Jump to content

AoS3 - The points discussion


Recommended Posts

This idea that people who take issue with GW's business/design practices or who are feeling the hurt of particular changes are "ungrateful" is really, really messed up to my mind. So is the idea that because the studio or whoever worked very hard on X or Y product, that criticising GW is a bad act.

I get how people are tired of complaints and there's specific issue that can be taken with some of the criticisms of GW when it comes to points but TGA lately feels like it's swinging hard the other way, into an aggressive and forced form of 'toxic positivity' in defence of a large corporation being the dominant voice.

Edited by sandlemad
  • Like 17
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Ironjawz player, the new points are okay for me. Basically, with the disappearance of battalions, my army is the same size as before.

 

I'm more disturbed by some changes in other army, like Teclis, sentinels, cathalar, the "flying foxy thing" or Morathi. I think it's not nearly enough. But the game changed so much, everything is going to change. We'll see in a few month after the FAQ :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Sapca said:

Here's my take on it.

Morathi got the treatment that most of "centerpiece" models should get. And +30 on our Snakes (which was the most "broken" combo for a while, and likely still is even at 15 snakes now) is the nerf most armies should get to their major over-achievers.

Centerpieces (1 per army) should be bit under-priced for the Fun Factor of it. I feel sad for Nagash in this regard. 700 should be absolute max if 2k is target of balance (1/3rd of army) and even that seems A LOT. Drop it down to 400-600, nerf accordingly.


Without playing a game but looking over rules.

I can see non-snake armies suffer greatly without warscroll/temple changes, there might be Ganeth exception that can get rend on witches/sisters (on charge). Witchbrew is not really there anymore, mindrazor already nerfed (on charge only) and 8 cast, no hit rerolls, less attacks nerf (3, previously 4) on WE, fanatical 5+ of HN working just for normal wounds... these things already moved players into snakes before 3.0 hit.

And with new edition. Point hike up by 20%, even less prayers (unless we get new rules), no -rend CA's, all priests getting more expensive(while seemingly being nerfed hard), access to 1 seriously conditional Invocation (cheaper now, but still), everyone has option to unbind (DoK have "weak" casting, no bonuses/guarantees and reroll 1's was taken away from shadow stone) and our girls are still girls in bikinis with 5+ save MAX (6+ default, +1 buckler OR aura unless it gets changed in warscrolls...).  Cauldron is 4+ max (5+ and has aura for +1) now and that's the most important thing we have (had?).

And I believe rend just became more important (2+ saves, 1+ with total defense?!) overall. WE/SoS can get trough that only on charge in Ganeth and with Mindrazor... WE's additionally suffer from new coherency rules (that will be clunky). SoS also for people that build Whip+Dagger.

--

So our best "combo" still seems to be Morathi + now 15 snakes (20 previously) for 60 shots to face with shoot twice. +Unleash Hell will work with 30 shots where 6' still do MW. Stalkers now cost 170 (+30) for 5.

It costs 1170 on it's own. Add 2x 5 Blood Sisters to fill BL and you have 500 left to "build" your army. Max you can fit here is 4x10 in bodies with 5+ combat save (6+ shooting) and no support for 'chaff' (90 wounds + morathi) which you obviously don't want to. You spend those on 0-2 small heroes + 0-1 avatar + 0-3 troops to fill Battle Regiment for one drop which you absolutely need in this case imo (Morathi needs to get in and tarpit, snakes need to shoot before they are shot...). And that's the variety on competitive level which includes Morathi. At least without knowing more.

Rest of "her" builds look like they will competitively suck (unless there's new warscrolls, faction specific priest changes, temples reworked) and that's kinda fine on hobby / fun casual games part. And she will FEEL AMAZING in that environment. But so will other "Gods and SuperHeroes" in other factions. But since we're mildly-competitive here... cough, I'm afraid we'll see even more games now where she's last thing standing for DoK on end of Turn2/midturn3 even with general "nerf" to damage output in game.

Chumphammer has Mirror Dance / Heart / Snakes plan that looks fun. Assuming we get to keep Mirror Dance as it is, he's able to cast it without being unbound (Incantors, Teclises, Kroaks,...). But his combo of just getting 5 snakes into face t1 costs like 1500 after he fills BL requirements ;)

All in all.

Will have to wait for DoK details, warscroll changes, temple changes, changes around Priests (atm it looks we loose a ton and don't gain anything, generic 'prayers' even mirror our existing)... if nothing changes there, DoK looks like it will suffer hard and not even Morathi MVP at 660 cant fix that, especially on melee side unless HN/Sacrament/Avatar "abuse" stays in and somehow works.

I think Khorne players must also shake in fear at the moment how everything works now for their Priests.

 

TL;DR Morathi is fine at 660 untill we get all DoK info for 3.0. Maybe even to expensive. All armies should have one 400-600 centerpiece that's bit underpriced for fun factor (Kroak, Archon, Morathi, Nagash, Teclis, Stardrake(meh),...) of having something really cool on table. If you want super funny pricing, check Sorceress on Dragon...

 

I agree with the centerpieces but wish they were less "The one named god leader of this faction" that most of them turn out to be. It's way less satisfying for me narratively to play an army led by the godking/queen of an entire faction cause it makes it impossible to really flesh the personality of the army I play out. They're pretty set of amber by virtue of having their literal god leading them.

 

Which is part of the reason I like KO and hope they don't do a unified dwarves starring god king grungi as centerpiece.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bryan C said:

Sorry

Just can’t sit by and see this sort of myth peddled anymore - i have played several games over the past 18 months of AOS 3 with GSG and they are absolutely fine - they don’t work in the same way as before but this is a radically different game so very little does.

They are one of the few remaining armies that can deploy large numbers cheaply, they have good access to a wide variety of hard hitting units and monsters that all benefit from all out attack / defence. In fact the only thing they truly lack is a decent shooting phase.

 Before you write them off play some games - winning is more than just damage output and armour saves and the most important thing is they are great fun to play.

Also to all of those saying you could do better in a day / week / month - believe me the amount of effort that has gone into this from playtesters alone is immense - despite COVID and real world commitments - the amount put in by the studio is almost unbelievable - rubbishing this is both rude and ungrateful- end of the day if you don’t like the game - implement house rules, play WHFB or go play something else - being obnoxious is going to get you absolutely nowhere whatsoever.

Pardon me for I might just have been living under a rock for a while, but how could you have played over 18 months of AoS 3? Didn't AoS 3 rules only come out this year? Did you get an early release of the rules or has AoS 3 been around for a long time and I just missed it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Why would I be discouraged?

I’m even more encouraged, playing games with literally 140 clanrats

I think you are making a semi-joke here, but you are hitting on something real that I think people are not appreciating yet.

Reinforcement limits and coherency don't really prevent horde armies. They hardly even discourage them all that much. All armies that get a min-size 20 battleline units will definitely consider just running two blocks of 60, or 4 of 40. Simply because it allows you to out-number a lot of armies in a world where most only get to run 2 blocks of 30 at most.

Granted, only a few armies have this option. Gravelords with Zombies, Skaven with Clanrats and Gitz with Shootas and Stabbas. Ogors get 20s of Gnoblars, but they are not battleline.

Coherency and reinforcement limits don't make it impossible to run horde armies at all. I think their biggest effects are making blocks of 30 the the default unit size instead of 40 for small-base units and strongly encouraging min-size cavalry and other units on big bases (like infantry that comes in 5s).

But armies with strong battleline on 25mm bases such as Cities of Sigmar will definitely want to still consider running two big blocks. And armies that can pull actual hordes with multiple units of 40 should seriously consider going that route, because it's strong in a world of little 5 man squads.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Backbreaker said:

As an Ironjawz player, the new points are okay for me. Basically, with the disappearance of battalions, my army is the same size as before.

 

I'm more disturbed by some changes in other army, like Teclis, sentinels, cathalar, the "flying foxy thing" or Morathi. I think it's not nearly enough. But the game changed so much, everything is going to change. We'll see in a few month after the FAQ :) 

I think people should give things a chance to shake out in some of these cases.  Morathi is the specific example I'm thinking of here.  

She only personally went up 10%, but its significantly harder to build armies now based on her Uber-Stalker combo because all the other elements of it getting significantly more expensive.  

Stalkers themselves went up, and if you want them to be a battleline option you're taxed by having to run a snek general in addition to the Hag Queen you really wanted to be your only other hero drop so that you could run more Stalkers.  

If you don't run a snek general, you have to run Witches for Battleline - who also went up as a "tax" on filler battleline.  

Building lists for Morathi-Khaine, I'm losing like 3+ actual units over previous, and ending up with fewer Stalkers than before to boot.  The whole army shifted in cost, and she's penalized way more than the 10% cost increase on its own implies.  

Beyond that, her unique survival mechanic lost serious ground relative to other giant God models.  With the ability to add +2-+3 to their saves and recover 2d3 wounds per battle round, its shockingly possible to push many similar models to being downright unkillable with buffs. Thats even better than only being killable after 4 turns (I watched Archaon take Kragnos to the face last night, and then grind Kragnos to death afterwards).  So she lost some ground in the "relative" sense as well.

These point changes didn't occur in a vacuum, there's a whole system of fundamental changes at work here- and the net changes to these models were not as simple as a change to the costs of any given model on their own. 

Edited by KrispyXIV
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2021 at 12:51 PM, PrimeElectrid said:

Not only that, but Kroak and Alarielle both stayed the same, Nagash went up by 5, and Morathi went up by only a trivial amount.

None of this makes any sense. We can all agree that Kragnos was overcosted, but now he has got better, so shouldn’t he stay at the same level, like Alarielle and Kroak? Why didn’t Alarielle come down for the exact same reason? Why did Nagash go up by 5 right after a massive jump instead of staying the same or coming down? Why didn’t Alarielle or Kroak go up by 5 for the same reasons as Nagash? Why only hit Morathi with the 10% bump instead of a targeted nerf? I don’t think anyone was saying Belakor was overcosted in the same way as Kragnks so why did he come down at all? 
 

And how the flip did Archaon only go up 30 and not the Morathi 10%?
 

For the most part it is clear that there was some kind of algorithm with tweaks after the fact in particular cases (Sylvaneth and Slaanesh aside), but there is no logic to the above exceptions. It’s pure numberwang.

 

Nagash already went up by 95 when the soulblight book (intended for 3.0) came out.

Then he went down 5.

So he went up a total of 90 for 3.0, which is pretty standard as most stuff on average seemed to increase about 10%

Might be miss-remembering but I'm sure he was 880 before soulblight.

Edited by Ghoooouls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GrogTheGrognard said:

Pardon me for I might just have been living under a rock for a while, but how could you have played over 18 months of AoS 3? Didn't AoS 3 rules only come out this year? Did you get an early release of the rules or has AoS 3 been around for a long time and I just missed it?

He's saying he's a playtester who has been testing AOS 3.0 for 18 months now. Which probably explains the level of personal investment someone would have to have to accuse people of being "ungrateful" for having a negative opinion of the points values. 

FWIW, the basic message of "try before you write it off" is valid enough. I just wish GW would learn a little bit about communication, and realize that a lot of the negativity around the rules they release - whether points or otherwise - is rooted in not explaining their reasoning for doing various things, and therefore in confusion when the customer is presented with something that seems to make little sense, and no explanation as to why it was done. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bryan C said:

Sorry

Just can’t sit by and see this sort of myth peddled anymore - i have played several games over the past 18 months of AOS 3 with GSG and they are absolutely fine - they don’t work in the same way as before but this is a radically different game so very little does.

They are one of the few remaining armies that can deploy large numbers cheaply, they have good access to a wide variety of hard hitting units and monsters that all benefit from all out attack / defence. In fact the only thing they truly lack is a decent shooting phase.

 Before you write them off play some games - winning is more than just damage output and armour saves and the most important thing is they are great fun to play.

Also to all of those saying you could do better in a day / week / month - believe me the amount of effort that has gone into this from playtesters alone is immense - despite COVID and real world commitments - the amount put in by the studio is almost unbelievable - rubbishing this is both rude and ungrateful- end of the day if you don’t like the game - implement house rules, play WHFB or go play something else - being obnoxious is going to get you absolutely nowhere whatsoever.

Yea we will come back to that in 18 more months when there have been some actual games played. Cause those will produce factual data On like my feelings on the book or your experiance playing in what is  really a verry limitied context.  And if you want some gratitude for  your work I suggest you look towards GW and not some random dude on the internet.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

 

I agree with the centerpieces but wish they were less "The one named god leader of this faction" that most of them turn out to be. It's way less satisfying for me narratively to play an army led by the godking/queen of an entire faction cause it makes it impossible to really flesh the personality of the army I play out. They're pretty set of amber by virtue of having their literal god leading them.

 

Which is part of the reason I like KO and hope they don't do a unified dwarves starring god king grungi as centerpiece.

Yeah, I often think that the name "Mortal Realms" doesn't reflect the situation all too well with lots of godly beings being part of every second battle. I'm glad the Chaos Gods will never have models. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes does each army only get several games of playtesting? Or is it that each playtester plays several games with each army? (Assuming several means between like 3 and 5, which may be wrong)

Re: points, when are we thinking day 1 FAQs drop? It feels like the last piece of the puzzle a lot of armies are waiting for. Not sure my heart can handle all this incomplete information much longer. I want to give you my money GW, help me do that! 😄

Edited by relic456
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2021 at 1:51 PM, PrimeElectrid said:

Not only that, but Kroak and Alarielle both stayed the same

 

Alarielle why from 600 to 740.

She had a Warscroll and points updated just before AoS 3.0 with those kind of points level in mind.

Is she worth 740 points in 2nd edition with her warscroll reworked? No, she's not. She wasn't worth 600 points before the update. Best they did if she got her warscroll update and stayed 600 or 660 max. Then I'd say she was worth her points. Now she's overcosted again. 

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

  • Subscriber
13 minutes ago, Aeryenn said:

Alarielle why from 600 to 740.

She had a Warscroll and points updated just before AoS 3.0 with those kind of points level in mind.

Is she worth 740 points in 2nd edition with her warscroll reworked? No, she's not. She wasn't worth 600 points before the update. Best they did if she got her warscroll update and stayed 600 or 660 max. Then I'd say she was worth her points. Now she's overcosted again. 

I think the confusion is that Kragnos was changed from BR: Kragnos to the GHB, despite no time to playtest, whereas Kroak and Allarielle remained the same despite the similar circumstances 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Don’t rest your hopes on FAQ. It’s the first step on the road to disappointment 

Too true, at least at that point the conversation can shift to "Well maybe when they get a 3.0 battletome!", which is much farther away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I think the confusion is that Kragnos was changed from BR: Kragnos to the GHB, despite no time to playtest, whereas Kroak and Allarielle remained the same despite the similar circumstances 

Yeah but Kragnos is such an anemic/vanilla design that it probably wasn’t complicated to reduce his points as he has zero interactivity with your army outside being a general. He still won’t be played at 700.

Edited by C0deb1ue
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

He's saying he's a playtester who has been testing AOS 3.0 for 18 months now. Which probably explains the level of personal investment someone would have to have to accuse people of being "ungrateful" for having a negative opinion of the points values. 

FWIW, the basic message of "try before you write it off" is valid enough. I just wish GW would learn a little bit about communication, and realize that a lot of the negativity around the rules they release - whether points or otherwise - is rooted in not explaining their reasoning for doing various things, and therefore in confusion when the customer is presented with something that seems to make little sense, and no explanation as to why it was done. 

GSG have been bad for so long that I’m not sure I have much faith in GW’s chosen playtesters saying they are ok. 
 

It’s like all those online reviews given by people who receive free review copies of everything. Zero critical thought, full hype. They like their special status and freebies too much to rock the boat🤣

cynical rant over.

Edited by C0deb1ue
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The internal playtesters might've also had access to Kragnos for months. As one of the very few in here, I'm not saying anything about the changes so far. Who knows, we might see warscrolls changes and other things than will recontextualize many decisions... or not - then I'll be the first to go into bird rage mode.

It also helps if you're a loyal subject of your patron - I stuck with Tzeentch when he was strong and when he was weak (and trust me he was bottom tier for aaaaaaaages in 40k). Considering modern divorce rates, I think I'm doing good. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
2 minutes ago, C0deb1ue said:

Yeah but Kragnos is such an anemic/vanilla design that it probably wasn’t complicated to reduce his points as he has zero interactivity with your army outside being a general. He still won’t be played at 700.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing he should be cheaper - he was overcosted - but more I'm confused why his points were changed while others weren't.

For example, the humble Slaangor got a points increase despite universally being thought of as terrible. Okay, it may just be the points were written before the battletome was released so they didn't see the reception. That would make sense.

But then Kragnos, who was overcosted but released considerably later than Hedonites, did have their points reduced. Either they changed their minds between writing BR Kragnos and GHB 2021, or they did have the time to listen to feedback and just didn't on some factions. If it's the former, you have to wonder what changed between BR Kragnos and GHB 2021 - more playtesting? Very possibly. It's then a shame that things like Slaangors didn't get the benefit of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, C0deb1ue said:

GSG have been bad for so long that I’m not sure I have much faith in GW’s chosen playtesters saying they are ok. 
 

It’s like all those online reviews given by people who receive free review copies of everything. Zero critical thought, full hype.

cynical rant over.

Oh, I'm not saying you should take his word for it. Just that if you remove all the emotionally invested stuff about people being "ungrateful," the basic message of "give it a try with an open mind" isn't a bad one. 

What that doesn't require, however, is checking your brain at the door and just trusting that even if something doesn't seem to make any sense, there must be a reason for it. Because if we know anything about GW's rules from past practice...something not making sense because it, well, just doesn't make sense, is a definite possibility.

Having an open mind just means being open to both possibilities - that something is there for a good reason even if it doesn't seem to make sense and that actually playing will reveal what the purpose of it is, or that no, there really is no good reason for this change, it really doesn't add anything. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really doesn’t make any sense but does realeasing a printed product that will likely be invalidated in multiple ways by release FAQs two weeks later indicate the sort of planning we hope for….

Edited by C0deb1ue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Oh, I'm not saying you should take his word for it. Just that if you remove all the emotionally invested stuff about people being "ungrateful," the basic message of "give it a try with an open mind" isn't a bad one. 

What that doesn't require, however, is checking your brain at the door and just trusting that even if something doesn't seem to make any sense, there must be a reason for it. Because if we know anything about GW's rules from past practice...something not making sense because it, well, just doesn't make sense, is a definite possibility.

Open minded message my ass. The response was clearly you are wrong, I have played them, I know best thank me.  And while I certainly am willing to believe that play testers have a much larger insight into the topic then myself. Since I am just going of the rules and 2 practise games. This kind of ego involvement in the process only makes me trust it less.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MitGas said:

The internal playtesters might've also had access to Kragnos for months. As one of the very few in here, I'm not saying anything about the changes so far. Who knows, we might see warscrolls changes and other things than will recontextualize many decisions... or not - then I'll be the first to go into bird rage mode.

It also helps if you're a loyal subject of your patron - I stuck with Tzeentch when he was strong and when he was weak (and trust me he was bottom tier for aaaaaaaages in 40k). Considering modern divorce rates, I think I'm doing good. 😎

Well if playtesters thought Kragnos was worth 760 points, then we are in far more trouble than we thought…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, C0deb1ue said:

Well if playtesters thought Kragnos was worth 760 points, then we are in far more trouble than we thought…

Meh who knows. Rules change  a lot during the design-proces. Might be that Kragnos started out whit some additional rules that we don't know about and those where changed at the last moment. 

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...