The Winter Rules Update

[Skreech Verminking]

11 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

But points cost (which is how they price kits, roughly speaking) is roughly the same. That's the point. The current meta happens to be anti-horde and pro elite, but they have not significantly resized the game. You can still take your 200 model horde army if you want, and it costs essentially the same as it did in 2.0 (some minor increases here and there, but they're already being undone and if GW follows its usual pattern that will continue), it's just very bad with the current game mechanics. What I was getting at is that the army scale hasn't changed appreciably. 

If you look at competing games one of the big takeaways is that they are on a smaller scale and that is a big part of the reason they play more quickly. A SW: Legion army is like 1/2 to 1/3 the size of an AOS one, and that seems about average in terms of modern game scale. 

 

The current horde meta is pretty dead.

units like clanrats and Stabbas/shootas, just cost too much to even be considered a spam-able unit.
 

if the skaven had a better battleline to unlock, when mixed, the clanrats would very likely become the last option of being taken.

after all spamming 3 units of 6 giant rats for a cheaper cost then 20 clanrats, makes that unit a much better meatshield unit.

if anything I am really hoping that gw changes the pointcost of those units.

after-all what fun is a meta when the horde can not be played because it costs too much.

 

[JackStreicher]

@Skreech Verminking currently one also runs out of reinforcement points, before you can even put hordes into your list.

[Rachmani]

I feel like Gits & Skaven need special rules that allow them to reinforce more.

[Kadeton]

22 hours ago, Jaskier said:

Sons of Behemat would like a word  I haven't been monitoring Beastclaw Raiders much since 3.0 dropped but they're still doing fine too, aren't they? I dunno, I think Destruction is doing alright overall.

Beastclaw Raiders are doing great, came through the update unscathed, and gained the option of taking Kragnos to unlock 3d6 charges. They basically do exactly what Sons of Behemat do, with the added bonus of absolutely smashing any SoB lists you might run into. Gitz and Gutbusters are certainly struggling, but Destruction as a whole has plenty of strong options.

For "the weakest set of factions in the game", have a look at Death. Three out of four tomes are borderline unplayable at the competitive level, though allowing wider access to Nagash might keep them holding out a little longer.

[stratigo]

21 hours ago, nuttyknatty said:

This is factually incorrect. Model count is much lower on average than in previous years and editions. 

It isn't model count, it's overall profit. One big model or 30 smaller ones often cost the same

 

GW deliberately upends the meta with regularity because that prompts people to buy new models or armies. 

[pnkdth]

29 minutes ago, stratigo said:

GW deliberately upends the meta with regularity because that prompts people to buy new models or armies. 

That's tabletop gaming in general though. GW have created a bit of a monster though with the sheer amount of armies/size of their systems they produce. No matter how meticulous they are with changes every time they do change something they will break another, either through wording or accident. Add in the competitive community's willingness and dedication in breaking the game into a new meta once these changes occur and you got a perfect storm.

A truly balanced and relatively harmonious game would not last very long, I think. It would be talked about as one of those great games of the past yet with no one playing it or picking it up. In this regard, they might be onto something with the different seasons changing things up (plus with more realm rules, we as players can change things up at a whim too).

But yeah, they certainly do change things up and sometimes this result in rather painfully obvious power creep (thankfully most in 40k). At least these new Battlescrolls seem to temper and deal with the worst offenders in the meta. In this regard, I think GW has taken a significant step in the right direction. In tandem with actually reaching out THW and the people running the AoS data for tournament I might have to return to my annoying optimistic ways. 😂

Edited December 25, 2021 by pnkdth

[NinthMusketeer]

6 hours ago, stratigo said:

It isn't model count, it's overall profit. One big model or 30 smaller ones often cost the same

 

GW deliberately upends the meta with regularity because that prompts people to buy new models or armies. 

GW regularity upends the meta with poor-to-atrocious balance on new releases and only marginally better attempts at fixing it. This isn't an evil company twirling its mustache as it shifts the meta to generate sales (and certainly the evidence never supported that); it's a bunch of primarily narrative gamers who are only now realizing that outside of their group optimization is not a rarity but the norm. Are there benefits associated with that? Yes, absolutely. But we are a loooooong way from a state where imbalance is a net positive for sales. Meta-chasers are less common than people who stop playing because of one-sided matchups.

 

 

 

But now that I'm done with my mini rant over awful balance, I do want to say I am very happy with the update. I like almost all of the changes, love the scalpel-not-hammer nerf to unleash hell and heroic recovery. Those two plus the amulet nerf I think put AoS in a noticeably better place just by themselves. But more than that it represents a change in outlook with GW acknowledging that balance is a serious concern and everyone stands to benefit from it being addressed more significantly and more often. There is a lot they didn't fix and/or should have known better than to break in the first place, yet a step in the right direction is exactly that. I am quite happy to forgive mistakes when there is a good-faith effort being made to fix them.

[Dingding123]

12 hours ago, pnkdth said:

No matter how meticulous they are with changes every time they do change something they will break another, either through wording or accident.

Implying any of these changes were done meticulously haha

[Joseph Mackay]

I agree with the general consensus, that the armies that are struggling the most were untouched, and the same largely applies to those overpreforming armies.

I fear my long running issue with tournament data continues to distort the reality of the situation. Ironjawz is doing really well, Bonesplitterz are not, both are considered ‘Orruk Warclans’ in the data, so Bonesplitterz go untouched.
now in saying that, I don’t actually think Bonesplitterz are that bad, just a little overcosted, and like all 32mm base 1” range models they struggle with the coherency rules.

my hope for the next Battlescroll update is that they revoke the coherency rules. I get what they were trying to do, but all it’s actually done is ****** over 32mm or larger base models while the 25mm hordes they were trying to nerf don’t care. Half the unit of a 10 man 32mm base models are now wasted because they can’t fight. To make the issue worst, they also bumped up the minimum unit sizes of a lot of them, based on what you get in the box, so that you can’t ignore it - eg Squig Hoppers, are largely ruined by this change as it makes it much more difficult to use their flyover mortal wounds ability in 10s, meanwhile Boingrot Bounders, made from the same kit, got to stay at 5 models when they can actually function properly at 10 models due to their 2” lances..
and then there’s Fyreslayers. People already weren’t taking Vulkite Berzerkers because Hearthguard are so much better, but now nobody ever will take them as the coherency rules just make the difference between them so much greater in Hearthguards favour 

[Marcvs]

50 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

 

 

50 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

I fear my long running issue with tournament data continues to distort the reality of the situation. Ironjawz is doing really well, Bonesplitterz are not, both are considered ‘Orruk Warclans’ in the data, so Bonesplitterz go untouched.

Not in the stats of The Honest Wargamer (the parts of OWC are tracked separately). Are there other database of tournament results out there?

 

EDIT: your can check them herehttps://thehonestwargamer.com/aos-stats-centre-state-of-the-meta/

Edited December 26, 2021 by Marcvs

[Dingding123]

I get why GW wanted to nerf horde units, but I also can't comprehend why they left so many warscrolls in the dust that revolved around buffing said units.  Loonboss is just a joke of a piece now; seriously 75 points for a walking mediocre command ability that lost its personal stacking -hit penalties?  55 points is fair and lets Gitz run en masse the army's signature non-unique hero and further helps keep the faction from feeling completely dwarfed by other factions' smorgasbords of good heroes. 

Granted Gitz in particular has other problems (why on earth are Stabbas a whopping 150 lol), but QOL changes for horde units can go a long way toward keeping them (and players' collections!) more relevant.  I didn't personally invest in grots, but I shouldn't feel THIS relieved about it.

 

Edited December 26, 2021 by Dingding123

[stratigo]

10 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

GW regularity upends the meta with poor-to-atrocious balance on new releases and only marginally better attempts at fixing it. This isn't an evil company twirling its mustache as it shifts the meta to generate sales (and certainly the evidence never supported that); it's a bunch of primarily narrative gamers who are only now realizing that outside of their group optimization is not a rarity but the norm. Are there benefits associated with that? Yes, absolutely. But we are a loooooong way from a state where imbalance is a net positive for sales. Meta-chasers are less common than people who stop playing because of one-sided matchups.

 

 

 

But now that I'm done with my mini rant over awful balance, I do want to say I am very happy with the update. I like almost all of the changes, love the scalpel-not-hammer nerf to unleash hell and heroic recovery. Those two plus the amulet nerf I think put AoS in a noticeably better place just by themselves. But more than that it represents a change in outlook with GW acknowledging that balance is a serious concern and everyone stands to benefit from it being addressed more significantly and more often. There is a lot they didn't fix and/or should have known better than to break in the first place, yet a step in the right direction is exactly that. I am quite happy to forgive mistakes when there is a good-faith effort being made to fix them.

I think you attribute incompetence too easily. I mean, yes, often GW is just bad at balance (and AoS is by far the most problematic. At least Necromunda the rules writers deliberately go "Balance? Never heard of her"). But they are also, well, obviously seeking money with a lot of changes. 

 

I mean, come on, they literally killed horde meta for monster meta in the edition change. They aren't THAT dumb, they knew what this would do. It isn't even meta chasers, it's just literally anyone at all playing the game. And, considering just how addicted people get to GW games, how powerful the social bonds formed in gaming groups are, I really am not sure that more people stop playing rather then grumble and buy the new meta stuff. 

 

I doubt the hand of corporate reaches down too often, but for edition changes, I am certain it does. The rest of the time they simply refuse to pay their writers enough to get good rules, which is the actual real problem, not that they are a bunch of narrative gamers. They're simply paid too little to put in all the effort required to craft, playtest, refine, playtest, etc.

[overtninja]

Well, it will be nice to run the Nearly-All-Wanderers list I've been working on for a few years finally, now that the reduction to the General of Griffon's points lets me squeeze in the second unit of Wild Riders.

Also, I find myself with more points to play with in my Sylvaneth monster mash army suddenly, which might let me sneak in an endless spell. Nice.

Also, my nascent Lumineth army can field Eltharion with the points reduction, so that's nice too.

I'll probably still get rolled by really meta lists but that's never not going to happen, so I'll be satisfied with modeling and painting what I've got for a while.

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, overtninja said:

Well, it will be nice to run the Nearly-All-Wanderers list I've been working on for a few years finally, now that the reduction to the General of Griffon's points lets me squeeze in the second unit of Wild Riders.

Also, I find myself with more points to play with in my Sylvaneth monster mash army suddenly, which might let me sneak in an endless spell. Nice.

Also, my nascent Lumineth army can field Eltharion with the points reduction, so that's nice too.

I'll probably still get rolled by really meta lists but that's never not going to happen, so I'll be satisfied with modeling and painting what I've got for a while.

If the skaven would have gotten a truly amazing points reduction.

I wouldn’t be struggling getting some units into my list.

The current points decreases changed nothing, unless I would go all out on plague claw catapults, and yet they aren’t worth the artillery slot, sadly

[novakai]

i though the change to monster was because people complain about monsters being bad in the last edition and hated horde meta.

granted i feel the change was too also make army look smaller on the field and to try to make the game go by faster especially in the pile in and movement phase

[NinthMusketeer]

Yeah monsters really needed a buff as did single heroes. Which have both been great facets of AoS 3rd, but they double buffed hero monsters... which were already being used. So GW's cunning master plan was to take the stuff people already had and make it strongest. While also providing an entirely reasonable buff to underused models in exactly the manner players asked for, and getting rid of horde discounts to improve game balance... like players asked for. They doubled down by going out of their way to announce a significant nerf to drakes (which players asked for) just BEFORE they got released.

Clearly the actions of a company using the meta for profit.

Edited December 27, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Skreech Verminking]

3 hours ago, novakai said:

i though the change to monster was because people complain about monsters being bad in the last edition and hated horde meta.

granted i feel the change was too also make army look smaller on the field and to try to make the game go by faster especially in the pile in and movement phase

Last time I checked, people were very unhappy with the horror and skink horde meta.

I personally can’t even remember when the hordes of Gloomspite gitz and that of the rats have ever been considered too strong

(excluding the first plague monks warscroll, because not even the player using them was overjoyed in rolling so many

 dices)

Edited December 27, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[novakai]

12 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Last time I checked, people were very unhappy with the horror and skink horde meta.

I personally can’t even remember when the hordes of Gloomspite gitz and that of the rats have ever been considered too strong

(excluding the first plague monks warscroll, because not even the player using them was overjoyed in rolling so many

 dices)

Lol I can remember a hundreds of complaint about Horde meta and that numbers matter more then one model regardless of what army it was. 
 

like how 5 gitz counted more then one giant monster on objective 

that weights of attacks and absurd buff that took unit offensive potential off the roof and could evaporate anything in the game.

I feel like the change was somewhat instigated by the community because of their large centerpiece models being useless in the game a lot of time

[NinthMusketeer]

I would like to see the reinforcement limit done away with--the problem was always with inappropriate horde discounts and not with hordes themselves. I do love the standardized unit sizes it brought though, great quality of life change with 3rd.

Edited December 28, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Orbei]

59 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I would like to see the reinforcement limit done away with--the problem was always with inappropriate horde discounts and not with hordes themselves. I do love the standardized unit sizes it brought though, great quality of life change with 3rd.

I think reinforcements has been more of a net negative to han a positive. I'd love for battleline units to be exempt, and I'd also love for all of the "becomes battleline under X condition" rules to be done away with. Limit the specialty units and let people take as many of the basic grunts as they want.

 

[NinthMusketeer]

That's a good idea--battleline don't cost reinforcement points.

Wholly disagree on battleline-if. I find it one of the most fun ways to allow for customized, thematic armies without causing balance issues. I would like to see more options tied to the general choice, even. The units in question should be appropriately costed regardless, massive imbalances created are almost always because the unit in question was not.

But them I'm a person who sees the concept of steam tank battleline and gets excited over the narrative of fighting a tank brigade.

[zilberfrid]

2 hours ago, Orbei said:

I think reinforcements has been more of a net negative to han a positive. I'd love for battleline units to be exempt, and I'd also love for all of the "becomes battleline under X condition" rules to be done away with. Limit the specialty units and let people take as many of the basic grunts as they want.

 

You do know factions like Kharadron only have one battleline warscroll, right?

[Overread]

The way I see it the reinforcement system is kind of a plaster trying to fix the issue that specialist units have to compete with big infantry blocks. In some past editions of the games this was got around by things like force organisation charts in 40K which could both limit how many types of a certain troop you could take and also mandate that you take a minimum number of certain types. 

 

For AoS right now we have some of that, but at the same time the divisions are exceptionally basic - leaders, troops, monsters and artillery; and of them artillery is very under represented with many armies having nothing; whilst monsters is very short. So the vast majority are either leaders (with a cap of 6 per army) and unlimited troops. We don't even divide infantry and cavalry. 

 

So right now the system hasn't got much break up, which means that units like Fiends of Slaanesh have to compete in points with big infantry blocks. The infantry often win because they bring more bodies; more board control and can put out a lot of damage. Even if unit to unit their stats are worse, they make up for it with mass numbers. Big infantry blocks WORK really well and make it harder to stat and point middleweight units that aren't quite monsters and aren't big infantry blocks. One option might be to unlock more numbers for elite style units; the other is to do what GW have done and cap big infantry blocks. Making them more of a limited resource so that now once you've got your big block of infantry or two you are "done" and can't add more. Suddenly those fiends are now competing with minimum strength infantry blocks. 

 

It's not a change I "like" and I think both design wise and visually it creates an odd situation, but I can see logic behind it with what the game is like now. I also do sort of have a sneaking feeling its setting the ground work for giving AoS clear differences to Old World when it hits the market. If Old World becomes the big block infantry game then GW doesn't want AoS to also be a big infantry block game. So shifting one game (AoS) to a smaller unit block and making up for it with more individual units on the table might well be one of the directions GW is playing with. 

 

[yukishiro1]

The trouble with conditional battleline is it makes it difficult to make battleline an actual meaningful thing. You can't have a rule like ob-sec in 40k that makes troops valuable (well, at least until they started handing it out like candy to non-troops) because almost anything can be troops in AOS. And it also greatly exacerbates issues with unit spam, one of the game's major scourges. And the bad approach to GSes has only made it even more attractive to load up on conditional battleline spam to get a free 3 points at the end of the game, too. 

I'd prefer a game without conditional battleline, but where battleline actually means something beyond list construction. Or at least one where conditional battleline allows you to take units as an alternative to battleline, but that don't count as battleline themselves. So if you really want that army full of stegadons you can...but you'll pay for it by not having access to powerful rules that normal battleline units have. 

The other upside to that approach is that balance is a lot simpler in an environment where competitive armies all look at least vaguely similar, instead of the current environment where they're stuck trying to balance 200-model 1W hordes against 5-10 model monster spam lists. 

Edited December 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Orbei]

56 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

You do know factions like Kharadron only have one battleline warscroll, right?

Yeah. I play IDK which only has one default battleline as well. They should probably give factions like those more kits.