 and 40??

Bell of doom and Vermintide both arent very good spells... even at old points.

Warlp lighning vortex broke the game for a while at 100pts before it got erretad with less range.

To pay 90pts for warp lightning vortex and 85pts for Bell, 80pts for vermintide seems mind blowingly bizare to be frank???

My limited understanding of aos 3 is that spells now move in both hero phases so vermintide and bell now do damage twice as often and always controlled by you. Whereas the vortex is not tied to being moved so does no additional damage.

[Enoby]

I would love it if there was a designer commentary on every pitched battle profile. Just a box explaining the changes

I wouldn't have to agree with them, but it'd give me more confidence that the designers were putting thought into every profile.

If they said "Slaangors are going up 10 points because they have mortal wound output which is more useful in 3rd because of higher saves", I'd disagree, but at least I'd understand where they were coming from. Without any input from GW, it seems scattershot and random - like the designers don't know what they're doing. That's not to say they don't know, but if they don't tell us why they do something and it seems random, then we are only left to assume. 

[Aeryenn]

Seriously the longer I play this game the more I'm sure that people without any qualifications write the rules. Total amateurs that set points based on their feelings not math. I'm not sure even feelings are taken under consideration. 

People read these points and in a heartbeat see how nonsense they are. How random, how unfair. GW get yourself up. Hire people that know how to write rules.

You will loose customers otherwise.

Oh, and to people writing "less emotions, be patient, be positive". Here's my advice: don't be childish.

Wishful thinking won't solve anything.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Aeryenn

[Shirtripper]

56 minutes ago, Dracan said:

Can someone explain to me why warp lightning vortex went up 10pts and the other 2 skaven spells by 45 and 40??

Bell of doom and Vermintide both arent very good spells... even at old points.

Warlp lighning vortex broke the game for a while at 100pts before it got erretad with less range.

To pay 90pts for warp lightning vortex and 85pts for Bell, 80pts for vermintide seems mind blowingly bizare to be frank???

It's probably due to the new board size and how big their foot print is regardless of effectiveness, since it remains to be seen just how effective endless spells are going to be in this new edition, especially considering endless spells move in both players Hero phases each round.

WLV went from impacting about 10% of the old board to 13% of the new board (ALL HAIL THE GREAT HORNED RAT).

Bell of doom went from about 15% of the board to about 20% of the board, not including endless spell movement.

Vermintide's a bit weirder since it's an endless spell with an oval base, but it comes to about a 1% change in board size, not including movement.  Vermintide is a bit of a weird one and definitely stands out as not worth its points.

It also tells me the spells are going to reworked in the near future, Given how buffed the generic endless spells got--except for Quicksilver Swords--we could see some juicy changes coming in the future.

[Golub87]

Just now, Aeryenn said:

Seriously the longer I play this game the more I'm sure that people without any qualifications write the rules. Total amateurs that set points based on their feelings not math. I'm not sure even feelings are taken under consideration. 

People read these points and in a heartbeat see how nonsense they are. How random, how unfair. GW get yourself up. Hire people that know how to write rules.

You will loose customers otherwise.

Oh, and to people writing "less emotions, be patient, be positive". Here's my advice: don't be childish.

Thank you!

I honestly feel that the false positivity and absolute acceptance of whatever nonsense comes from GW is the reason why they do not care about the rules in the slightest.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

Looks like GIGO to me…

Being completely fair Age of Sigmar is massively multivariate and 3.0 comes with some pretty significant changes to boot but the “pattern in the data” I see is one only an algorithm could love.

We benefit from powerful and efficient algorithms so much today I think it can be easy to forget that all too often the results they produce are garbage, as is acknowledged by those who develop them with the Garbage In, Garbage Out expression (GIGO)  Whether the “garbage” in this case is the data set itself (i.e. what factors did GW decide to include in them) or the weights they gave different components (e.g. are MWs more important or base Saves or wounds etc.) I can’t tell but having seen algorithms gone wrong in the wild this looks all too familiar, particularly once we allow for some massaging by GW post-algorithm (e.g. on any “logical” basis Mega Gargants got better in 3.0 on an absolute AND relative basis but their original points don’t allow for much change while still being a viable faction).

Not as familiar with 9e but what Ive seen about point changes at day zero it looks familiar.  There, as many have noted we’ve seen regular point changes since as the points became less dependent on the algorithm and more dependent on the tome writers and tournament feedback.

Doesnt feel good but provides hope that new tomes and Winter points may go a long way towards realigning and rationalizing what people don’t like.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Beer & Pretzels Gamer

[yukishiro1]

I think one thing that would go a long way is if GW was a little humbler and more transparent about its processes. If these points came with a page-long disclaimer at the start saying: "Folks, we try our best, but we acknowledge that we just don't have the internal processes set up to do initial points values correctly. These are provisional values, they'll probably be seriously off in places. Please send us feedback, and we'll make monthly tweaks until we get them into a good place" I think the reaction would be totally different.

Instead, we get puff pieces on warhammer community, followed by complete radio silence about problems. And then a points tweak comes out in December or January to great fanfare, correcting things everybody spotted 6 months before, without the slightest acknowledgement that they were wrong to begin with. 

This breeds resentment among the player base, because we see a company that evidently is both (1) unable to do this stuff correctly on its own without community data, but also (2) completely unwilling to admit that fact. 

[PrimeElectrid]

29 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I would love it if there was a designer commentary on every pitched battle profile. Just a box explaining the changes

I wouldn't have to agree with them, but it'd give me more confidence that the designers were putting thought into every profile.

Imagine if GW had actually taken the time to do this and prepared a series of videos to discuss it to accompany the GHB release, perhaps as guests on certain favourite influencers YouTube channels, instead of just farming the whole thing out for those same favourite influencers to lazily page-turn.

The way GW squander their social media presence is honestly infuriating.

Edited June 18, 2021 by PrimeElectrid

[Golub87]

6 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Imagine if GW had actually taken the time to do this and prepared a series of videos to discuss it to accompany the GHB release, perhaps as guests on certain favourite influencers YouTube channels, instead of just farming the whole thing out for those same favourite influencers to lazily page-turn.

The way GW squander their social media presence is honestly infuriating.

Well, that would cost money and take effort and they do not really need it. The community seems to be conditioned to self-police against criticism so why put additional effort into engaging with players?

Edited June 18, 2021 by Golub87

[Havelocke]

Copy/pasting my unit by unit breakdown of the Sylvaneth changes from our faction discussion thread.

 

Overall, I feel like Sylvaneth got more or less standard points increases, while really benefiting from a number of changes to the core rules. I don't think they'll be breaking into the upper echelons of the meta any time soon, but I think that they might find their way out of the basement in third edition.

Spoiler

Okay gang. Now that we've got the points, I've compiled all of my thoughts on how our units will fare in the new edition. I tried to consider past performance, new points,and the new rules set when casting judgement. I gave this far less thought than I could have, so please feel free to pick it apart and tell me where you think I'm wrong!

SYLVANETH WINNERS AND LOSERS FOR THIRD EDITION - SNAP JUDGEMENT EDITION

Alarielle - 740 (+0)
Small Winner. Better than she was post Kragnos, by virtue of most other stuff going up. She still doesn't compare favorably to Morathi, but she's the same cost as Teclis now. If you wanted to, you could even argue she went down in points, since the value of her summon went up. I can't say she'll be a top-tier choice, but I think you can make her work in a list.

Drycha Hamadreth - 330 (+30)
Big Winner. Drycha loves the new rules. The new command abilities, heroic actions, and rampages, all help her do exactly what she wants to be doing. Her points increase is on par with what we're seeing in most other factions. She takes a small hit due to Spite Revenants being less viable, but let's be honest. That's not why you were taking her.

Warsong Revenant - 275 (+0)
Small Winner. Like Alarielle, was clearly pre-pointed with third in mind. I see the Warsong as competing with the Treelord Ancient for the 'durable second rank caster' role in the army, and I think the Warsong comes out ahead with the extra cast, casting bonus, and fly.

Arch-Revenant - 105 (+5)
It's a wash. From what I've seen, most heroes are going up by about 10. Skating in under the curve is nice. I think the Arch-Revenant loses relevance, though, due to the fact that Kurnoths got hit rather hard, and due to the rules changes, which hurt her command ability.

Branchwraith - 95 (+15)
Big Loser. Fifteen points is a larger price increase than we've seen on a lot of foot heroes, and she didn't gain much from the new rules in any way. While I expect her to continue to be a staple due to the power of her warscroll spell, I think she's seen a downgrade to her competitive power. I suspect we'll see two of them less frequently now.

Branchwych - 90 (+10)
Small Loser. Compared to the Branchwraith, the Branchwych is a bit more likely to care about the heroic actions, or about counting as two models on objectives. That said, I can't see you ever taking her unless you desperately need another cast and have exactly 90 points to spare. (Read: Never)

Spirit of Durthu - 340 (+40)
Small Winner. Durthu is primed to take advantage of the new rules, and he especially loves Heroic Recovery to unbracket him. Still, he got hit harder than some other units by points hikes, and still requires resource investment to work. I don't see myself taking Durthu over Drycha unless I'm building my list around him.

Treelord Ancient - 295 (+35)
The Biggest Loser. The Treelord Ancient saw an increase in points, while also being outclassed by new competition for its primary role in the army. The ancient benefits from the new rampages and heroic actions, and the improvements to wyldwoods indirectly benefited its warscroll spell, but there's a better alternative for just about everything the Ancient does. I suspect the Ancient will occasionally appear in lists to take advantage of its free wyldwood, but iI think it will be replaced by a Warsong, Treelord, or Durthu in most cases.

Dryads - 95 (-5)
Big Winner. While Dryads lost their horde discount, they gained about half of it back, and units of 20 are now ten points cheaper. On top of that, they synergize well with the new rules. Having multiple buffs on their warscroll softens the blow of the cap on command abilities, and their reach lessens the impact of the coherency changes. I expect to see one or two blocks in most competitive lists, moving forward.

Spite Revenants - 70 (+10)
Big Loser. The rules change did them no favors, and they got the only points hike among our battleline on top of it. I have a hard time envisioning them as competitive choices without some changes.

Tree Revenants - 80 (+0)
Big Winner. Tree Revenants were already competitive, and they didn't see any points increases while most other units did. I expect that small units will continue to be a mainstay of the army moving forward.

Treelord - 190 (+10)
The Biggest Winner? One of my two contenders for most improved warscroll in the new edition. The treelord gained access to rampages, now counts as five models on objectives, saw a modest points hike compared to the field, and their primary competition in list building got hit harder than they did. I suspect that some lists will try running a treelord alongside six scythes instead of three swords.

I think Kurnoth Hunters really like the changes to the universal command abilities, and counting as extra models on objectives is nice. That said, not having access to heroic actions or rampages closes the gap a bit between them and some of the other heavy hitters in our book. This large of a points increase definitely hurts them.

Kurnoth Hunters with Swords - 225 (+35)
Small Loser. See above, and... swords will still probably be the go-to choice for three man units, but I think we'll see fewer of them in the new edition.

Kurnoth Hunters with Bows - 225 (+35)
Big Loser. See above, and... if they were going to make the weapon options cost different amount, I don't know why they didn't reduce the cost of bows. The new command abilities help them more than the other loadouts, but bows were already the weakest option on Kurnoths. Outside of fools who love them (like me!), I don't think we'll see a ton of them until they get changed.

Kurnoth Hunters with Scythes - 215 (+25)
It's a wash. See above, and... if you were ever going to make an argument in favor of six swords over six scythes, the new edition made it a lot harder. While Kurnoths as a whole got weaker, scythes got stronger relative to other Kurnoths. I expect a unit of six scythe hunters to continue to be our premiere hammer unit moving forward.

Ylthari - 150 (-30)
Small winner. Still not playable, but she hurts your army by thirty fewer points.

Skaeth's Wild Hunt - 110 (-10)
It's a wash. Less attractive in the new rules, where you're probably less interested in paying for a non-hero caster. It's not like the unit was viable before, though.

Spiteswarm Hive - 40  (-10)
The Biggest Winner? My other contender for most improved warscroll. The spiteswarm hive was already an integral part of some competitive lists, and a boon to almost any list. And it got cheaper. I've been pretty conservative with my predictions so far, but I'll go out on a limb and say that, barring a rewrite of its warscroll, I expect the Spiteswarm Hive to be a borderline auto-include in the new edition.

Gladewyrm - 60 (+30)
Small Winner. While the Gladewyrm got hit with a pretty big points increase, the ability to maintain control and keep the Gladewyrm in the middle of a big scrum is a huge boon to the model. I'm definitely going to try it.

Vengeful Skullroot - 85 (+45)
Small Winner. The biggest boon to the Skullroot is the changes to the Wyldwood, which makes it much easier to summon woods within three inches of an enemy unit, and then combo the Skullroot on the same turn. The big points cost is a little harder to stomach, but it's got a low casting value and D6 mortals to multiple units is potentially very potent.

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Havelocke

[PrimeElectrid]

10 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

Well, that would cost money and take effort and they do not really need it. The community seems to be conditioned to self-police against criticism so why put additional effort into engaging with players?

I get what you are saying, but they will have lost more money 💯 in the long run now due to lost sales.

[whispersofblood]

39 minutes ago, Aeryenn said:

Seriously the longer I play this game the more I'm sure that people without any qualifications write the rules. Total amateurs that set points based on their feelings not math. I'm not sure even feelings are taken under consideration. 

People read these points and in a heartbeat see how nonsense they are. How random, how unfair. GW get yourself up. Hire people that know how to write rules.

You will loose customers otherwise.

Oh, and to people writing "less emotions, be patient, be positive". Here's my advice: don't be childish.

Wishful thinking won't solve anything.

OR... just be grown up enough to realize this to shall pass. You can scream into the clouds for a day and a night, and when the sun rises they will have changed. But, you will never know they would have done so regardless, and all you've accomplished in truth is wasting a fraction of your precious time on the earth. These changes aren't any worse than the change to 8th edition which say some frankly monstrous lists, I should I know I was at peak trash competitive energy at the time. We all got more experience with the core rules (GW included) and the game got better and more enjoyable, and then we got too good at it and it spiralled...

I've spent my idle time today writing as many lists as I can dream up for all my factions and few I have always found kind of temping (Khorne and SCE) and doing thought experiments on various battleplans and Battle tactics. It has been fun and enlightening and fed back into the next list I write which is probably why I feel much better than I did last night. The board game feel means that no two games are going to be the same, and you will have to do a lot of improvising. How people are going to have to deal with my IJ not just on primaries but on how aggressively I can get my BT but also deny the opponent theirs. Its going to be massively different to how they will have to deal with my LRL managing space and denying zones or targets for easy Battle Tactics points.

I am a highly critical person, just ask my friends, but criticism and moaning are distinct. Criticism implies there is a corrective action to be taken. Right now the common criticism is that people don't like what the point changes do to their armies, which is at best a statement of preference. I've yet to see anyone post a real effort at a list that they believe demonstrates that the changes are so bad they are no longer capable of engaging with the matched play battlepack. If you want to do that, I'm all ears. I don't believe the forum or community benefit from people shouting back and forth about their preferences which are irrelevant in the face of what we have to play with until we have actual games and data to use for the winter faq we all know is coming.

[Golub87]

13 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

I get what you are saying, but they will have lost more money 💯 in the long run now due to lost sales.

Not likely, as we have repeatedly seen, people will defend GW with walls of text regardless of what happens.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Golub87

[Gailon]

21 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

Copy/pasting my unit by unit breakdown of the Sylvaneth changes from our faction discussion thread.

 

Overall, I feel like Sylvaneth got more or less standard points increases, while really benefiting from a number of changes to the core rules. I don't think they'll be breaking into the upper echelons of the meta any time soon, but I think that they might find their way out of the basement in third edition.

  Hide contents

Okay gang. Now that we've got the points, I've compiled all of my thoughts on how our units will fare in the new edition. I tried to consider past performance, new points,and the new rules set when casting judgement. I gave this far less thought than I could have, so please feel free to pick it apart and tell me where you think I'm wrong!

SYLVANETH WINNERS AND LOSERS FOR THIRD EDITION - SNAP JUDGEMENT EDITION

Alarielle - 740 (+0)
Small Winner. Better than she was post Kragnos, by virtue of most other stuff going up. She still doesn't compare favorably to Morathi, but she's the same cost as Teclis now. If you wanted to, you could even argue she went down in points, since the value of her summon went up. I can't say she'll be a top-tier choice, but I think you can make her work in a list.

Drycha Hamadreth - 330 (+30)
Big Winner. Drycha loves the new rules. The new command abilities, heroic actions, and rampages, all help her do exactly what she wants to be doing. Her points increase is on par with what we're seeing in most other factions. She takes a small hit due to Spite Revenants being less viable, but let's be honest. That's not why you were taking her.

Warsong Revenant - 275 (+0)
Small Winner. Like Alarielle, was clearly pre-pointed with third in mind. I see the Warsong as competing with the Treelord Ancient for the 'durable second rank caster' role in the army, and I think the Warsong comes out ahead with the extra cast, casting bonus, and fly.

Arch-Revenant - 105 (+5)
It's a wash. From what I've seen, most heroes are going up by about 10. Skating in under the curve is nice. I think the Arch-Revenant loses relevance, though, due to the fact that Kurnoths got hit rather hard, and due to the rules changes, which hurt her command ability.

Branchwraith - 95 (+15)
Big Loser. Fifteen points is a larger price increase than we've seen on a lot of foot heroes, and she didn't gain much from the new rules in any way. While I expect her to continue to be a staple due to the power of her warscroll spell, I think she's seen a downgrade to her competitive power. I suspect we'll see two of them less frequently now.

Branchwych - 90 (+10)
Small Loser. Compared to the Branchwraith, the Branchwych is a bit more likely to care about the heroic actions, or about counting as two models on objectives. That said, I can't see you ever taking her unless you desperately need another cast and have exactly 90 points to spare. (Read: Never)

Spirit of Durthu - 340 (+40)
Small Winner. Durthu is primed to take advantage of the new rules, and he especially loves Heroic Recovery to unbracket him. Still, he got hit harder than some other units by points hikes, and still requires resource investment to work. I don't see myself taking Durthu over Drycha unless I'm building my list around him.

Treelord Ancient - 295 (+35)
The Biggest Loser. The Treelord Ancient saw an increase in points, while also being outclassed by new competition for its primary role in the army. The ancient benefits from the new rampages and heroic actions, and the improvements to wyldwoods indirectly benefited its warscroll spell, but there's a better alternative for just about everything the Ancient does. I suspect the Ancient will occasionally appear in lists to take advantage of its free wyldwood, but iI think it will be replaced by a Warsong, Treelord, or Durthu in most cases.

Dryads - 95 (-5)
Big Winner. While Dryads lost their horde discount, they gained about half of it back, and units of 20 are now ten points cheaper. On top of that, they synergize well with the new rules. Having multiple buffs on their warscroll softens the blow of the cap on command abilities, and their reach lessens the impact of the coherency changes. I expect to see one or two blocks in most competitive lists, moving forward.

Spite Revenants - 70 (+10)
Big Loser. The rules change did them no favors, and they got the only points hike among our battleline on top of it. I have a hard time envisioning them as competitive choices without some changes.

Tree Revenants - 80 (+0)
Big Winner. Tree Revenants were already competitive, and they didn't see any points increases while most other units did. I expect that small units will continue to be a mainstay of the army moving forward.

Treelord - 190 (+10)
The Biggest Winner? One of my two contenders for most improved warscroll in the new edition. The treelord gained access to rampages, now counts as five models on objectives, saw a modest points hike compared to the field, and their primary competition in list building got hit harder than they did. I suspect that some lists will try running a treelord alongside six scythes instead of three swords.

I think Kurnoth Hunters really like the changes to the universal command abilities, and counting as extra models on objectives is nice. That said, not having access to heroic actions or rampages closes the gap a bit between them and some of the other heavy hitters in our book. This large of a points increase definitely hurts them.

Kurnoth Hunters with Swords - 225 (+35)
Small Loser. See above, and... swords will still probably be the go-to choice for three man units, but I think we'll see fewer of them in the new edition.

Kurnoth Hunters with Bows - 225 (+35)
Big Loser. See above, and... if they were going to make the weapon options cost different amount, I don't know why they didn't reduce the cost of bows. The new command abilities help them more than the other loadouts, but bows were already the weakest option on Kurnoths. Outside of fools who love them (like me!), I don't think we'll see a ton of them until they get changed.

Kurnoth Hunters with Scythes - 215 (+25)
It's a wash. See above, and... if you were ever going to make an argument in favor of six swords over six scythes, the new edition made it a lot harder. While Kurnoths as a whole got weaker, scythes got stronger relative to other Kurnoths. I expect a unit of six scythe hunters to continue to be our premiere hammer unit moving forward.

Ylthari - 150 (-30)
Small winner. Still not playable, but she hurts your army by thirty fewer points.

Skaeth's Wild Hunt - 110 (-10)
It's a wash. Less attractive in the new rules, where you're probably less interested in paying for a non-hero caster. It's not like the unit was viable before, though.

Spiteswarm Hive - 40  (-10)
The Biggest Winner? My other contender for most improved warscroll. The spiteswarm hive was already an integral part of some competitive lists, and a boon to almost any list. And it got cheaper. I've been pretty conservative with my predictions so far, but I'll go out on a limb and say that, barring a rewrite of its warscroll, I expect the Spiteswarm Hive to be a borderline auto-include in the new edition.

Gladewyrm - 60 (+30)
Small Winner. While the Gladewyrm got hit with a pretty big points increase, the ability to maintain control and keep the Gladewyrm in the middle of a big scrum is a huge boon to the model. I'm definitely going to try it.

Vengeful Skullroot - 85 (+45)
Small Winner. The biggest boon to the Skullroot is the changes to the Wyldwood, which makes it much easier to summon woods within three inches of an enemy unit, and then combo the Skullroot on the same turn. The big points cost is a little harder to stomach, but it's got a low casting value and D6 mortals to multiple units is potentially very potent.

 

I think Sylvaneth really benefits from the changes to all out attack and all out defense and mystic shield. A lot of Sylvaneth abilities let them reroll 1's to hit or to save (or reroll saves entirely). Now those abilities are way more useful. I think this may be where the Arch Revenant actually plays well. Put him out with some Kurnoth Hunters and an all out attack and they are hitting on 2's rerolling 1's then rerolling saves that might be boosted to 3+ by a mystic shield? 

Treelord Ancient's command ability is also improved under similar logic. 

I agree with you though, seems like these will bump Sylvaneth to mid tier, but we'll see. I can definitely see some lists surprising and occasionally hitting a podium. 

[Zappgrot]

1 hour ago, Aeryenn said:

Seriously the longer I play this game the more I'm sure that people without any qualifications write the rules. Total amateurs that set points based on their feelings not math. I'm not sure even feelings are taken under consideration. 

People read these points and in a heartbeat see how nonsense they are. How random, how unfair. GW get yourself up. Hire people that know how to write rules.

You will loose customers otherwise.

Oh, and to people writing "less emotions, be patient, be positive". Here's my advice: don't be childish.

Wishful thinking won't solve anything.

I think the sad fact is that we need to accept that gamesworkshop is an company. The goal is to sell stuff. Not to make the worlds most balanced game.  Those two goals might seem complementary but they arn't. They are conflicting.   There are certain factors that are innate to human nature that will ensure that an slightly unbalanced game will sell better then an balanced one. And while i do not see much point to fully go into the subject now. I would like to point out that costumer perception impacts how points are handled when the edition changes. There is just no economically realistic way for games workshop to get enough data to get the points cost right at release. This means that the points will always be wrong at the start. Gw know that fixing things trough buffs will lead to more sales then fixing things to nerfs. (as in players will be happy and excited when their army gets better and a little annoyed when it gets worse) So from a buisness standpoint it makes sense to release an edition whit to high a point cost for units and then lower them to more realistic values when the battle tomes get redone. So the points beeing to high for a lot of units is done on purpose . And while  critical players will notice this and be annoyed by it. The vast majority of the player base will not care. But will still get excited when the points drop back down. So its an strategic win.

[Ragest]

My alarith, illiatha, hurakan and mixed variants are all destroyed, but if i make a Teclis syar list seems almost the same for me.

What a damm joke

[Golub87]

1 minute ago, Ragest said:

My alarith, illiatha, hurakan and mixed variants are all destroyed, but if i make a Teclis syar list seems almost the same for me.

What a damm joke

Feeling the same here - if I just played Archaon like a normal chaos player, I would have been fine. I have a feeling that the battlefields of 3.0 will just be the same handful of named individuals headbutting each other. What a way to shrink your world.

Edit: I suppose that was true of AoS 2 for the most part.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Golub87

[Gecktron]

21 minutes ago, Ragest said:

My alarith, illiatha, hurakan and mixed variants are all destroyed, but if i make a Teclis syar list seems almost the same for me.

What a damm joke

What did change for your Hurakan list? Sure, Windcharger got a bit more expansive, but the generic fox got only modest increase and the mage stayed the same. 

On the other hand, Sevireth is now even more of a beast and the Windmage now got easy access to more of our excelente spells. 

[Greybeard86]

1 hour ago, Golub87 said:

Not likely, as we have repeatedly seen, people will defend GW with walls of text regardless of what happens.

And who says you have to respond to them?

It is not the other players you are looking to convince.

For example, when Drukhari completely took over the competitive scene in 9e, people still defended them. But it was so brutally obvious that they were busted that GW implemented a FAQ.

So, discuss balance, not posters.

Personally, I feel that those points are the result of some general rule of thumb they are using to move all points up. Then they will selectively discount what they feel like pushing. We saw exactly this in 40k.

[Golub87]

48 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

And who says you have to respond to them?

It is not the other players you are looking to convince.

For example, when Drukhari completely took over the competitive scene in 9e, people still defended them. But it was so brutally obvious that they were busted that GW implemented a FAQ.

So, discuss balance, not posters.

Personally, I feel that those points are the result of some general rule of thumb they are using to move all points up. Then they will selectively discount what they feel like pushing. We saw exactly this in 40k.

Why is it always the responsibility of people that have an issue to ignore people that are shutting them up and not the responsibility of people who do not have an issue to mind their own business?

Why aren't you telling people stiffing conversation about the problems that they should ignore people that have problems and conversations about those problems?

[Greybeard86]

1 minute ago, Golub87 said:

Why is it always the responsibility of people that have an issue to ignore people that are shutting them up and not the responsibility of people who do not have an issue to mind their own business?

Why aren't you telling people stiffing conversation about the problems that they should ignore people that have problems and conversations about those problems?

I have done that too, just check my post history. I just feel we'd be better off if both sides stayed apart a bit, on these topics.