Jump to content

AoS3 - The points discussion


Recommended Posts

Just now, Greybeard86 said:

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.

I am not forcing anyone to respond to me or to reply in topics about recent changes complaining about people complaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deep breaths people - its just points its not the end of the world. 

 

There's no sense falling out over opinions as to if points are too high or low or whatever. Remember discussions here are only airing our views and how we might deal and with the hand that is dealt to us as gamers. It's not a place to let our passion for our hobby spill over into a fight or argument. Remember you're just talking to fellow gamers, not the GW rules team; what we discuss here won't change the world. 

 

Also remember if you find the game ends up with too few models for you and your local; just up the points for the game. Nothing stops you running 2.5, 3, 4k or more games.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, here is a constructive idea:

Slaanesh points should go back to what they were prior to GHB21 and battleline role should be returned to S2D units in god armies. Also, Slaangors need a rewrite because no amount of point drop is going to make them usable. At the very least they should have the right keywords for BoC tome.

Speaking of BoC, they need a new tome. Sylvaneth too. They needed one years ago, but we will settle for a release date now with understanding that it may move a bit but that it is in the works.

It would also be super nice if GW dev team could interact with community more, along the lines of providing explanation for why the unit is costed the way it is. I am not the greatest player in the world and it would mean a lot to me if the Man himself explained to me the hidden depths and tactics with the units they made. Mathematically, not with adjectives in the style of community articles.

A nice explanation of the game development process, how many teams there are, how many people in each team (no need for personal information), how are they structured and managed, how do they calibrate among each other, how is play-testing done... would go a long way towards recovering the crumbling trust that players have in their ability to produce good rules.

Sadly, we cannot go around the topic of certain missteps of late that we are all aware of and that do not need repeating. A nice explanation of how each of those issues happened along with lessons learned and steps taken to avoid those in the future would also go a long way to solidify trust.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd echo to the people that are having negative reactions, without trying to invalidate that, to play some games. The Point Changes do have a lot of head scratchers and honestly I wish GW waited a bit before dumping this all out at once. There's so much new stuff that just looking at one thing doesn't tell the whole story. There are new Missions with big changes, the board size is consistently underappreciated as a change (I come from 40K), obviously a lot more counter-play with CAs, etc. etc. Have the reaction you want to have but temper it with table time when you can. Things might turn out better, or worse, or as you expected.

As a KO Player who is coming back for 3.0 I think we got off pretty freely and will almost certainly be a top army competitively. None of our tools were hurt, being extreme mobility and guns, while picking up a lot of new options. Triumphs are the main thing that hurts but you can still make strong use of +1 to Wound. We're also surprisingly great at Battle Tactics and Grand Strategies which are as important as Objectives now, possibly more so.

The other armies I'm familiar with are LRL and Nurgle. LRL got quite a kicking from almost every angle. Did Sentinels only go up a bit? Yes but the army doesn't just win with Sentinels. Wardens got a hammer dropped on them and did all the fast shooting options (which completely invalidates the list based around them, thankfully) got hit hard too. LRL is also a Faction with tax and when everything goes up tax hurts more. Unleash Hell is not as strong as people think it is, if you go up against a 30 block of Sentinels and can put a chaff unit into them they're pretty ruined. Miscasts hurt them terribly, I think Teclis is border-line too expensive to even take now and remains very Alpha Strike-able. Double Aetherquartz for Saves is nerfed, the list just goes on and on. I expect them to strong just because of how many tools the Faction has but I'd be hard pressed to put them top tier off the bat.

Nurgle on the other hand looks like a big sleeper. Blightkings went up a lot but their Support went down or up VERY little so it's kind of a wash. They did lose Battalions which hurts but you can turn that into basically ignoring the cost hikes so, win? The smaller table is great for them because they're slow and more CP is a huge benefit since they're so Command Ability reliant. Demons definitely took some knocks but Nurglings still do their thing, the rest I want to see how FAQs shake out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else old enough to remember the Dark Elves 6th edition nightmare when Druchii.net basically pestered GW until they fixed the army book? Boy do I feel old listening to these young 'uns. You just have to accept that the GW giveth and the GW taketh away again. Time is a flat circle.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SentinelGuy said:

Anyone else old enough to remember the Dark Elves 6th edition nightmare when Druchii.net basically pestered GW until they fixed the army book? Boy do I feel old listening to these young 'uns. You just have to accept that the GW giveth and the GW taketh away again. Time is a flat circle.

I do not feel that is a good attitude to have when are people paying a company for a service.

It is quite weird to me that there is such a nonchalant dismissal "yeah, they were even worse to X". How is that sane?

Hell I play Flames of War to what, close to 15 years now? Battlefront had its issues, but never have they disrespected the players in such a casual manner.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gauche said:

I'd echo to the people that are having negative reactions, without trying to invalidate that, to play some games.

I can't - don't own battlelines. Can't make a legal list.

Actually, I am a liar, I have 30 Daemonnettes - 3x10 for 420 for 3 legal battlelines. Like that is going to do me any good.

Edited by Golub87
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golub87 said:

I do not feel that is a good attitude to have when are people paying a company for a service.

It is quite weird to me that there is such a nonchalant dismissal "yeah, they were even worse to X". How is that sane?

Hell I play Flames of War to what, close to 15 years now? Battlefront had its issues, but never have they disrespected the players in such a casual manner.

More than a decade ago I was angry and really annoyed by GW - we had codex creep wrecking 5th edition 40k and 7th edition Fantasy. Then GW made it worse by releasing new editions of both games and they were terrible. I basically quit and went back to 6th edition Fantasy and 4th edition 40k - the best editions by far.

Now I'm just at the acceptance stage. There's no point being the angry gamer as GW aren't listening. They say they play test, they even send out play test stuff to competitive gamers, but does that feedback ever get acted on? Seems like most of the time that's a no. 

They make models and the rules are an afterthought, so there will always be people white knighting and people moaning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

I can't - don't own battlelines. Can't make a legal list.

Actually, I am a liar, I have 30 Daemonnettes - 3x10 for 420 for 3 legal battlelines. Like that is going to do me any good.

Isn't is known that you can take StD under the Coalition Rules? Or are they still not Battleline? My army doesn't care about those so I haven't reviewed them in depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gauche said:

Isn't is known that you can take StD under the Coalition Rules? Or are they still not Battleline? My army doesn't care about those so I haven't reviewed them in depth.

I can take them, they are just not a battleline anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Golub87 said:

I am not forcing anyone to respond to me or to reply in topics about recent changes complaining about people complaining.

I think I probably could have phrased this better. I have no problem with your complaints. I personally find it better to focus on the issue and avoid engaging with certain responses but I’m not you. So please carry on, though I understand you Do not need my permission either :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emailing short, polite, and reasoned questions and suggestions to aosfaq@gwplc.com might be productive. Anecdotally, they seem to have addressed issues brought to their attention this way on the 40k side. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, as other people have said, GW needs to give up on points updates in books.
The time from completion to actually being released is large, making it so the points updates are the problems of 9 months ago. Slaanesh for instance getting whacked again because the points were made in mind from a pre-pandemic meta seemingly. It does not address the concerns of the new Slaanesh tome because the GHB was probably off to printers went the new tome actually released this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t say much about the skaven, since I haven’t had a game in yet.

Yet there are some buts in the min. Size department, when it comes to certain units.

Skaven have that wonderful allegiance ability where they get +1 to the hit roles if a unit has 20 or more models and +1 to the wound role if it has 30 or more models.

Since stormvermin and plague monks, can now only be taken in 30s (stormvermin) and in 20s (plague monks in a not all units a re pestilence army) it basically means, that they loose on their buff most of the times instantly, which I kinda find sad.

considering that stormvermins and plague monks are sold in boxes of 20, I really was hoping that they would get an increase on their min. size  yet stormvermins and plague might now never see the table again, since it takes a huge amount of reinforcement points to upgrade them to a size where they almost always loose their allegiance bonus instantly.

Now I know Stormvermins, could be a huge problem in units of 60, with which I definitely agree, but it could be easily handled by just adding something, that says: this unit can only be reinforced ones.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking again at the points changes and faction rules, and they still have me scratching my head as to why GW has done this.

On the one hand, they're pushing (or nudging) players with mixed Chaos or CoS lists into buying new models as their old ones are no longer battleline, or they are but battleline in a other faction.

On the other they've upped the points meaning you take less. Across the board I have now surplus units when in some army builds I was quite limited about list shape. My Nighthaunt now have many variations while before I felt like a one trick pony. Likewise Sylvaneth.

Looking at AoS 3.0, the only army I might invest in for the next 4 years would be an Orruk Warclans army (I know, shocking I haven't done this already 😆). Other than that, there's really little point adding to the grey pile of shame. New armies haven't interested me enough (I'm looking at you LRL and OBR, while I might have to strain my neck to look up at you SoB!).

So I'm not buying that GW has a masterplan. Points increases means less models and less profit for GW, but I think that reflects a longer, slower game. A good thing?

Will let you know after my first AoS 3.0 game today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

I can’t say much about the skaven, since I haven’t had a game in yet.

Yet there are some buts in the min. Size department, when it comes to certain units.

Skaven have that wonderful allegiance ability where they get +1 to the hit roles if a unit has 20 or more models and +1 to the wound role if it has 30 or more models.

Since stormvermin and plague monks, can now only be taken in 30s (stormvermin) and in 20s (plague monks in a not all units a re pestilence army) it basically means, that they loose on their buff most of the times instantly, which I kinda find sad.

considering that stormvermins and plague monks are sold in boxes of 20, I really was hoping that they would get an increase on their min. size  yet stormvermins and plague might now never see the table again, since it takes a huge amount of reinforcement points to upgrade them to a size where they almost always loose their allegiance bonus instantly.

Now I know Stormvermins, could be a huge problem in units of 60, with which I definitely agree, but it could be easily handled by just adding something, that says: this unit can only be reinforced ones.

 

Yeah, feel your pain. They probably think that clanrats being 20 min offsets this. But not everyone uses clanrats. I can kinda see why stormvermin would be 10, but plaguemonks are traditionally Pestilens horde meta. So why not give them a 20 min size? (Also would encourage some SC Skaven sales). Odd choices, but then a few odd choices all through the profiles. Definitely feels like a 'back of a cigarette*-packet' decision rather than anything meaningful.

Edited by Mcthew
Edited for unintentional colloquial cursing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

I can’t say much about the skaven, since I haven’t had a game in yet.

Yet there are some buts in the min. Size department, when it comes to certain units.

Skaven have that wonderful allegiance ability where they get +1 to the hit roles if a unit has 20 or more models and +1 to the wound role if it has 30 or more models.

Since stormvermin and plague monks, can now only be taken in 30s (stormvermin) and in 20s (plague monks in a not all units a re pestilence army) it basically means, that they loose on their buff most of the times instantly, which I kinda find sad.

considering that stormvermins and plague monks are sold in boxes of 20, I really was hoping that they would get an increase on their min. size  yet stormvermins and plague might now never see the table again, since it takes a huge amount of reinforcement points to upgrade them to a size where they almost always loose their allegiance bonus instantly.

Now I know Stormvermins, could be a huge problem in units of 60, with which I definitely agree, but it could be easily handled by just adding something, that says: this unit can only be reinforced ones.

 

I think the biggest "mistake" if we want to call like that, is mainly about plague monks. Some skaven clans are horde and this min size has cutted orders to some clan (considering to play a full pestilens or Mulder list). Looking this way I think stormvermin maybe was fine the change, but for monks really this make no sense for me, seems something like killing what skaven are. 

Looking to armies in general I think playing skaven will still feel like an horde army since our units are anyway 10-20 or 20-60 rats instead other armies units of 5-10 people and the table got smaller.

Also pretty much entire book need be FAQ, maybe they change our alliheance ability to 10 rats +1 hit and 15 rats +1 to wound (? Maybe tooooo strong?). Or stuff about shields or jezzail save. 

Also there was some points changes that I don't really get it. WHY warlock bombardier and warlock engineer should cost the same amount of points (125) when they are the same thing with same abilities but one has a better shooting weapon😅 (GW here something smells a lot) 

Feeling like skaven now are really strong thanks to new rules, and I'm  looking for the GH day for start playing this new great aos, and with time I think there would be a point decrese for all armies when things would be clear about what is nuts and what bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does somebody know why f.e. Runefather on Magmadroth is now 15 points more expensive (top army, hero, monster) and Spirit of Durthu is 40 points more expensive (worst army, hero, monster)? What kind of balancing thought processes lead devs to this decision? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Aeryenn said:

Does somebody know why f.e. Runefather on Magmadroth is now 15 points more expensive (top army, hero, monster) and Spirit of Durthu is 40 points more expensive (worst army, hero, monster)? What kind of balancing thought processes lead devs to this decision? 

No glue, it really kinda feels like as if they just rolled some dice, randomly determining the points for all factions,

or there’s just something we, the players can’t yet see.

Who knows, I definitely have to get some games in

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skreech Verminking said:

I can’t say much about the skaven, since I haven’t had a game in yet.

Yet there are some buts in the min. Size department, when it comes to certain units.

Skaven have that wonderful allegiance ability where they get +1 to the hit roles if a unit has 20 or more models and +1 to the wound role if it has 30 or more models.

Since stormvermin and plague monks, can now only be taken in 30s (stormvermin) and in 20s (plague monks in a not all units a re pestilence army) it basically means, that they loose on their buff most of the times instantly, which I kinda find sad.

considering that stormvermins and plague monks are sold in boxes of 20, I really was hoping that they would get an increase on their min. size  yet stormvermins and plague might now never see the table again, since it takes a huge amount of reinforcement points to upgrade them to a size where they almost always loose their allegiance bonus instantly.

Now I know Stormvermins, could be a huge problem in units of 60, with which I definitely agree, but it could be easily handled by just adding something, that says: this unit can only be reinforced ones.

 

Tbh a unit of 30 is quite large relative to most units in the game. Half the units in the game cap at 10, and another 25% probably cap at 15.

But I understand your issue with the gaps left between some allegiance abilities and warscroll rules. I think at this point out best bet is to play games and get a real feel for the changes. So much of our opinions are considering these changes in a AoS2 mindset. You might find 40 models to retain your buff unmanageable on the table for instance. 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...